Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Famspear »

Cracker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:10 pm He was dienied on reviewing the lower court decision. That is stated in the court file. He posted his case file online with the Docket number. “Falsifying documents” is a type of white collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deceiving another person. It can also involve the passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Posting this false documents on Scribd is a crime. Stop being a stupid!
"Stop being a stupid!" Now, there's some good advice!

"Posting this false documents [ . . . ]" Now, there's some great English grammar!

Cracker, you're making no sense at all. What "false document" are you referring to?
The case file documents the income laws and the corruption taking place.
OK, that's not a grammatical English sentence, Cracker. Keep trying, though.
It is well detailed and presented in high level of intelligence. Everything in the case file is logical, everything you say Isn’t.
Wipe the drool off your face, and keep trying, Cracker.
U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976), (See also Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86
S.E. Rep. 2D 858)
Hold it right there, Einstein. Do you really think we haven't already seen this? You're just copying and pasting from tax protester web sites.

And it's "Ballard," not "Balard." The case is United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir.) cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed. 2d 283, 97 S. Ct. 310 (1976).

Let's stick to the topic: Federal income tax. Oliver v. Halstead is not even a tax case. This is a Virginia Supreme Court case, and no issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. THE WORD "TAX" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN THE TEXT OF OLIVER V. HALSTEAD! And, a Virginia state court would have no jurisdiction to decide a U.S. Federal tax matter, anyway.

What's wrong with you?

You're citing cases for your preposterous, false argument that compensation is not taxable as income for Federal income tax purposes. NONE OF COURT CASES YOU CITE SAY THAT.

Again, what's wrong with you?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Famspear »

Cracker wrote:
Gross income and not 'gross receipts' is the foundation of income tax liability... The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..
Those are more or less accurate quotes from Ballard. So what? Jack Ballard’s conviction for filing a false federal tax return was upheld by the Court.

See:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=3,44

And here is the actual text of Oliver v. Halstead, which Cracker falsely cited in his goofy nonsense about Federal income tax:'

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case? ... _sdt=4,246

Again, not only is that not a Federal tax case, it's not a tax case at all. The word "tax" isn't even found in the text.

Duhh.......
'gross income' means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.'
Not exactly. More to the point: No U.S. federal court has ever ruled that compensation for labor is not generally income for Federal income tax purposes.
Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...
Not exactly. No U.S. federal court has ever ruled that compensation for labor is not generally income for Federal income tax purposes.
The word profit is a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor
No, not exactly. But you’re evading the issue, Cracker. Compensation for labor is generally INCOME, and is taxable as income.
The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the Treasury Department...
That verbiage is not found in the court decisions in Ballard or Oliver. That verbiage was part of an argument by a person named Guy Earl, the losing taxpayer in a famous U.S. Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court REJECTED THOSE ARGUMENTS, and ruled that Mr. Earl had INCOME from the PERFORMANCE OF PERSONAL SERVICES that was taxable TO HIM for Federal income tax purposes. See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), at:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 7767600190


Cracker, how do you manage to tie your shoes?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Famspear »

Cracker's goofy method of tax research -- falsely posting the losing taxpayer's argument in Lucas v. Earl from the year 1930 as being from the court decision in either Ballard or Oliver -- illustrates the stupidity of tax protesters, and the way in which they continue to copy and paste internet nonsense, and continue to lose.

Just earlier this year, a person named Jason L. Gordon was reported as having incorrectly cited Mr. Guy Earl's losing argument in an Oregon state court proceeding -- a case which was about Oregon taxes. Here's an excerpt:
[ . . . ] Plaintiff [Jason L. Gordon] misquotes Lucas v. Earl, 281 US 111, 50 S Ct 241, 74 L Ed 731 (1930) for the proposition that salaries, wages, and compensation of personal services may not be taxed. (Ptf's brief at 4.) The quote offered in the brief is not actually found in the court opinion. Further, the holding of that decision is that a taxpayer may not redirect compensation to another by agreement to escape paying income taxes. The case offers no support for Plaintiff's argument.
See: Jason L. Gordon v. Department of Revenue, State of Oregon, No. TC-MD 170236R, Tax Court of Oregon, Magistrate Division, Income Tax (June 26, 2018) (emphasis added), at:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case? ... ciodt=3,44

Mr. Gordon, like Cracker, copied and pasted the same crap that has been copied and pasted by tax protesters for years and years.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by wserra »

Cracker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:10 pmPosting this false documents on Scribd is a crime.
On what planet?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by notorial dissent »

Cracker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:10 pm He was dienied on reviewing the lower court decision. That is stated in the court file.
These are the only true things you have stated so far, the rest is gibberish, fantasy, or just utter nonsense having nothing to do with the idiot in question's massive tax case FAIL. Lots of English appearing and sounding words not tied together in any comprehensible fashion.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
KickahaOta
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:45 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by KickahaOta »

This all seems like a replay of the Jamie0331 threads (now consolidated at http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11812).

Cracker, I'll say essentially the same thing I said in those threads: You have yet to post anything that hasn't already been covered, complete with citations to case law, in the IRS's publication The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, available on the IRS website.

If you're trying to challenge the IRS, it ultimately doesn't matter what Quatloosians have to say about it. You need to read that publication, look up the cases that correspond to the arguments you're making, and be prepared to make specific, compelling arguments that show that the courts' reasoning in those cases is wrong.

That last point is very important. All your arguments here essentially boil down to "My view about the income tax is right." And if you were arguing about some issue of first impression -- and, well, if your arguments were correctly researched and more coherently stated -- that would be enough. But when you're arguing a point that's already been rejected by the courts, it's not enough to say "I am right" -- you have to say, specifically, "Here are the flaws in the reasoning of those previous cases."
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Gregg »

535 F.2d 400 (1976)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Jack BALLARD, Appellant.
No. 75-1682.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted February 12, 1976.
Decided April 28, 1976.
Rehearing and Rehearing Denied June 2, 1976.
Cited in case file



:haha:
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by jcolvin2 »

Maehr continues his losing ways. A couple of weeks ago, his request that the Colorado district court convene a grand jury to investigate the IRS for illegally collecting income taxes and referring non-compliant taxpayers for prosecution was rejected by the court:
JEFFREY T. MAEHR,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury [Docket No. 26] entered on January 4, 2019, recommending the denial of plaintiff's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury [Docket No. 24]. Docket No. 26 at 2. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summons of a Grand Jury Based on Standing Federal Law on Grand Jury Contact [Docket No. 29] on January 11, 2019, which the Court construes as objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The United States filed a response to plaintiff's objections on February 22, 2019. Docket No. 43. Plaintiff then filed a reply. Docket No. 50.

The Court will “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). An objection is proper if it is specific enough to enable the Court “to focus attention on those issues — factual and legal — that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.” United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court reviews his filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).

In his recommendation, the magistrate judge found that the public interest does not require convening a grand jury under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1)1 to investigate the IRS for collecting income taxes and referring for prosecution those who fail to pay income tax because those are not criminal acts. Docket No. 26 at 1-2. Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge failed to address the “multiple standing statutes and court precedent” that plaintiff cited in his motion. Docket No. 29 at 2.
Plaintiff seeks the impaneling of a grand jury to investigate the IRS for illegal taxation. Docket No. 24 at 3. The government argues, and plaintiff agrees, that the requested relief is “far beyond” the scope of his civil case. Docket No. 43 at 1; Docket No. 50 at 2; see Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 673 (D. Colo. 1991) (“[C]riminal statutes cannot be enforced by civil actions.”) (citing Bass Angler Sportsman Soc'y v. United States Steel Corp., 324 F. Supp 412, 415 (S.D. Ala. 1971), aff'd, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971)). Nevertheless, plaintiff contends that “there must be some mechanism whereby the 'private citizen'[ ] can present criminal evidence to the Grand Jury without being interfered with by defendant or the courts.” Docket No. 50 at 5-6. He argues that private citizens have a right to do so under the First Amendment, which provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Plaintiff cites to no authority demonstrating that this provision confers upon individuals the right to initiate criminal proceedings. “{I}t is well-settled that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to bring a criminal complaint against another individual.” Price v. Hasly, 2004 WL 1305744, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2004) (citing Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981)); Keyter v. 535 Members of 110th Cong., 277 F. App'x 825, 827 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (“[A] private citizen[ ] has no standing to initiate federal criminal prosecutions.”). Nor does this provision confer the right of a citizen to present evidence before a grand jury. “[A]n individual cannot bring accusations before a grand jury unless invited to do so by the prosecutor or the grand jury.” Application of Wood, 833 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1987).2 Plaintiff cannot initiate a criminal investigation by filing a motion to impanel a grand jury.

Further, plaintiff cites no authority that permits the Court, in this civil case, to impanel a grand jury to investigate alleged criminal acts that plaintiff claims the IRS has committed. The authorities plaintiff cites discuss the grand jury's investigative powers generally or discuss federal courts' authority to supervise grand juries. Docket No. 29 at 2; see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) (”It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700 (1972) (discussing grand jury's “broad” investigative power). These authorities do not provide a basis to grant plaintiff's motion.

Nor does the Court have a statutory duty to inform a grand jury of purported criminal offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), as plaintiff suggests. Docket No. 29 at 4-5. This statute requires a United States Attorney, upon receiving information concerning an alleged criminal offense from any person, to inform the grand jury of the alleged offense if so requested by that person. 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) (“[A]lleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation.”). It imposes no duty on the Court to inform a grand jury of purported criminal activity or authority to initiate a grand jury investigation. “The commencement of a federal criminal case by submission of evidence to a grand jury is 'an executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General.'” Baranoski v. U.S. Attorney's Office, 215 F. App'x 155, 156 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1975) (unpublished)); Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 136 (1986) (“[T]he United States and its attorneys have the sole power to prosecute criminal cases in the federal courts.”). “While district courts have certain responsibilities in connection with selecting, instructing, and supervising grand juries, . . . the investigation of crime is primarily an executive function. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the federal statutes has the judicial branch been given power to monitor executive investigations before a case or controversy arises.” Jett v. Castaneda, 578 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Phillips v. City of Oakland, 2008 WL 1901005, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Phillips v. City of Oakland, CA, 311 F. App'x 14 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“[T]o enable individuals to present to a grand jury any complaint of purported criminal activity would interfere with the executive branch's prerogative to direct the enforcement of the laws, and thus would not be an appropriate exercise of judicial authority.”).

Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has standing to initiate criminal proceedings or that the Court has authority to do so. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury [Docket No. 26] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury [Docket No. 24] is DENIED.

DATED August 21, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMONS OF GRAND JURY (DKT. #24)
N. Reid Neureiter
United State Magistrate Judge

This matter it is before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey T. Maehr's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury (Dkt. #24), which was referred to me by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on January 2, 2019 (Dkt. #25). The Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion be denied.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, so the Court will construe the motion liberally. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff requests that the Court summon a grand jury to investigate the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for various allegedly criminal activities, including assessing and collecting taxes on income.

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, “When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1). The Court does not find that the public interest requires convening a grand jury to investigate the IRS for collecting income taxes and referring for prosecution those who do not pay income tax. These are not criminal acts. See U.S. Const. amend. XVI (“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”). Indeed, Plaintiff's arguments are legally frivolous. See United States v. Springer, 427 F. App'x 650, 652– 53 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing tax protestor arguments challenging the tax collecting authority of the IRS as “patently frivolous”); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990) (“For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves; efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous.” (citations omitted)).

WHEREFORE, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summons of Grand Jury (Dkt. #24) be DENIED.

NOTICE: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the parties have fourteen (14) days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific written objections to the above recommendation with the District Judge assigned to the case. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. The District Judge need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's failure to file and serve such written, specific objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the District Judge, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Makin v. Colorado Dep't of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996).

BY THE COURT
N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: January 4, 2019
Denver, Colorado

FOOTNOTES
1“A well-recognized exception to this rule is that the court in its supervisory power can authorize an individual to appear before a grand jury if it feels that the circumstances require.” Wood, 833 F.2d at 116. The Court does not find that the circumstances here so require.
2“When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.” Fed. R Crim. P. 6(a)(1).
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6135
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Cracker wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:47 pm Download the case file. Are you to stupid on how to? Let me help! Do what it says to do to download! Is that helpful?
Judging from the stinking horse-effluent in the sample provided, I have no desire to clutter up my hard drive with more of the same.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by notorial dissent »

What I find hard to believe is that barely 4 days in to the new year he created a new action and that it has taken til now for the court to round file it. What a waste of court resources.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6135
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

notorial dissent wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:03 am What I find hard to believe is that barely 4 days in to the new year he created a new action and that it has taken til now for the court to round file it. What a waste of court resources.
The court probably sat on it until they had a slow day.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by notorial dissent »

Pottapaug1938 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:27 am
notorial dissent wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:03 am What I find hard to believe is that barely 4 days in to the new year he created a new action and that it has taken til now for the court to round file it. What a waste of court resources.
The court probably sat on it until they had a slow day.
I can only hope, but I still think it could have been round filed long ago and with a lot less effort.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
TBL
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 1:29 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by TBL »

notorial dissent wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:55 am
Pottapaug1938 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:27 am
notorial dissent wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:03 am What I find hard to believe is that barely 4 days in to the new year he created a new action and that it has taken til now for the court to round file it. What a waste of court resources.
The court probably sat on it until they had a slow day.
I can only hope, but I still think it could have been round filed long ago and with a lot less effort.
Just more proof that the US needs a Meads v. Meads to cite then round-file with a quick "we see no need to rebut this frivolous argument".
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6135
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

TBL wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:28 pm
Just more proof that the US needs a Meads v. Meads to cite then round-file with a quick "we see no need to rebut this frivolous argument".
We have Crain v. Commissioner, 732 F. 2d 1417 (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."
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6135
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Another goodie from the Crain case:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal."
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
TBL
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 1:29 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by TBL »

Are we seeing it cited often? Canada seems to shut down every FOTLer with it, but US cases seem to drag on and on.
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by AndyK »

Hypothetical:

The Judge(s) assigned this case to their clerks to see who could come up with a politically-correct smack upside the petitioner's head.

Would be interesting to see what was riding on the outcome.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Motion for ORDER to Intervener

Post by notorial dissent »

Or, they had a clerk they like/dislike and wanted then to stretch their wings and actually look at the law, that one I could really get behind.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.