On November 18, 2013, a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division issued an ORDER and JUDGMENT adopting magistrate judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in Civil Action No. H-13-1226, "there were no objections from the plaintiff."
However, the plaintiff mailed his objections November 6, 2013, first class by the most dependable mail service in the world, the U.S. Mail. The clerk of courts office claim is that the mail was never delivered.
The plaintiff submitted his receipt of mailing provided by the U.S. Postal service this time by certified mail November 22, 2013, along with his Motion to Alter or Amend the Order and Judgment adopted and entered on November 18, 2013 with a copy of his letter to the clerk, original Objections to the "M&R", appendix and certification of mailing to the Wisconsin Attorney general's Office. This certainly was an unnecessary expense.
How To Get Away With White Collar Crime
Become a Government Official
Court House
No Justice!!!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
November 06, 2013 Plaintiff Filed Objections To Memorandum and Recommendation Of Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff objects for the following reasons:
1. The Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission's decision is a mistake, accident, deception or fraud. "There are exceptions to Rooker-Feldman doctrine where a state court judgment was procured through fraud, deception, accident or mistake" (quoting In Re Sun Valley Food Co., 801 F. 2d et 189).
(A) Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission is not a court. It has no authority to grant summary judgment under Wis. Stat. 802.08 in a contested tax case. This is a mistake. It is the trial court's function to determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried. Review of administrative decisions by the tax commission is under Administrative Procedure Act, Wis. Stat. 227. This mistake also conflicts with "fair play" provisions of Wis. Stat. 227.44-47 (1997-98). Further, there is also relief under Rule 60 (b), 60 (b) (3) and 60 (b) (6).
2. The circuit court decision is a mistake.
(A) "The jurisdiction of the circuit court to review an order of the tax commission is not invoked unless that tribunal which rendered the decision has been served".
(B) The tax commission was served December 17, 2009. The commission has 30 days to transfer the record to the circuit court. "It was the service of this petition that initiated the authority of the tax commission to transfer its record to the reviewing court, a prerequisite for orderly judicial administrative". "The court held that the service upon the tax commission performed a significant and indispensable role in triggering the process of judicial review" and not the plaintiff mailing a notice to Wisconsin Department of Revenue to establish jurisdiction of the circuit court. This is a mistake.
(C) As of February 23, 2010 the record shows the clerk for the tax commission had not sent the certified record as required by law to the circuit court to establish the court's jurisdiction to proceed.
(D) The tax commission, circuit court, appeals court and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin mistakenly, accidentally, deceptively or fraudulently placed the burden on the taxpayer for the circuit court's lack of jurisdiction to proceed. When "prerequisites exist" the state creates an expectation of the "record transfer" that rises to the level of a liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause if its administrative procedure requires the tax commission to transfer the record to invoke jurisdiction.
1. The Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission's decision is a mistake, accident, deception or fraud. "There are exceptions to Rooker-Feldman doctrine where a state court judgment was procured through fraud, deception, accident or mistake" (quoting In Re Sun Valley Food Co., 801 F. 2d et 189).
(A) Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission is not a court. It has no authority to grant summary judgment under Wis. Stat. 802.08 in a contested tax case. This is a mistake. It is the trial court's function to determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried. Review of administrative decisions by the tax commission is under Administrative Procedure Act, Wis. Stat. 227. This mistake also conflicts with "fair play" provisions of Wis. Stat. 227.44-47 (1997-98). Further, there is also relief under Rule 60 (b), 60 (b) (3) and 60 (b) (6).
2. The circuit court decision is a mistake.
(A) "The jurisdiction of the circuit court to review an order of the tax commission is not invoked unless that tribunal which rendered the decision has been served".
(B) The tax commission was served December 17, 2009. The commission has 30 days to transfer the record to the circuit court. "It was the service of this petition that initiated the authority of the tax commission to transfer its record to the reviewing court, a prerequisite for orderly judicial administrative". "The court held that the service upon the tax commission performed a significant and indispensable role in triggering the process of judicial review" and not the plaintiff mailing a notice to Wisconsin Department of Revenue to establish jurisdiction of the circuit court. This is a mistake.
(C) As of February 23, 2010 the record shows the clerk for the tax commission had not sent the certified record as required by law to the circuit court to establish the court's jurisdiction to proceed.
(D) The tax commission, circuit court, appeals court and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin mistakenly, accidentally, deceptively or fraudulently placed the burden on the taxpayer for the circuit court's lack of jurisdiction to proceed. When "prerequisites exist" the state creates an expectation of the "record transfer" that rises to the level of a liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause if its administrative procedure requires the tax commission to transfer the record to invoke jurisdiction.
October 28, 2013 Magistrate Judge Issues Memorandum and Recommendation
For reasons below, it is Recommended that motion to dismiss be Granted:
Lee's challenges to the rulings of the Wisconsin Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Appellate Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court fall squarely within the ambit of Rooker-Feldman as those are state court judgments over which only the United States Supreme Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction.
The tax appeals commission's decision is inextricably intertwined with the court decisions and also falls within Rooker-Feldman prohibition on the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.
The fact that Lee missed statutory filing deadlines and lost his ability to appeal the tax commission's decision on the merits does not alter the fact that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit this court to reopen the state court process and review the merits of Lee's complaints.
Lee's challenges to the rulings of the Wisconsin Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Appellate Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court fall squarely within the ambit of Rooker-Feldman as those are state court judgments over which only the United States Supreme Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction.
The tax appeals commission's decision is inextricably intertwined with the court decisions and also falls within Rooker-Feldman prohibition on the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.
The fact that Lee missed statutory filing deadlines and lost his ability to appeal the tax commission's decision on the merits does not alter the fact that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit this court to reopen the state court process and review the merits of Lee's complaints.
July 12, 2013 Wisconsin Attorney General's Office files Motion To Dismiss civil action no. H:13 - 1226 United States District Court
The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari upon the following grounds:
1. The Tax Injunction Act.
2. The Rooker - Feldman doctrine.
3. Claim preclusion.
4. Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1. The Tax Injunction Act.
2. The Rooker - Feldman doctrine.
3. Claim preclusion.
4. Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
July 11, 2013, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division Issues Order to Appear
Plaintiff will appear before the magistrate judge on August 13, 2013 and present federal statutes and case law in support of his position that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his suit.
The magistrate judge at the hearing determined that her recommendation would be to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A written recommendation would follow and the plaintiff has 14 days to object.
The magistrate judge at the hearing determined that her recommendation would be to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A written recommendation would follow and the plaintiff has 14 days to object.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)