Adolfo Sandor Montero v. United States

1 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the US government can circumvent constitutional limitations1 and defraud ~320 million American citizens through hidden legal provisos, specifically the 26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3 authority “deeming” clauses operating through W-4 contractual agreements, which effectively waive2 constitutional protections?

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in completely denying access to the court as part of a concerted effort to protect the government’s fraud scheme by blocking any discussion/analysis of the “deeming” authority in 26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3, and whether the denial of court review violated constitutional due process protections as well as Supreme Court authority in 418 U.S. 5393 and 518 U.S. 3434? Additionally, whether the District Court can similarly also violate the foregoing Supreme Court authorities and due process rights in preemptively denying any future access to the court? 1 Namely Art I §2 & Art I § 9. 2 Johnson v. Ohio, 419 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 200, 42 L.Ed.2d 158 (19741 Waiver of such rights as these can be accomplished only by 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,' 3 Wolff v. Donnell 8212 679. 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963. 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (19741 The right of access to the courts, upon which Avery was premised, is founded in the Due Process Clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights. 4 Lewis v. Casev. 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174. 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (19961 we felt compelled to justify even this slight extension of the right of access to the courts