19174Case closed? - Looks like a win
- Feb 14 1:33 PM
In early 2010 I was ‘ordered’ to a ‘show cause’ hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to show cause why I shouldn’t be compelled to go before the IRS for an audit of my books and records.
I engaged Paul’s services and he instructed me to return the defective court order to the Court, marked Refused for Causes, and identifying the following causes:
1. Insufficient Process: No Seal of Court and No Signature of Clerk
In violation of:
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 12(b)(4) and
- FRCP Rule 4
- 28 U.S.C. § 1691
2. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction per FRCP Rule 12(b)(1)
3. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction per FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)
4. Failure to State a Claim per FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)
I returned the irregular ‘order’ as instructed the day before the scheduled hearing. The government NEVER RESPONDED to it...and a Magistrate judge recommended (in my absence) that I should be compelled to go to an audit hearing. The game was on.
There ensued several more “irregular” or defective “orders” for me to appear before the USDC, none of which bore the required Seal or Signature per FRCP Rule 4 AND 28 USC 1691. I challenged personal jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss. The government argued that, according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in a Virgin Island case (which territory is actually in the 2nd District’s jurisdiction!), that the judge could simply over-rule the Federal Rules and sign a court writ and thereby establish in personam jurisdiction. He hadn’t “signed” anything – only his typed name appeared. The government never attempted to explain how a judge may also overlook statutory requirements as well, or how a U.S. Attorney may represent the “United States of America”, or how the District Court order overrules controlling case law from the Supreme Court of the United States that specifically bars the government from compelling an individual’s records (but not those of a corporation, etc), or how a District Court may overlook the the fact that the statute cited by the IRS as its authority to compel production was a) editorial rewritten by the House Revision Committee and DOES NOW NOT say what that actual Statute at Large that it’s based on says and b) is enforceable under the CFR by the BATF for excise taxes on excisable commodities, with which I have no relation. Over the course of three years, The government addressed NONE of these argument, ever.
QUESTION 1: What SHOULD the government have done in response to the returned order, way back in 2010? What statutory provision required the U.S. Attorney and/or the Court to respond to that return for causes, if any?
Today I received a notice from the District Court that says the judge ordered the case closed on Feb 4th and that it was in fact entered as closed on the 5th.
QUESTION 2: Does “case closed” mean what it seems to mean – i.e., that this case is now over and done with and that the government has no more recourse to raise issues over fees, etc. that it hasn’t already filed for?
- Next post in topic >>