TP Heads To The Supremes With Writ In Hand

[The Observer]

HAROLD B. ROTTE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent-Appellees

Release Date: AUGUST 16, 2010

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

On Petitioner for Writ of Certiorari to
The United States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit for the
Southern District of Florida

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Harold B. Rotte, Pro Se'
84 Crooked Tree
Vero Beach, FL 32962
(772) 538-7180

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the district court erred in allowing the Internal Revenue Service to levy Harold B. Rotte social security in the year 2002 to 2005 for the tax year 1988.

2. Whether any of the district court's failure to rule on all or part constituted an abuse of discretion.

3. Whether the district court erred by ruling the Summary Judgment permitting the Internal Revenue to levy Harold B. Rotte's Social Security after the ten (10) year Statute of Limitations had expired.

4. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Harold B. Rotte's case without ruling on two (2) primary issues, the amount the Internal Revenue Services was permitted to deduct an amount higher than the limits by law and permitting the Internal Revenue Service to tax the sale of Harold B. Rotte's homestead property.

5. Did the appeals court err in upholding the dismissal of valid claims, that were before the court.

6. Whether the district court abused its discretion when the judge made extrajudicial comments about the case were prejudicial and bias against Harold B. Rotte in failing to hear his arguments.

7. Whether the district court erred in not allowing the wrongful taking of monies by the Internal Revenue Service during years 1984, 1986 and 1987 and failing to require the Internal Revenue Service to apply the overage to the 1988 year.

8. Whether the district court erred in failing to review the entire pertinent discovery presented by Harold B. Rotte, which would have proven his taxes were filed every year and his social security number was fraudulently used by an illegal resident.

9. Whether the Order submitted by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals failed to review the years 1984, 1986 and 1987, that rewarded the IRS instead of refunding the plaintiff

10. Did the appeals court err in not allowing plaintiff to make oral arguments with regards to the false claims the IRS that had been imposed on the plaintiff and the nature of the false claims caused irreparable harm to plaintiff.

11. Did the appeals court fail plaintiff disregarding his multiple request to have a rehearing after the court refused to question the IRS about any of their false claims and the IRS illegal and unreasonable collection actions.

12. Were the lower courts biased in giving more weight to the IRS and showing preferential treatment to the IRS dismissing plaintiffs case without reviewing any evidence presented or permitting plaintiff to give oral statements of the facts.

13. Did the courts err in not addressing the defendant in allowing the defendant to be excluded from the right to petition government from grievance.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Local Rules, 26.1-1 and 26-1(b), it is hereby certified that the following persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case or have participated as attorneys or as judges in the adjudication of this case:

Eric Holder,
United States Attorney General,
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20044

Richard Farber,
Attorney,
P.O. Box 502,
Washington, DC 20044

Patrick J. Hannon,
Attorney,
P.O. Box 14198,
Washington, DC 20044

Regina S. Moriarty,
Attorney,
P.O. Box 502,
Washington, DC 20044

Rachael A. Kammons,
P.O. Box 14198, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044

Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5614
Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

United States Attorney's Office
For the Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4 St.
Miami, FL 33132

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented

Certificate of Interested Parties And Corporate Disclosure Statement

Table of Contents

Index of Appendices

Statement

Reason

Conclusion

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Decision of U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
03/01/2010

Appendix B U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit 05/26/2010 Denying
Rehearing

Appendix C Order of U.S. Court Of Appeals Eleventh Circuit 7/19/2010
Denying Reconsideration of Stay of Mandate

Appendix D Final Judgment on Summary Judgment from U.S. District
Court 02/25/2009

Appendix E Order of U.S. District Court dismissing and denying all
pending Motions 03/11/2009

Letter from The Supreme Court of the U. S. dated
September 17, 2010 giving extension of time for Sixty
(60) days

STATEMENT

The Plaintiff, Harold B. Rotte was gainfully employed in 1984 by The J.I. Case Corp, a major manufacturer of construction, farm machinery with over Eighteen Thousand (18,000.00) employees the company had been in business for over a hundred years. Plaintiff was in good standing with an impeccable reputation and work record at which time the plaintiff was notified by his employer that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was putting a levy on his pay, plaintiff had no prior knowledge of IRS issues. Plaintiff had signed an exclusive employment contract with the company and was questioned as to whether or not plaintiff was working for someone else.

Plaintiff immediately contacted the IRS regarding the alleged unreported income the IRS stated that an illegal resident, had used plaintiff's social security number. The IRS indicated that the plaintiff would have to pay for someone using his social security number and then plaintiff could go through the necessary channels for filing for a refund. The harassment by the IRS continued as the IRS extorted monies from the plaintiff even though the IRS was very much aware the plaintiff did not incur the additional income.

The IRS garnished plaintiff's wages in 1984, 1986, and 1987 in 1988 plaintiff was dismissed from his livelihood of employment, because the company felt he was in breach of his contract and working for another employer. Plaintiff was asked for an explanation for the tax lien on his pay, plaintiff frivolously tried to have the IRS explain where the false claims of extra income originated, which the IRS failed to provide and plaintiff was unable the refute the IRS charges.

The IRS throughout the years has continued to take monies that were never owed by the plaintiff and the IRS taxed the sale of plaintiff's homestead property, which was a non-taxed sale. The IRS was given proof the sale of the homestead property was exempt but ignored and continued to ignore plaintiff.

Plaintiff always filed his taxes with the IRS and was audited on two separate occasions with different agents. During the audits the agent indicated the plaintiff had unreported income, the same unreported income that the illegal non-citizen took full advantage of the plaintiff's social security number. Plaintiff hired an attorney, which was incompetent and had a conflict of interest as the IRS audit the attorney while under my employ all other attempts to find an attorney have been unsuccessful. Plaintiff did take this valid suit to tax court, the court allowed the IRS to exclude the 1980 and 1982 tax years whereas the IRS made false claims to extort money from plaintiff since those years were the years in dispute. Hence the reason for filing originally filing in tax court, which prevented plaintiff the right to face my accusers (IRS) and to correct his wrong. Plaintiff tried relentlessly to correct the wrong presented by the IRS presenting the necessary evidence and proved the IRS was wrong. The IRS abused their power preventing the plaintiff a review, a hearing or a trial on the discovery and evidence pertinent to the case. The evidence and year in question was for the 1988 tax year. The IRS was only allowed to get the outcome they wanted by obstruction of justice, which deemed unfair to the plaintiff. The IRS continued adding penalties and interest to their incorrect accounting practices, causing undue hardship to the plaintiff. During the 2002 tax year the IRS started by deducting monies from plaintiff's social security benefits, plaintiff's only source of income, this again for the year 1988. The IRS knowing the tricks of the trade got around the law that limits how much monies can be deducted from benefits by their wrong acts. The exorbitant amount of monies taken from plaintiff's social security, almost half, caused undue hardship on plaintiff that forced plaintiff to sell his home and left with little or nothing to live on. Then the IRS wrongly taxed plaintiff on a tax exempt sale of his home at a time plaintiff was consumed with a valid claim against the IRS for over collecting and illegal and unreasonable collection actions. The IRS actions have been vindictive, malicious and harmful.

In the court case all involved the year 1988, the year plaintiff never objected. The validity of plaintiff's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the 1988 tax year was before the Eleventh Circuit Court on three (3) different occasions. The courts failed hear claims presented by plaintiff whereas the IRS had committed fraud during the tax years 1984, 1986 and 1987 by wrongly taking Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 10,000.00) for taxes never owed by plaintiff.

Counsel for the IRS has stated previously that the 16 Amendment was to fund the government; the 16 Amendment does not permit the IRS to take monies from an American Citizen (plaintiff) to pay taxes after a person fraudulently used plaintiff's social security number. This forced the plaintiff to pay monies he never earned and allowed the IRS to receive undue enrichment from plaintiff.

Plaintiff dealt with the IRS, in person, in writing causing plaintiff to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) with a special agent, Tom Farmer at the Jacksonville, FL office. Mr. Farmer stated he would have to get permission from the Department of Justice to investigate the IRS. Plaintiff never received any communications or documentation from the FBI with the regards to the Department of Justice.

Plaintiff made several attempts to hire counsel all of which were unsuccessful. Plaintiff was able to hire counsel of record, but during the dispute the attorney was audited by the IRS and counsel said that it would be a conflict of interest should he continue assisting the plaintiff. Additionally the numerous false claims gave the impression that the plaintiff was a tax cheat causing other legal counsel to want exorbitant retainers some in which were over One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 100,000.00), same as which counsel would charge for a criminal offense.

So being pro se' plaintiff's case is based on the facts and violation and abuse of the United States Constitutional rights.

REASON

This case on behalf of the plaintiff should be heard by this court as it includes difficult constitutional questions before the court and does present issues of importance beyond particular facts and parties involved, which has a great importance and concern to the public.

The United States District Court being misguided by the IRS has so far departed from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned the lower court, as to call for an exercise of this court supervisory power.

The lower Court wrongly and abruptly dismissed plaintiff's valid claim, denying plaintiff a day in court to face his accusers. This was the IRS they were allowed to act like tyrants and did not have to prove their false claims nor was I permitted to refute the IRS claims. The court disregarded pertinent material and fact and refused to allow plaintiff to present evidence to the Court.

The U.S. District Judge, when plaintiff tried to present his case the Judge kept objecting to any material facts presented by the plaintiff, which would cause plaintiff to loose his train of thought and counsel for the defense was not available or permitted for me to meet with defense counsel, to discuss the case.

This has forced plaintiff to pay taxes owned by someone else who took advantage of using plaintiff's social security number. The IRS continued to use as their defense wrongly kept adding interest as to give the appearance plaintiff, who has always been an honest taxpaying citizen to be a tax cheat from illegal sources so much so it interfered in his employment and reputation.

The issue of importance is someone utilized my social security number and the IRS did not take the time or effort to pursue that person but found the easiest route was to wrongfully take monies from the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has been the victim of governmental bureaucracy, and the IRS continues to cover as to conceal the true facts of the case. The feedback to congress to correct the problem of people not having proper identification cards and because previously they did not require proper identification cards, are now talking about changing the 14 Amendment.

The government protects people in the United States who use other people's social security number and who are illegal and fail to pay taxes, medical cost and receive other free services provided by the government. The real tax payer has to pay for the government's inability to step out of the box and look beyond the desk.

Plaintiff being pro se' and the victim of IRS abuse of power has based my claim on facts and the IRS wrongly allowed to circumvent the court and not allowed to refute their false claims

Defendant wrongly claimed since there was no deficiency notice and the court would not hear plaintiff's valid claims against the IRS. The IRS admitted a deficiency notice was returned to them and plaintiff's earlier request for an administrative Hearing was denied stating it was filed untimely. Plaintiff did not receive the notice on a timely basis and was unaware until receiving a lien on his homestead property, at which time the IRS stated the notice was returned to them. IRS continues to play "hardball" and did deal in bad faith then blocked all efforts for the courts tax review. A deficiency notice was available otherwise the IRS would not be able to levy wages, and file lien on home. The IRS has been selective while the courts have been silent. A major technicality of the usage of plaintiff's social security number by another person should have been looked into internally or administratively and corrected prior to plaintiff paying taxes on monies he never received.

The deficiency notice was not sent to taxpayers last known address therefore plaintiff was not properly notified and plaintiff was not able to respond timely.

Plaintiff never objected to my 1988 tax year only after being denied the prior three years, 1984, 1986 and 1987 whereas the IRS wrongly extorted monies from the plaintiff when someone else used plaintiff's social security number. Plaintiff took the year 1988 to tax court as plaintiff thought the judges would be interested in the wrongful acts of the IRS. The appeals court side-stepped and were not interested as the IRS or the government had taken over the courts system and allowed the IRS to be selective and deceptive. That was the only reason for the appeal and since they were not interested plaintiff thought the 1988 year should be moot.

There were a lot of material facts that proved the IRS wrongly erred by the intentional wrong acts did over collect on plaintiff social security benefits his only source of income that caused him to sell his home the judge left this open as other issues. The courts should have ordered the IRS to deal with this then report back to the court. The judge was either negligent or bias and wrongly dismissed Plaintiff's valid claim.

The IRS claims were false and therefore plaintiff filed in the judicial court system and to the appeals court and as a citizen the right to be heard. The court system shows o regard to plaintiff's valid claims and has continued to permit the IRS to extort monies from plaintiff.

Plaintiff was looking forward to have my valid claims to being heard by federal court, the judge being Hispanic and presiding over the matter should not have made a difference on the facts. However the judges actions and inactions and his comments exposed his true self there was evidence that plaintiff suffered harm by the wrong acts of the IRS and was mentally abused by all the false claims of the IRS. The judge knowing this belittled the Plaintiff while at the same time complimented counsel for IRS. I believe his actions and words prove the arrogance of power, for dismissing plaintiff's valid claim.

The IRS and their counsel have been deceptive and not fair to deal with I got letters stating wrongly stating that plaintiff's views have been ruled against by our courts and our law of taxes need to be upheld as if I was a tax protester. When putting a spin on things and the IRS were trying to put words into the judge's mouth. The IRS statements in trying avoid their false claims and that the IRS twisted claims to the judges.
Plaintiff's is the victim; his rights were violated not only by the person who took advantage of his social security number but also by plaintiff's own government the IRS. Plaintiff always earned an honest living and worked in a professional environment, taxes were deducted by employers. Special circumstances apply here, the defendant (IRS) the most feared agency of our government did abuse its power, made multiple false claims against plaintiff that question his honesty, destroyed his reputation and his finances do to the years of mistreatment by the IRS caused the plaintiff emotional and mental harm, in addition to plaintiff's problem of keeping focused as I still have good days but many bad days do to my ailing health issues.

The court erred in not considering important facts that were before the court and that plaintiff had problems obtaining proper council, because of being wrongly marked by the IRS. If the court took the time to review the case and have knowledge about the case, which was all before the court, plus the deceptive practices of the IRS that wrongly overwhelmed plaintiff.

Therefore the appeals court's opinion that pro se' litigants are responsible this should not apply in this case.

Additionally the appeals courts decision, rewards deception and more of the false claims, that places more black marks on plaintiff, which was the intentions of IRS that did fool the judges.

Plaintiff was reaching and pleading to the appeals court this is a valid claim, requesting oral arguments, requesting a rehearing please just look at the facts before the court, that the defendant made false claims that caused irreparable harm. The tax court nor the U.S. District Court never ruled or questioned the IRS about any of their false claims as oral arguments would have been an excellent chance to ask the IRS about their illegal and unreasonable collection actions.

The lower courts gave higher precedence and special treatment to the IRS and disregarded any oral or material arguments presented by plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The wrongful acts by the IRS and their intentional over burdening of false claims were prejudicial to plaintiff in the lower courts. The lower courts never ruled on the IRS's false claims, which has been the basis of this case. Therefore plaintiff prays that the petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

DATE: October 26, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Harold B. Rotte

[Cathulhu]

Obviously the key issue is unreported income that Harold is blaming on id theft. So where's the police report about the id theft? Where's his evidence?

[JamesVincent]

Obviously the key issue is unreported income that Harold is blaming on id theft. So where's the police report about the id theft? Where's his evidence?

Was gonna ask the same thing. If its truly identity theft then its an arguable defense.

[silversopp]

I'm suspicious of the ID theft. His company fired him because they had reason to believe he had breached their contract by working for another employer. IRS garnishment of wages is not really evidence that someone is working a second job.

So the company probably had some suspicion that he was moonlighting. His schedule started to vary a bit, he wasn't available evenings/weekends as often as before, he bought a fancier car, started taking more expensive vacations. He probably started running his mouth at work about the illegal alien stealing his SSN and the suspicions grew. Someone probably tailed him after work and busted him.

[The Observer]

That is why I think it's a phony claim. The IRS would have provided a number of options to this guy to resolve the identity theft issue, none of which would have risen to the level of "take us to court after you pay the taxes." My guess is that he got caught moonlighting by his primary employer in violation of his contract and he, like most TPs/sovruns, obsessively tried to prove everyone else "wrong" and evenutally blame it all on the government.

A number of obvious lies throughout the document, but the perennial claim that tops the list is the statement that until the wage levy arrived at his employer, he had no idea that the IRS had considered the additional income as his. So he was unaware of the numerous letters, audit notices, unagreed deficiency notices, notices of assessment, demands for payment, and notices of intent to levy barraging his mail box? Incredible.

[Arthur Rubin]

A number of obvious lies throughout the document, but the perennial claim that tops the list is the statement that until the wage levy arrived at his employer, he had no idea that the IRS had considered the additional income as his.

It's not completely impossible, if the IRS only contacted the address given by the other person using the SSN. However, that seems impossible if the 1981 and 1983 returns were filed and unchallenged. (The rant mentions 1980 and 1982 returns.)

[Famspear]

Here’s what happened at the trial court:

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon sua sponte review of the record. The Court began a bench trial in this case at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 2009. Plaintiff, Mr. Rotte, was unable to introduce any relevant evidence to support his claim. Thus, the Court recessed and instructed Mr. Rotte to go through his documents and find evidence that was relevant to the claims remaining in this case. The Court also instructed Mr. Rotte to go over his evidence with opposing counsel. The Court resumed this bench trial three hours later, and Mr. Rotte revealed that he did not discuss his evidence with opposing counsel, he also continued to try to introduce documents relating to claims which are not a part of this case, and he continued to offer his own comments with regard to a government conspiracy against him. The Court repeatedly cautioned Mr. Rotte that he had to introduce evidence and that he had the burden to prove his case. After again allowing Mr. Rotte a little over an hour to present his case and after having found that he had not offered anything that would meet his burden, the Court dismissed his action. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and for the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby:

ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution. It
is also:

ADJUDGED that all pending motions in this case are DENIED AS MOOT, and this
case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11 day of March, 2009.

(bolding added)

--From FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT, March 11, 2009, at docket entry 111, Rotte v. Internal Revenue Service, case no. 2:07-cv-14029-JEM, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce Div.).

In 2009, Rotte filed a second lawsuit in the same Court (case no. 2:09-cv-14346-KMM), which was thrown out based on res judicata.

[Famspear]

In other words, Mr. Rotte makes some interesting and troubling allegations, but when it's time for the rubber to meet the road, he offers no evidence.

[The Observer]

It's not completely impossible, if the IRS only contacted the address given by the other person using the SSN. However, that seems impossible if the 1981 and 1983 returns were filed and unchallenged. (The rant mentions 1980 and 1982 returns.)

Possible, but not probable. The IRS does not (or at least should not) change the IMF address on the account merely because it has received additional income reporting documents from third parties that reflect a different address or different name. The law requires that legal notices for assessments and final demand/intent to levy be sent to the last known address as provided by the taxpayer. Nothing in the taxpayer's writ indicates that he had moved or otherwise was unable to receive mail from the IRS at the time his troubles began.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Most of the pro se litigants I've seen have a highly distorted view of what is or isn't evidence.

"When in doubt, make it up in volume" seems to be a hallmark of many of the filings.

This guy may have had a legitimate gripe at one time, but it's buried under mountains of horsepuckey.

[JamesVincent]

The title of this article reminded me of a song.

[Quixote]

The IRS does not (or at least should not) change the IMF address on the account merely because it has received additional income reporting documents from third parties that reflect a different address or different name.

They certainly should not, but occassionally do change the IMF address based on information returns. I have seen it done only after mail sent to the address of record was returned as undeliverable.

[Quixote]

I am less confident than the rest of you that Mr. Rotte was not the victim of ID theft. The IRS procedural safeguards that would have prevented an assessment based on income earned by the ID thief went into effect only after the 5th Circuit's decision in Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, those safeguards often work only if the taxpayer or his representative knows about them and sticks to his guns. At one time, the IRM instructed the Underreporter Unit to falsely inform the taxpayer that the employer had identified the taxpayer as the one who worked for him, even if the employer never responded to Underreporter's inquiry.

It does appear, however, the Mr. Rotte has shot himself in the foot several times.

[LPC]

Certiorari was denied yesterday.

[The Observer]

Certiorari was denied yesterday.

Are any of us shocked, I say shocked, at this result?

[LPC]

Certiorari was denied yesterday.

Are any of us shocked, I say shocked, at this result?

I was shocked that Tax Analysts published it as a news story.

It's not even a "dog bites man" story. More of a "flea bites dog" story.