ORDER TO RETURN DOCUMENTS

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

Defendant Andre Paul Provost, Jr. ("Mr. Provost") continues to attempt to file frivolous matters despite this Court's orders striking prior frivolous matters and warnings to cease such attempts. On May 23, 2012, Mr. Provost attempted to file a document entitled "Objection and Lawful Show Cause for Noncompliance." This document contains frivolous matters which "should be summarily dismissed." See Crain v. Commissioner, 137 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) ("We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.")

This Court will not indulge Mr. Provost by addressing the document's frivolous matters. This Court again surmises that Mr. Provost attempted to file the document to vex and harass the United States and its counsel. In the interests of justice and to preserve the record, this Court DIRECTS the clerk to attach a copy of the document to this order and to return the document to Mr. Provost. If Mr. Provost attempts to refile the document, the clerk is directed to return the document to Mr. Provost.

This Court again ADMONISHES Mr. Provost to discontinue to file frivolous papers, such as the document returned with this order. This Court FURTHER ADMONISHES Mr. Provost that he must obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules and orders and is subject to sanctions as this Court deems appropriate and to include entry of default against him.

Andre Paul, Jr.: Provost, Real Party in Interest

OBJECTION and SHOW OF GOOD CAUSE Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 17, and 26(c) COME NOW, under constant threat, duress, and coercion, Real Party in Interest Third Party Intervenor Andre Paul, Jr.: Provost objects for good cause to being subject to involuntary servitude to answer, attend or contract.

The U.S.D.C Eastern District of California court's website under the section entitled "jurisdiction" references the law of 28 U.S.C § 1866(g) regarding summons. It is my good faith belief based on the same law of 28 U.S.C § 3002 (15)(A) that the Plaintiff is a corporation. I am not in receipt of any lawful documentation which verifies that corporations have legal standing to sue. I humbly asked the court to provide the Laws and court rules which allows the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA an unregistered incorporation as Plaintiff to be an exception to the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 10, 12(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)(6) and 17(a) and which law grants the court authority to allow proceeding as a fictitious Plaintiff.

The complaint lacks standing, is ambiguous and does not contain sufficient information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed. The requested Laws are necessary in preserving my rights to avoid casting witness against myself, further not subjecting myself to involuntary servitude, and for the establishment of a counter claim if there's a real party in interest alleging a personal injury barely traceable to my allegedly unlawful conduct violating their constitutionally protected rights. The Courts Denial of production of such Laws and Rules would cause further injury, hardship, and injustice.

For it is well settled among District Courts that, the case or controversy limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts means that when a plaintiff brings an action in the federal court, the plaintiff must have standing to pursue the asserted claims. It must be shown to the court that the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact arising from an invasion of a judicially cognizable interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

See attached Memorandum of Law in support of my good faith belief that the Plaintiff is a corporation upon which there is no verified debt owed and there's no contract expressed or implied bearing my voluntary bona fide signature with Plaintiff to be the Surety for alleged debt.

State of California County of FRESNO Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) Before me on this 23rd day of May, 2012, by Andre Paul Provost, Jr. personally known tome or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, EVANGELINA M. VELASCO over the age of twenty-one years, competent to witness, do swear under penalty of perjury do say that on the 23rd day of May, 2012, I did mail via U.S. Certified Mail No. 7011 0470 0003 5276 2878 (postage paid) the above OBJECTION and LAWFUL SHOW OF GOOD CAUSE to the below listed party(ies) within the USA:

NOTICE OF NOTARY PRESENTMENT FOR CASE NO. 1:11-cv-02080-LJO-DLB

On, May 22nd, 2012 for the purpose of verification, 1, the undersigned NOTARY PRESENTER, being commissioned in the County of Fresno and State of California, do certify that a man, Andre-Paul, Jr.; Provost, presented me with the following document listed below for PRESENTMENT UNDER NOTARY SEAL to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:11-cv-02080-LJO-DLB

1. OBJECTION and LAWFUL SHOW OF GOOD CAUSE

Notary Public EVANGELINA M. VELASCO is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California and has not given legal advice or accepted fees for legal advice; provided no assistance in the preparation of the above referenced document, and has no interest in any issue referenced therein. EVANGELINA M. VELASCO is NOT a party to this action and is ONLY acting in an authorized capacity as a third party witness to communications between the parties. This document is not intended to harass, intimidate, offend, conspire, blackmail, coerce, or cause anxiety, alarm or distress. It is presented with honorable and peaceful intentions to facilitate settlement and closure of this account.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Title 28 chapter 176 § 3002 Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal Corporation;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. Non-profit Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

"Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)." (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia, "it is a well established principle of law that all federal regulations applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears."

"Caha v. US, 152 U.S. 211 "The Laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other plades that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

United States of America is Bankrupted

From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states: "Mr. Speaker, we [the United States] are here now in chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

"Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L. Ed. 2d 1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975)" ". . . However, all `income tax statutes' apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal."

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS) For Profit General Delaware Corporation Incorporation date 7/12/33 File no. 0325720 E.I.N #52-603-7440

In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax Statues apply only to corporations and to their officers, agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, Since corporations act only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax statutes reach out to them when acting in their official capacities, but not as individuals.

A complaint in an action arising under a federal statute to invoke federal jurisdiction must specifically disclose the statute involved. Dittmar v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., D.C.N.Y. 1957, 156 F.Supp. 48.

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)[1].

The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." United States Supreme Court.