Mr. and Mrs. Blowhard wrote:We strongly object to the Plaintiffs motion.
First of all, the motion seeks an action from the Court that is psychotic in its character, and no more possible as a practical matter than having your cake and eating it, too. No one can be threatened into amending existing, freely-made testimony with new words or numbers or expressions dictated by others, or subject to their approval, which can be valid as testimony, or capable of being "processed." Coerced testimony is INHERENTLY and INESCAPABLY
INVALID. [Emphasis in original] No power on earth can change this fact.
We will point the Court's attention to the fact that the Plaintiff reveals in its Motion that it has already tried to fraudulently treat as valid the coerced documents we furnished in June 2010 in response to previous extortionate threats by the Court intended to force us to sign our property over to Plaintiff. This is an obviously criminal act, but one which has happily been frustrated from completion by our having indicated clearly that the coerced testimonial documents were, in fact, created, inscribed, and subscribed under duress, and with dictated testimony, rather than our own. As a result of these clear expressions of the plain truth, Plaintiff has been unable to successfully dupe, co-opt or conspire with anyone at the IRS to treat the testimony as though it were actually ours, despite admittedly having tried for months to do so! It now wishes the Court to relieve it of its frustration and coerce the production of UNMARKED documents, so that its evil scheme can be successfully carried out by the concealment of the invalidity of the newly coerced documents.
Plaintiff's efforts in this regard reveal that even its initial request for "relief' in this suit, and its motion for contempt previously granted by this Court, have from the beginning been in pursuit of a legal impossibility - our creation of coerced "amending returns" containing testimony dictated by others and which we do not believe to be true, which are yet valid and "processable" instruments. Orders pursuant to this request cannot be complied with, and "[w]here compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with civil contempt action." United States Supreme Court in
U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (1983), quoted in
Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58 v. Gary's Elec. Servo Co., 340 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2003). See also
Robertson v. Jackson, 972 F,2d 529 (4th Cir. 1992). Since the order sought by Plaintiffs Motion is both impossible as a practical matter and pursuant to an attempted fraud, the Motion should be denied.
Secondly, Plaintiffs material misrepresentations in its Motion merit its denial, even while underscoring its impropriety. Plaintiff claims that we failed to comply with the Court's previous order regarding the production of the documents, because we made meaningfully clear that they were created under duress and did not constitute our own testimony. This is a flat falsehood. In the hearing on this matter conducted June 10, 2010, Judge Edmunds plainly made the following statements:
"If you want to file something along with your return that states that you disagree with having to file it and that you disagree that they're wages and you disagree that there are taxes owed on it, append whatever you want to your return ... "
(Hearing Transcript, p. 7, L 3-6);
''I'm giving you the option of filing these amended returns with an explanatory statement that you disagree with it. You may do that."
(Hearing Transcript, p. 8, L 12-14);
"I am giving you the option of filing an affidavit, or anything you want with your tax return ... "
(Hearing Transcript, p. 9 L 10-11).
Obviously, the order already made by the Court in response to the Plaintiffs previous motion and pursuant to its original request for "relief' (as though it suffered harm to which it was entitled to relief from our not having testified to its preferences), however obnoxious an affront to our dignity, involved some effort to remain within the limits of civilized behavior (even while exploring the very edge of those limits), and obviously, we complied with that order. The fact that the fraudulent claims and allegations informing the Plaintiff's "lawsuit"
ab initio call for the violation of those limits, and its desires cannot be satisfied, since a coerced yet valid testimonial document is an impossibility, mean that the order for which it pleads in this new motion would be one that cannot be met, and thus should not be made.
Thirdly, in addition to the fact that the new order sought is, as described by Plaintiff, an impossibility; and the fact that all that could be ordered that would approach Plaintiff's wish is no more than what was previously ordered, and which has already been fully complied with; and the fact that the Plaintiff s new Motion reveals that its purpose is the perpetuation and consummation of a fraud, and underscores that this has always been the true nature of its "complaint", there is the fact that this new Motion concerns, and is subordinate to, an underlying matter currently being appealed in a higher Court. Therefore, the Motion is inappropriate and should be denied accordingly.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks this order under a theory of "equitable relief" However, we have
no relationship with the Plaintiff under which it has any claim to such relief Nor can any be
properly found to exist based merely on Plaintiff's self-serving and unsupported allegations, all of which we have repeatedly and comprehensively rebutted in a variety of sworn affidavits
introduced throughout the course of the proceedings in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff s Motion
should be denied.