Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[UpDate] if we can get past this stage, we will be accepting joiners.

Expand Messages
  • William Moral Greene
    As I have explained in the past, on March 12, 2008 we submitted to the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, our written instrument as a
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      As I have explained in the past, on March 12, 2008 we submitted to the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, our written instrument as a "public interest suit" styled as a Qui Tam (i.e., Latin for "he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself") Action.  This, of course, was accompanied by our Disclosure Statement, which was submitted on April 16, 2008.on May 16th 2008 the District Court accepted our Motion for our Qui Tam Action to be unsealed to allow for joiners.  However, in so doing the Court also Denied or Second Request For Injunctive Relief.  Moreover, the Court Ordered that the US Dept. of Justice, the US Attorney, and the IRS be served.  I complied but noted on the back of the Proof of service that the Suit was NOT against the United States and under the provisions of a Qui Tam Action the US Dept. of Justice and the US Attorney would normally receive copy anyway.

       

      It has been a battle, with the District Court attempting to block an aspect of the our suit in terms of it being a "public interest suit" and while the government attorney only maintained that the government has not admitted that the IRS is not an Agency of the United States in this case, the magistrate judge went on to build the case for the IRS as an Agency.  After that, we filed for an Interlocutory Appeal and (4) on September 29th 2008 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Remanded the case back to the District Court wherein the District Court is to construe our Application for an Interlocutory Appeal as an objection to the magistrate judge's first order and address such objection, and you look at the USCA2_Docket_Sheet we have posted on our new site you will see the Court of Appeals referencing "28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A)("[a] judge of the [district] court may reconsider any pretrial matter... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law"); Fed R. Civ.P. 72(a). (Before: RDS, RAK, Rakoff*)"

       

      As of November 17th 2008 , the District Court had not responded to the direction of the Court of Appeals and it seemed that our next move should have been to request a hearing date. I mean the Second Circuit Court of Appeals told me that their Order was sufficient and that I need not submit anything else unless requested by the District Court, but with District Court having remained silent, it seemed my next move should have been to address the District Court in terms of a request for a hearing date, and perhaps make reference to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' reference of a "pretrial matter... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law".

       

      On November 18th 2008 , however, the District Court entered (see http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html) the statement that "Motions No Longer Referred: 10 MOTION Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1). (lah, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008 )" and that is all the District Court entered. 

       

      L.R. 7.1(b)(1) reads as follows:

       

      (b) Motions

      1. Dispositive Motions. The moving party must file all motion papers with the Court and serve them upon the other parties not less than THIRTY-ONE DAYS prior to the return date of the motion. The Notice of Motion must state the return date that the moving party has selected.

       

      The party opposing the motion must file its opposition papers with the Court and serve them upon the other parties not less than SEVENTEEN DAYS prior to the return date of the motion.

       

      The moving party must file its reply papers, which may not exceed ten (10) pages, with the Court and serve them upon the other parties not less than ELEVEN DAYS prior to the return date of the motion.

       

      A surreply is not permitted.

       

      Parties shall file all original motion papers, including memoranda of law and supporting affidavits, if any, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing (General Order #22) and/or the case assignment form provided to the parties at the commencement of the litigation. The parties need not provide a courtesy copy of their motion papers to the assigned judge unless the assigned judge requests a copy.

       

      As such, instead of addressing the fact that our battle has been over the fact that the United States can NOT be both Plaintiff and Defendant at the same time, for which, on July 25th 2008 we filed our Notice of Interlocutory Appeal in the District Court and on August 4th the Notice of Appeal was also filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to certify the disputed question for the United States cannot be both plaintiff and defendant at the same time, and for which, on September 29th 2008 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Remanded the case back to the District Court wherein the District Court is to construe our Application for an Interlocutory Appeal as an objection to the magistrate judge's first order and address such objection, on November 18th 2008, the District Court entered (see http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html) the statement that "Motions No Longer Referred: 10 MOTION Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1). (lah, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)" wherein-by the District Court is making reference to the very first Order by the magistrate judge pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1).

       

      As shown in the very first paragraph of Docket_#22 "… with all of the paperwork submitted the Clerks have told us that because we have filed as a Qui Tam Action we should let the court set the hearing dates for Motions rather than pick dates ourselves."

       

      Now forgive me if I'm being paranoid here, but the second sentence of L.R. 7.1(b)(1) clearly states that "The Notice of Motion must state the return date that the moving party has selected."  Yet, "… with all of the paperwork submitted the Clerks have told us that because we have filed as a Qui Tam Action we should let the court set the hearing dates for Motions rather than pick dates ourselves."  I can only wonder, therefore, why the District Court has entered the statement that "Motions No Longer Referred: 10 MOTION Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1). (lah, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)" wherein-by the District Court is making reference to the very first Order by the magistrate judge pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1)???

       

      Anyway, if I make it through all of this so as to have a proper party in the suit (i.e., the IRS independent of the United States) I will ask all to sign on to the suit.  That is, as I see it, it would be too risky to those same others to sign on before that.  If I'm successful however, Bob Schulz told me the announcement and call for joiners will be up on the WTP site.  As such, at this time, we need the help of others, and ask that others Please Donate to help us to continue on in terms of our case against the IRS.

       

      Again, if we can get past this stage, the suit will be opened up to allow for joiners.

       

      Blessings,

      Bill

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.