Please note: For the sake of consistency, in this website, John Parks Trowbridge, Jr. is always the “Petitioner” (capital “P”), a practice first adopted when this webpage was opened after Petitioner’s filing of a petition in the Supreme Court in 2014. In the current IRS summons case, however, John Parks Trowbridge, Jr. is the “respondent” (lower-case “r”) and IRS is the “petitioner” (lower-case “p”).
—
After the judge on September 13, 2017, enters his Order Compelling Compliance with Summons, Petitioner on September 25, 2017, files a Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from said Order as void for the issuer’s (the judge’s) lack of constitutional authority to discharge or perform the duties of a judge anywhere in the Union, in places like Harris County, Texas, for failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Despite no lawful authority to continue the charade, the judge the next day, September 26, 2017, declares the usual false generalities in his denial of the Rule 60(b)(4) motion and subsequent Order compelling Petitioner’s appearance at the October 2, 2017, examination (the “Examination”).
Petitioner appears as appointed at the Examination accompanied by a Certified Shorthand Reporter (C.S.R.) (who produces a transcript of the Examination) and submits to questioning.
At the Examination, the United States Department of Justice attorney representing the IRS notifies Petitioner that if Petitioner does not cooperate and answer questions and produce documents that he will file a motion with the Court to have Petitioner held in contempt.
Petitioner answers certain of the IRS’s questions, but declines to answer others or produce any documents.
Knowing that the USDOJ attorney representing the (private-sector) IRS was not pleased with Petitioner’s aforementioned abstentions, Petitioner the following day, October 3, 2017, files in the Court Respondent’s Notice of Readiness to Comply with the Orders of the Court (Documents 11 and 13) and Request for Grant of Immunity against Potential Self-Incrimination (the “Notice and Request”).
Local Rule 7.4 gives the USDOJ attorney 21 days to file a response in opposition to the Notice and Request, but he neither files a response in opposition nor a motion to have Petitioner held in contempt; instead: Silence.
What this means is that the USDOJ attorney did not know what to do.
Why would the USDOJ attorney not know what to do?
It is a simple motion to oppose the Notice and Request or for an order holding Petitioner in contempt.
The reason Petitioner’s October 3, 2017, Notice and Request stultifies the USDOJ attorney is that the USDOJ attorney ultimately is not interested in answers to questions and production of documents which would allow the IRS to calculate Petitioner’s alleged tax liability (as falsely propounded by the USDOJ attorney at the Examination).
The USDOJ attorney wants to set the stage so Petitioner can be charged with “willful failure to file” and tried, convicted, and imprisoned—and a response in opposition or a motion to have Petitioner held in contempt would throw a wrinkle in that process (the USDOJ attorney wants Petitioner to volunteer testimony and records without a grant of immunity).
So, upon receipt of the October 3, 2017, Notice and Request the USDOJ attorney goes deer-in-the-headlights, freezes in his tracks, and misses the opportunity for a timely filing of a response in opposition.
Evidently, the next move comes from above (as does the intent to bring criminal charges against Petitioner), because the USDOJ attorney evidently is not crafty enough to figure out how to orchestrate the witch hunt within 21 days of the filing of the Notice and Request.
On the tenth day after lapse of the deadline, the USDOJ attorney files in the Court a motion to file, out of time, a response to Petitioner’s Notice and Request.
The reason, says the USDOJ attorney, as to why he failed to file a response within the 21 days, is that he was “confused” by the title of Petitioner’s Notice and Request: He thought it was only a “notice” and not a motion—even though a request and a motion are the same thing (a legal fact which is taught the first day of law school) and the clerk labeled the filing on the docket as a motion—and wants, therefore, to be granted relief, based on “excusable neglect,” to file, out-of-time (late), a response.
A sworn declaration as to the veracity of such factual contentions is an essential element of such filing, but the USDOJ attorney omits to include such evidence (declaration) or even an explanation as to an alleged sequence of events that would support his factual contentions and, apparently, just wants the Court to take his (unsworn) word for it and rubber-stamp his motion.
The language of the USDOJ attorney’s motion to file a response out-of-time is all “sweetness and light,” i.e., exudes utter innocence as to any wrongdoing and seemingly is written by a babe-in-the-woods attorney.
Accompanying the USDOJ attorney’s out-of-time motion is the object thereof, his proposed response to Petitioner’s Notice and Request, which is couched in terms, however, that are anything but innocent and evidently written by a seasoned government attorney, experienced in bringing down his prey.
To the USDOJ attorney’s two aforementioned filings, Petitioner responds with an exposé of the USDOJ attorney’s guile:
-
- A Response to IRS’s motion to be allowed to file, out of time, a response to the Notice and Request; and
- A Reply to IRS’s proposed response to the Notice and Request.
supremecourtcase 