Ronald Ottaviano

[Parvati]

Ottaviano has filed three more motions:

1.) Defendants (sic) Third Motion in Limine

2.) Motion to Dismiss Based on Non Enforcement of the Grand Jury and Investigating Agents

3.) Motion to Dismiss That Part of the Indictment Tax Evasion §7201 Counts 11, 12, & 13

[LPC]

3.) Motion to Dismiss That Part of the Indictment Tax Evasion §7201 Counts 11, 12, & 13

This is a standard "no implementing regulations" argument.

[Parvati]

Latest PACER item is the government's letter in opposition to all Ottaviano's recent filings. It refers to "former US Attorney Vartan," so one might assume that Vartan is not only off this case, but also no longer with the DoJ.

Government's Letter in Opposition

[Pangea]

Latest PACER item...refers to "former US Attorney Vartan," so one might assume that Vartan is not only off this case, but also no longer with the DoJ.

Vartan took a job with Gov. Christie. His intention was to finish this case, but with all the delays, that became impossible.

[Parvati]

Latest PACER item...refers to "former US Attorney Vartan," so one might assume that Vartan is not only off this case, but also no longer with the DoJ.

Vartan took a job with Gov. Christie. His intention was to finish this case, but with all the delays, that became impossible.

Ah! Thanks--I was hoping it wasn't something untoward on Vartan's part. V. seems like a decent guy--can't blame him for moving on to a gig that almost certainly offers a higher salary. And "Big Ron O" made it clear that he was going to drag this horse as far as he could for as long as he could; Vartan probably had to make a choice between finishing off Ron O. or taking the new gig while it was available.

[Parvati]

On 10 May, the DoJ/US Atty filed this: Motion in Limine

Today, Ottaviano filed these:
1.) Response in Opposition

2.) Motion for Judge to Certify Appeal (re: denied Speedy Trial

3.) Motion for Misc Relief

[grixit]

More "no implementing regulation" claims. Where did this idea come from?

[Parvati]

Government:

1.) Memorandum of the US in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts 11 and 14 of the Superseding Indictment
(Attachments here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55896469 )

Ottaviano:

1.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law In the Decision of the SCotUS in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

In which Ottaviano asks the court to (emphasis in original):

...take Judicial Notice of the true nature of the Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, (1916) decision, and take a formal decision to recognize that the personal federal income tax was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1916 to be constitutional as an indirect tax, and is NOT a direct tax with apportionment, as was incorrectly and erroneously applied in these matters by the I.R.S. in calculating the demanded disputed alleged tax amounts.

2.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Decision of the SCotUS in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.

In which Ottaviano duplicates the last bit exactly, with the exception of the citation (emphasis in original):

...take Judicial Notice of the true nature of the Brushaber v Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, (1916) decision, and take a formal decision to recognize that the personal federal income tax was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1916 to be constitutional as an indirect tax, and is NOT a direct tax with apportionment, as was incorrectly and erroneously applied in these matters by the I.R.S. in calculating the demanded disputed alleged tax amounts.

3.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Decision of the SCotUS in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

In which Ottaviano states (emphasis in original):

...take Judicial Notice of the true nature of the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911) decision, and take a formal decision to recognize that the federal corporate excise tax on corporate income was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1911 to be constitutional as an indirect tax, and is NOT a direct tax with apportionment, as was incorrectly and erroneously applied in these matters by the I.R.S. in calculating the demanded disputed alleged tax amounts.

4.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Federal Statutes of Title 26 Establishing the Enforceable Liability for Payment of Tax

(Edited to fix link at #4.)

[LPC]

4.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Federal Statutes of Title 26 Establishing the Enforceable Liability for Payment of Tax

This fourth link seems to point to a deleted document on the value of tomato juice.

[Demosthenes]

Parvati, is the trial still scheduled for next week?

[notorial dissent]

OK, and what does a 1911 SCT ruling on the Corporate Income Tax of the time have to do with the case at hand?????

The other two I am just taking as an attempt to obfuscate an already settled issue.

[Parvati]

Parvati, is the trial still scheduled for next week?

Yes, it is--in Newark, NJ. They're allowing for a 6-week run. It's not *expected* to last for the entire 6 weeks, but Ottaviano has said he would drag it out for as long as he could, so I suppose they wanted to allow for the possibility (or probability) of extended bouts of bulls**t.

[Parvati]

4.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Federal Statutes of Title 26 Establishing the Enforceable Liability for Payment of Tax

This fourth link seems to point to a deleted document on the value of tomato juice.

o.O Weird. Fixed now. Thanks!

[webhick]

4.) Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Federal Statutes of Title 26 Establishing the Enforceable Liability for Payment of Tax

This fourth link seems to point to a deleted document on the value of tomato juice.

o.O Weird. Fixed now. Thanks!

Sounds to me like we're getting a taste of Parvati's browsing habits.

[Parvati]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONALD OTTAVIANO, et al.,
Defendants.

Crim. Number: 10-485 (WJM)

ORDER

HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI

This matter having come before the Court on the various pretrial motions made by Defendants; Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Christopher J. Kelly and Gurbir S. Grewal, Assistant U.S. Attorneys), having opposed defendants’ pretrial motions and filed a motion in limine to admit certain evidence; the Court having considered the written submissions and having heard the arguments of counsel and Mr. Ottaviano; for the reasons expressed by the Court on the record on May 18, 2011; and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 19th day of May, 2011,
ORDERED that the requests made by Defendants Wilson Calle and Angel Done for substitution or withdrawal of their respective counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act are DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Ottaviano’s request for substitution or withdrawal of his standby counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act is DENIED; and
ITS {sic} IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Ottaviano’s pretrial motions to dismiss the Superseding Indictment, docket entries 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 145 and 146, are DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Harriet Foster’s motion for
additional peremptory challenges is GRANTED in part, and the Court will permit defendants Ronald Ottaviano, Michael Balice, Harriet Foster, Wilson Calle and Angel Done to exercise, collectively, two additional peremptory challenges, for a total number of peremptory challenges to be exercised by all defendants of twelve; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will reserve its decisions on the Parties’ outstanding motions in limine regarding the introduction of certain evidence.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:10-cr-00485-WJM Document 155 Filed 05/22/11

[Parvati]

Trial starts today, 26 May 2011. They've allowed for 6 weeks. I feel bad for the folks on the jury--particularly since they will have to spend a good portion of their time listening to Ottaviano's semi-literate, self-aggrandizing, windy bullsh**tery.

[Parvati]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONALD OTTAVIANO, et al.,
Defendants.

Crim. Number: 10-485 (WJM)

ORDER

HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion to dismiss Counts Eleven and Fourteen of the Superseding Indictment as well as certain overt acts alleged in Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment filed by the United States of America; and the Court having carefully considered the supporting papers; and the Defendants having raised no objection to the requested dismissal; and this matter also coming before the Court on motions made by Ronald Ottaviano requesting a ruling that the federal income tax is not a direct tax without apportionment; this Court having reviewed the motions and the decisions to which they refer and other relevant law; this Court also noting that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected similar arguments in United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943 (3d Cir. 1990); and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 26th day of May, 2011, hereby,
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss Counts Eleven and Fourteen (Dkt. 153) is GRANTED as to all Defendants named therein and Counts Eleven and Fourteen are DISMISSED; it is further
ORDERED that paragraphs 33, 37, 42, 46, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 68, 74, and 75 of the Superseding Indictment are DISMISSED; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Ronald Ottaviano’s motions, docket entries 149, 150, 151, and 152, are DENIED.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

[Parvati]

1.) Co-conspirator Michael Balice's Motion in Limine. If you have a minute, take a look at this guy's criminal history (which is the subject of this Motion). Given that he's (ostensibly) on the path to becoming a member of the clergy, I find his rap sheet particularly entertaining.

The essence of the Motion is:

Mr. Balice has eleven prior criminal felony convictions and numerous other
convictions for disorderly persons offenses. These convictions include various drug
related charges, robbery charges, fraud charge and several charges for unauthorized use
of vehicles. However, as outlined below, these convictions all occurred in or before
1983. The specific dates and charges for which Mr. Balice was convicted are as follows:

January 7, 1970 - Robbery
October 3, 1995 - Counterfeit License
March 14, 1969 - Unauthorized Use of Vehicle
March 25, 1969 - Unauthorized Use of Vehicle
March 26, 1969 - Unauthorized Use of Vehicle
September 8, 1972 - Robbery
June 15, 1972 - Robbery; Committing crime while armed
March 14, 1975 - Robbery
April 4, 1977 - Drug Offense; Drug Offense
January 26, 1978 - Fraud
April 26, 1979 - Fraud
May 1, 1980 - Fraud; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
October 12, 1978 - Larceny
January 23, 1979 - Fraud (Insufficient Funds)
April 18, 1983 - Drug Offense (Cocaine)

On February 1, 1984, Mr. Balice was released from jail in connection with his
1983 drug offense conviction. Since 1984, Mr. Balice has had no further arrests. Given
the remote dates of the convictions outlined above, the Government should be
precluded from admitting evidence relating to these convictions at trial as remote under
New Jersey Rule of Evidence 609.

2.) Ottaviano filed to have the terms of his bail modified so that he could interview Defense witnesses at a more convenient location. He was granted a temporary change in terms for two days, provided that he abide by certain conditions.

3.) The Gov't has filed a revised Superseding Indictment. (Looks like Big Ron O made over $550K, a couple years back.)

Edited to add a quote and fix URL.

[LPC]

On February 1, 1984, Mr. Balice was released from jail in connection with his
1983 drug offense conviction. Since 1984, Mr. Balice has had no further arrests. Given
the remote dates of the convictions outlined above, the Government should be
precluded from admitting evidence relating to these convictions at trial as remote under
New Jersey Rule of Evidence 609.

The New Jersey Rules of Evidence? Shouldn't the U.S. District Court for New Jersey be looking at the Federal Rules of Evidence?

FRE 609 is similar (if not identical) to NJRE 609, and federal decisions are cited in support of the motion, but the reference to the NJ rules is peculiar.

Is there some reason why the NJ rules would apply in this case or in this court? Or is this an odd kind of typo?

[Demosthenes]

If his last arrest was in 1984, why is there a 1995 felony in the list?

October 3, 1995 - Counterfeit License

Typo?