Posted on 05/13/2002 2:02:24 PM PDT by truth defector
I previously had posts on this topic deleted by the moderator in order for me to repost the documents in a more user friendly format. Since that time, I have heard nary a word from my fellow freepers! Where are all the experts that I know are out there? I've noticed that "IRS" posts don't receive many posters. Private mail works if you feel your comments might offend. Don't be shy.
THIS LINKS TO THE PREVIOUS POST
Can any Freepers please explain to me how the government can grant the right to sue and then ask that the case be summarily dismissed?
A plaintiff can ask for anything(e.g. a glass of water if they are thirsty) they want from the court, so can you. It's up to the judge to make a ruling on the motion, based on their filing and your response to it.
From the case filed in District Court, Civil No. 02-152-CV-W-3, the United States Attorney for the defendants "move the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil P 12(b) (1) and (6), for an order dismissing this action, or in the alternative, granting summary judgement.
The plaintiff filing a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) is the standard opening move of virtually any civil suit. It is up to you to respond to the motion within a certain time as to why their arguments and conclusion are full of it and such a motion should be denied.
What was your response, and what if anything has the court ruled on the motion to dismiss? The plaintiff merely filing a motion does not end the case. The judge's ruling in regard to that motion is what controls.
So what happened after the government's 12(b) motion was submitted. What was your response? What is the status of the 10th Circuit Appeal the plaintiff mentioned in their motion?
What was the court's subsequent ruling if any? I don't see anything of that in your posting. So what is it that you expect anyone to comment on?
What are you looking for? If it's legal advice, better get a good lawyer, if its just Freeper opinions, its hard to see what can be said on the basis of what you have posted or what relevance such would have in regards your case[s?]. Looks to me that you would be better served by consulting with a good civil lawyer.
But I'm no expert on paying taxes, as mine are always overdue!
Thanks for your interest. You are an observant freeper. First off, the way I posted the page views was to minimize bandwidth on the post. By this time in the case, there are quite a few documents, so I just wanted to get a handle on the immediate issue at hand (the dismissal motion). Also, I didn't want to reveal every detail on the Internet, even though the documents are posted on the "pacer" document retrieval system in the western MO Dist. Court, anyway. There are some unfortunate facts pertaining to the case, which are essentially derogatory to me, but beyond my ability to control.
Apparently, the gov't, by its motion, has put the ball in my Court, so to speak. The mere fact that the EEOC says I have 90 days to file a case, does not mean that I get my day in Court, a jury trial, but that I must provide most of my case for evaluation by the Judge, even before discovery has taken place.
I wish I could discover the behind the scenes shenanigans that have jeopardized my case with the courts. Honestly I don't believe that would be possible without the aid of an attorney. And even then I believe they are so well versed in these type of operations, that 99.9% go undetected by the general public or are essentially undiscoverable.
The striking thing to me is that the judges are supposed to view the case somewhat impartially, but instead have found that they must manipulate the facts, stating incorrect "undisputed facts," in order for them to come up with the desired ruling.
I haven't responded to the motion yet, as I asked for the Court to appoint me an attorney per the civil rights statutes first. I have responded to the 10th circuit case and they are to render a decision soon. In that case I replied with as much vigor as I could. The case was originally summarily dismissed based on similar arguments as in the case I posted. Subject matter jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies My case is essentially similar to the Downey v. Runyon case that was decided in the 2nd circuit in favor of the plaintiff and there are other cases as well. What they call mixed cases are really messed up when they go through the courts. But essentially when I filed to have my unlawful removal from the service reviewed by the MSPB, I fully expected to have my day in Court, where I would easily have prevailed on the issues. That is where the case gets "strange." I seemed to have lost my mind, at the worst possible time in the case.
Then inconvenient facts began to be ignored, because my losing my mind actually reinforced my case, in that the fear I had of reprisal from the IRS, had all of a sudden manifested itself in an extremely excruciating experience for me. I didn't end up getting the care I needed and I was a zombie for about the next nine months, having suffered through 2 acute attacks of paranoid schizophrenia about six months apart. Anyway, I was in no way able to pursue my case during this period of time and shied away from anything to do with suing the IRS, during this time.
Once I became somewhat stable, I asked the MSPB to reopen the case and being who they are, they made an arbitrary and capricious decision not to. Without determining whether my civil rights were violated (I had already provided my whole case to them), they set out to deny me standing in a District Court by incorrectly ruling on a timeliness issue, by saying that I had not sufficiently shown that I was "out of my mind." My gosh how impaired do you have to be? I had up until that time, preserved my right to redress in a civil court. Most of the time I didn't even know what day of the week it was.
They could have reopened the case, but my guess is, they didn't want my case to be heard, because if the facts were before the board they would have had a harder time denying my redress. And then of course that decision would have been reviewed by the EEOC. And then I would have taken the case to Federal Court, if necessary. In the Downey v. Runyon case they didn't make the plaintiff lose his rights to a civil trial, even though administrative appeals were not exhausted in a normal fashion (mental impairment). All of this denies my extenuating circumstances, which really peeves me off, especially since this denial of my rights has all been codified by the Courts (federal circuit appeals, in particular) which have had to now state uncontested facts, that are not true at all, in order to whitewash their a priori ruling.
Ten days after the SC denied a cert (per Rehnquist, "we don't overturn incorrect rulings anymore"), I filed a civil action in district court.
I did a FOIA to recover documents from the MSPB and the IRS and then had to sue to get them. The Court didn't grant an extension, and consequently made a somewhat uninformed decision. Here is where the FPO tried to make me have another acute attack by shaking me down outside the Federal Courthouse and trying to accuse me of threatening a Federal Judge, ten days before the appeal was due. Also, I refiled the original EEOC complaints, just in case they were feeling righteous enough to hear my case, and because I had not explored that possibility yet. Here I received the right to sue letter, so I did. I didn't have the right to sue letter before I filed the first civil rights case, so I don't see how that could have a bearing on that case or how that somehow the first case precludes the second case. Es stoppel.
Of course this all defeats the purpose of the administrative remedy framework in the first place, because, the IRS never intended to use this remedial process at all and never took any steps to limit their damages, but only fought the due process all along. Even though I and many others, proved that I was railroaded out of the IRS for protected activities, dicrimination, and retaliation.
I actually got to wondering today, for the first time too, that essentially they did to me what they did, because they knew beforehand that they would be able to get away with it. Most of what they have done against me since, all has the feel of plausible deniability to it.
The only lawyer sufficient enough and righteous enough to protect my rights would probably be either Ted Olsen or John Ashcroft...I personally would love to have JW working for me. ACLU would be knocking down doors for me if it weren't for the fact that I'm a white, conservative Republican, forget about my disability.
Ironically, I would have dropped everything, except for my chance meeting with the courageous Gary Aldrich. Believe me, losing your mind is extremely unpleasant, but I believe it could happen to anyone, if they are put under enough stress.
I worked there, I knew how to file my taxes. I did not falsify my taxes and proved it. The Agency failed to reverse an incorrect assessment, until after they had used it to fire me. It took them five months to reverse the incorrect assessment, but by then it was too late.
As far as the AWOL charges, I was not AWOL, but was seasonally laid off. I was drawing unemployment compensation from the state during the whole time I was said to be AWOL. Of course, my employer knew this, but ignored it also. I could not have received unemployment compensation unless my employer approved it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.