Win/Loss for TPs in the 9th?

[Quixote]

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.

Gomez is probably correct that his suit against the government prompted the government's counter suit to reduce his assessment to a judgment. It appears that the IRS almost never sues to reduce an assessment to a judgment unless it gets dragged into court by the taxpayer. Any suit takes time and money, but adding a countersuit to reduce the assessment to a judgment has very little marginal cost.

[ClobberroTestii]

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?

The context for our discussion was framed by you with the appellate court opinion. Your assertions were not correct until the discussion expanded to include the lower court documentation, which by the way, was not offered by you.

[The Observer]

The context for our discussion was framed by you with the appellate court opinion. Your assertions were not correct until the discussion expanded to include the lower court documentation, which by the way, was not offered by you.

But the appellate opinion was based on the earlier district ruling (of which you were aware) and cited enough instances for me to that there was a strong chance that the appellant was a tax protester. I could understand your argument if I just offered an opinion out of the blue that the name "Gomes" equaled "TP". But that isn't what I did. Trying to limit the discussion to only what the appellate court discussed is rather silly since I had pointed out my acknowledgement that there was a district court opinion out there. I would have been impressed if you had actually provided cites from the district court that would have proved me wrong.

Trying to say I wasn't correct until the discussion expanded to the lower court ruling is inaccurate; it would have been more correct if you said that I couldn't be certain of being correct until the district court ruling was introduced. But then again, that would have required you to acknowledge that I had already pointed out my uncertainity by the question mark in the subject header, my use of words like "appears" and the fact that I acknowledged existence of the lower court ruling.

(In fact, this situation reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat experiment; I could theoretically argue that I was simultaneously wrong and right at the same time until Demosthenes peeked at the district court case.)