Win/Loss for TPs in the 9th?

[The Observer]

I wasn't able to find the original district court case for this appeal, but it appears that the Gomeses were pursuing a 23-C argument about their assessment. As typical this is a major victory since they avoided sanctions.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOUIE F. GOMES,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
PATRICIA GOMES, GARY GOMES,
Defendants.

Release Date: SEPTEMBER 08, 2008

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D.C. No. CV-06-00161-ECR/VPC

MEMORANDUM/*/

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 26, 2008/**/

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Louie F. Gomes appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the government in its action to reduce to judgment unpaid tax assessments and foreclose federal tax liens on Gomes' property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gomes failed to refute evidence showing that he was properly assessed for his tax liabilities. The government submitted Certificates of Assessments and Payments to demonstrate that Gomes was properly assessed for his tax liabilities. See id. at 535 (holding that Certificates of Assessments and Payments are presumptive proof of a valid tax liability assessment); see also Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat summary judgment). In the absence of contrary proof, the government's forms establish that the notices and demand for payment of the assessments were made and sent. See Hughes, 953 F.2d at 535. Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that Gomes' property could be sold to satisfy his tax debt. See 26 U.S.C. sections 7402(a), 7403(a).

We deny the government's motion for sanctions.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

/*/ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/**/ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[ClobberroTestii]

I wasn't able to find the original district court case for this appeal, but it appears that the Gomeses were pursuing a 23-C argument about their assessment. As typical this is a major victory since they avoided sanctions.

1. The opinion states that the appeal is from the District Court for Nevada and even gives the docket number. I realize that may not narrrow it down enough for you but it will have to do!

2. Where in the opinion did you find anything that would show that the appellant was pursuing a "23-C" argument?

[The Observer]

I wasn't able to find the original district court case for this appeal, but it appears that the Gomeses were pursuing a 23-C argument about their assessment. As typical this is a major victory since they avoided sanctions.

1. The opinion states that the appeal is from the District Court for Nevada and even gives the docket number. I realize that may not narrrow it down enough for you but it will have to do!

Yes, but I lack specific knowledge and resources to track it down that way.

2. Where in the opinion did you find anything that would show that the appellant was pursuing a "23-C" argument?

My presumption is based on the fact that there was a challenge lodged by the taxpayers over the validity of the assessment, that the government had to bring in certified copies of the certificates of assessment in the original trial, the taxpayers appeared pro se, and the government requested sanctions against the taxpayers for appealing. This all adds up to a good probability that the taxpayers were protestors and that they had pursued the usual invalid assessment tactic by challenging the validity of the 23-c assessment documents.

[ASITStands]

2. Where in the opinion did you find anything that would show that the appellant was pursuing a "23-C" argument?

My presumption is based on the fact that there was a challenge lodged by the taxpayers over the validity of the assessment, that the government had to bring in certified copies of the certificates of assessment in the original trial, the taxpayers appeared pro se, and the government requested sanctions against the taxpayers for appealing. This all adds up to a good probability that the taxpayers were protestors and that they had pursued the usual invalid assessment tactic by challenging the validity of the 23-c assessment documents.

And, while I might "jump to that conclusion" on much the same basis, and the fact the Opinion cited Hughes v. United States at 535, which indeed cites assessment issues, the "actual" arguments in United States v. Gomes in the district case were much simpler.

The objections turned on the statutory definitions of "taxpayer," "taxable income," "taxable year," "nature of the alleged tax," "class of the alleged tax" and "constitutional requirement of the alleged tax." See docket no. 23, which includes a copy of the Interrogatories.

In United States v. Gomes the government filed a complaint to reduce tax assessments to a judgment and foreclose on a tax lien. The government prevailed, and the house was sold.

Other than challenges to a "delegation of authority" and "jurisdiction," the request for production of documents repeats much of the same questions in the Interrogatories. In essence, the Gomes asked for documents to support the government's definitions.

The one challenge of assessment comes in request no. 13, "All documents classified as assessments pertaining to the defendant." No request for "Form 23-C."

[ClobberroTestii]

My presumption is based on the fact that there was a challenge lodged by the taxpayers over the validity of the assessment, that the government had to bring in certified copies of the certificates of assessment in the original trial, the taxpayers appeared pro se, and the government requested sanctions against the taxpayers for appealing.

Where in the opinion do you see that the government had to bring in "certified copies of the certificates of assessment"? The opinion only refers to "Certificates of Assessments and Payments".

How do you conclude that these "certificates" are "23-C assessment documents"?

This all adds up to a good probability that the taxpayers were protestors and that they had pursued the usual invalid assessment tactic by challenging the validity of the 23-c assessment documents.

There is no basis for your contention that the taxpayer disputed the validity of a so-called "23-C assessment". There is no basis for your contention this taxpayer proceeding pro se or appealing an adverse outcome is a "protester". Your contention that everything "adds up" is equally without merit. Hmmm.....I guess that about does it!

[Demosthenes]

The regulars posting here (such as The Observer) have enough experience with tax protesters that we've gotten really good at identifying who they are from basic clues in the court documents.

The Observer, of course, was right. According to US v. Gomes, Mr. Gomes hasn't filed any tax returns since 1992.

On March 27, 2006, the United States filed the instant complaint against Mr. Gomes seeking to reduce to judgment various federal tax, penalty, and interest assessments against Mr. Gomes for tax years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (the “tax years at issue”). To facilitate collection of these outstanding liabilities, the United States included a claim to foreclose the federal tax liens upon certain real property in which Mr. Gomes and his siblings – Patricia Homeyer and Gary Gomes – each possess an undivided one-third (1/3) interest.

Federal Tax Assessments Against Louie Gomes

2. Mr. Gomes failed to file federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue.

and

In response to the United States’ request that Mr. Gomes admit his failure to file federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue (see Exhibit R to Hulbig Dec., Request No. 1), Mr. Gomes alleged that he could not respond because the United States (a) did not identify any law requiring him to “file”; (b) did not define the term “file” pursuant to any law; and (c) assumed he had a “tax year.”

Pure, unadulterated TP crap.

[ClobberroTestii]

Pure, unadulterated TP crap.

Now that the discussion has expanded to the lower court documents, I agree.

[Demosthenes]

Excerpt from the Judge's Order in the original DIstrict Court case.

The Certificates of Assessments and Payments (Form 4340) submitted by the Government for the tax years in question are sufficient proof that the tax assessments were made. Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant Louie Gomes has produced no contrary evidence. Id. Mr. Gomes only argument is that these assessments were unconstitutional and his argument is without merit. Other than his constitutional argument,
no argument has been made that the liens on the Fallon property are invalid.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gomes33.pdf

Sample TP garbage filed by Gomes:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gomes8.pdf

[The Observer]

Thanks, Demo. I note that the people who were objecting to my conclusions didn't bother to upload any sections of the district court case to support their contentions that these people weren't TPs.

Where in the opinion do you see that the government had to bring in "certified copies of the certificates of assessment"? The opinion only refers to "Certificates of Assessments and Payments".

That is what typically expected and accepted by the courts as evidence to the government's assertions that an assessment has occurred. What do you think a "Certificate of Assessment" means?

There is no basis for your contention that the taxpayer disputed the validity of a so-called "23-C assessment".

Perhaps not - but I find it strange that you failed to provide the district court ruling. Were you trying to avoid revealing the now-known fact that the defendants were indeed pursuing TP arguments? Or did you even bother reading the district court case?

There is no basis for your contention this taxpayer proceeding pro se or appealing an adverse outcome is a "protester". Your contention that everything "adds up" is equally without merit. Hmmm.....I guess that about does it!

Other than the strange result that I was right and you were wrong. How do you account for that?

[grixit]

The regulars posting here (such as The Observer) have enough experience with tax protesters that we've gotten really good at identifying who they are from basic clues in the court documents.

The Observer, of course, was right. According to US v. Gomes, Mr. Gomes hasn't filed any tax returns since 1992.

On March 27, 2006, the United States filed the instant complaint against Mr. Gomes seeking to reduce to judgment various federal tax, penalty, and interest assessments against Mr. Gomes for tax years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (the “tax years at issue”). To facilitate collection of these outstanding liabilities, the United States included a claim to foreclose the federal tax liens upon certain real property in which Mr. Gomes and his siblings – Patricia Homeyer and Gary Gomes – each possess an undivided one-third (1/3) interest.

Federal Tax Assessments Against Louie Gomes

2. Mr. Gomes failed to file federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue.

and

In response to the United States’ request that Mr. Gomes admit his failure to file federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue (see Exhibit R to Hulbig Dec., Request No. 1), Mr. Gomes alleged that he could not respond because the United States (a) did not identify any law requiring him to “file”; (b) did not define the term “file” pursuant to any law; and (c) assumed he had a “tax year.”

Pure, unadulterated TP crap.

Melon Cat in da house!

[Famspear]

When you've studied as many tax protesters as The Observer and other Quatloos regulars have studied, it's easy to spot 'em a mile away.

Another teeny-tiny example:

At the trial court, defendant Louie Gomes filed a "Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint" (United States v. Gomes, docket entry 8, on May 4, 2006, case no. 3:06-cv-00161-ECR-VPC, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada). On page 1 of the Memorandum, Mr. Gomes cites what he calls the case of "Boathe v. Terry." The "B-O-A-T-H-E" spelling is wrong, and is obviously copied and pasted over and over and over by tax protesters from tax protester materials on the internet, etc. I have seen it misspelled precisely that way in the TP postings a gazillion times. Anyone who would bother to diligently read the actual text of the case (instead of just copying tax protester materials) would see that the correct spelling is "Bothke," that's "B-O-T-H-K-E," not "B-O-A-T-H-E."

Curiously, in the CCH version on line, there is a misspelling of the name of one of the other parties in the CCH version of the heading. Here is the citation:

Hans Bothke, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Flour Engineers and Constructors, Inc., et al., Defendants, and W. J. Terry, Defendant-Appellee, 83-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9556 (9th Cir. 1983).

A prize of ten quatloos to the first person who finds the misspelling!

Note: The West citation for this case is: 713 F.2d 1405. I don't have immediate access to a copy of the opinion in the West Federal Reporter, so I don't know whether the misspelled name is in the heading for the case in the West reporter. (Uh, maybe someone here with immense amounts of spare time who is completely bored with whatever is going on can check on this?)

The point is that tax protesters give themselves away very quickly without even realizing it. And they can't help themselves. Such is their lot in life -- which must be terrible for those poor, miserable, non-Illuminati, delusional, dumbcluck, doofus, dimwit droolers.

And I say that with all due respect.

[ASITStands]

I note that the people who were objecting to my conclusions didn't bother to upload any sections of the district court case to support their contentions that these people weren't TPs.

How do you upload documents? I looked at the docket and posted what I saw, but I could just as easily have uploaded the documents earlier if I knew how to do so.

More of my being "less-educated" than most here, I suppose.

And, it's Fluor not Flour, 'Famspear.' When are ya gonna learn to spell?

[Dr. Caligari]

A prize of ten quatloos to the first person who finds the misspelling!

Without checking the case, I will guess that "Flour' should be "Fluor" or something similar.

[Famspear]

A prize of ten quatloos to the first person who finds the misspelling!

Without checking the case, I will guess that "Flour' should be "Fluor" or something similar.

Kah-ching! Kah-ching! That's absolutely right!

Uh, can I owe you the ten quatloos? I'm a little short of funds right now!

[ASITStands]

A prize of ten quatloos to the first person who finds the misspelling!

Without checking the case, I will guess that "Flour' should be "Fluor" or something similar.

Kah-ching! Kah-ching! That's absolutely right!

Uh, can I owe you the ten quatloos? I'm a little short of funds right now!

If you check my post, you owe me the quatloos but I won't remind you.

[Famspear]

If you check my post, you owe me the quatloos but I won't remind you.

Ooops.

EDIT: Yes, it's "Fluor," not "Flour." I didn't notice that you had already posted.

Now, my other question still stands: Is it misspelled in the West Reporter as well?

[ASITStands]

For the record: I didn't guess. I checked Altlaw.org and found it spelled Fluor.

I'm not currently using Westlaw though I have in the past and hope again in the future.

[Famspear]

Getting back to Mr. Gomes, on page 4 of his May 4, 2006 Memorandum, he wrote:

There is currently pending in this court (05-cv00677-BES-VPC) a complaint asking the court to compel the plaintiff (the United States government) in this case to reveal the secret law and its application to a secret set of facts upon which the plaintiff relies in its assumption that the defendant [Louie Gomes] is a "taxpayer" as defined by law. [ . . . ]

The instant suit is nothing more than an artifice designed to circumvent the prior complaint [ . . . ]. The plaintiff [Gomes, who apparently was the plaintiff who filed the prior complaint] has already been deprived of 100% of his social security benefits for the last 10 months.

(bolding added).

"Secret law," eh? "Secret set of facts"? Boy, I guess Mr. Gomes showed 'em! How do you feel that little bit of sarcasm worked out for you in this case, Mr. Gomes?

[ASITStands]

That sounds like code-language for UCC and the great bankruptcy theory.

The "great secret law" is how the government tricks people into a secret contract. There was a famous letter in the 1940s/50s about the secret contract. Can't remember the name.

Family Guardian has a link to something that appears to have come from either Kent Hovind or Dr. Joe Sweet. It's not the particular letter I was thinking about, but it's close.

I probably have a link around here somewhere.

But the "great secret law" probably refers to how the government tricks people into being "taxpayers" and "government employees," cause dontcha know, only government employees are liable, and the government's tricked everyone into accepting government benefits.

[ASITStands]

Here's Frederick Mann's take on it, but that's not the original I remember.

It might have been something written by Mann, but as I remember, it was anonymous.