Civil Action No. H-13-1226 will not be appealed. Cost is a factor, however, after further research I have concluded that the federal district court may not be the best or proper court.
The best or proper court is most likely the U.S. Tax Court or U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The U.S. District Court has refused to exercise it's subject matter jurisdictional powers in this tax matter. The reasoning is Wisconsin Department of Revenue adjusted the taxpayers state and federal income tax returns and not the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency.
The taxpayers were not charged with tax evasion by the federal government and the federal government has made no attempt to collect on the state's conviction of $650,000 dollars of unreported income. Although federal law does require that a taxpayer be given notice and hearing before conviction the state has the right in it's legal system to ignore federal laws.
How To Get Away With White Collar Crime
Become a Government Official
Court House
No Justice!!!
Friday, January 3, 2014
Thursday, December 19, 2013
MILWAUKEE CIRCUIT COURT SENDS UNTIMELY RECORD TO APPEALS COURT
December 16, 2013, four additional copies of petitioner's appeal of circuit court judge's decision on discharge certificate was delivered to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and an additional copy to the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office via first class U.S. Mail.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
DECEMBER 5, 2013, U.S. DISTRICT COURT GRANTED MOTION IN PART DENIED IN PART
Plaintiff objections mailed on November 6, 2013... due November 12, 2013... were not filed by clerk until November 25, 2013... and thus, were untimely.
This court is not prohibited from considering plaintiff's untimely objections. Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff requests this court consider his objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, his motion is GRANTED in part.
Having considered the objections...the court finds no reason to disturb its previous order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in its entirety. The court, therefore, will not alter or amend its final judgment dismissing this cause. To the extent plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is construed as a challenge to this court's final judgment, his motion is DENIED in part.
The beat goes on...is there cause to appeal? Maybe yes in part maybe no in part. Time will tell.
This court is not prohibited from considering plaintiff's untimely objections. Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff requests this court consider his objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, his motion is GRANTED in part.
Having considered the objections...the court finds no reason to disturb its previous order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in its entirety. The court, therefore, will not alter or amend its final judgment dismissing this cause. To the extent plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is construed as a challenge to this court's final judgment, his motion is DENIED in part.
The beat goes on...is there cause to appeal? Maybe yes in part maybe no in part. Time will tell.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
U.S. Mail No Longer Reliable?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)