|
Attorney John Wolfgram Comments
on WTP RTP Filing
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wolfgram [mailto:johnwolfgram@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:04 PM
To: acta@capital.net
Cc: becraft@hiwaay.net; devvyk@earthlink.net;
(REDACTED)
Subject: RE: EXCELLENT/Re: Wolf Reply to Mark Lane Brief
Bob, I made my comments below, prior to getting the complaint, and I can't
dedicate any more time to it. I am opposing three summary judgment motions
all scheduled for Decelmber 6 and 7 and I am on a deadline. In summary I
have examined Mark's opposition papers, and I think they are splendid. The
only things that I can add were noted. This is the "Capstone' quote that I
mentioned:
The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an
organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights, and
lies at the foundation of orderly government. Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio
R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).
The case that I provided, Moore v Hartman, et al will indeed provide the
legal foundation for much of Mark's argument in part IV, on Retaliation.
Because, in the DC Circuit, "Probable Cause" is not an element for the tort
action of "vindictive prosecution" declaratory relief is much more important
than an injunction, because the IRS is committing the tort of vindictive
prosecution and has the burden, under Moore v Hartman, in addition to
probable cause, that prosecution occurred in the normal course of events. I
think that Mark clearly has demonstrated that the IRS could not meet that
burden.
His argument against applying the anti injunction statute is good, but
even if he loses on that issue, the IRS cannot selectively prosecute or
intimidate the parties hereto without showing that the prosecution occurs
in the normal course of events. So, I would concentrate more on the
declaratory relief, because if you get that, other remedies, as good or
better than injunctive, are available.
As to his 1983 claim. I think it has merit and ought to be researched
further. Back in my memory banks somewhere there is a case on it that
allows suing federal agents for action under state law. That might be the
best of all worlds: They don't have any immunity as state actors.
I think that as to IRS intimidation of parties to a federal action, I'd
want to examine 42 USC 1985 closely. It may be a federal tort. I would
also examine the criminal implications under 18 USC 241, 242. It seems to
me that they do not require a "color of state law" and federal agents
violating rights are prosecutable criminally.
There's not much more to say: It's an excellent brief.
Wolfgram
>From: "Bob Schulz" <acta@capital.net>
>To: "John Wolfgram" <johnwolfgram@hotmail.com>
>CC: (REDACTED)
>Subject: RE: EXCELLENT/Re: Wolf Reply to Mark Lane Brief
>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:57:37 -0500
>
>John,
>
>Attached is the Amended Complaint. That's all I have time for at the
>moment.
>More later. Thank you for your willingness to review and comment. Please
>don't hesitate to include Peter Mancus and Jon Roland with copies of all
>correspondence.
>
>Bob
>
>P.S. Mark, John Wolfgram is the author of "How the Judiciary Stole the
>Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances."
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Wolfgram [mailto:johnwolfgram@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:14 PM
>To: acta@capital.net
>Subject: RE: EXCELLENT/Re: Wolf Reply to Mark Lane Brief
>
>
>Bob Shultz
> Because I don’t have the amended complaint or moving papers, I’m
>in effect commenting on Mark Lane’s Brief in a vacuum. That puts me in
>somewhat less than an enviable position because on whole, this is one of
>the best briefs that I’ve ever read. So, I think at the moment, my
comments
>will have meaning only in a future context of appeal, if that is what is to
>be, and then just things for Mark Lane to consider, and if interested, I
>would feel privileged to discuss them further with him.
>
(...CONTENT REDACTED...)
>
> So, what I am saying here is that the right to a response from
government
>that states its constitutional authority for a law or policy is implied by
>the Duty of the Judiciary to determine Constitutional Issues. How else is
>the issue to get fairly before the judiciary unless government states is
>legal justification for the policy? The necessity of the Court to find a
>right to a response is implied by the separation of powers doctrine. How
>is
>it to have its say on the constitutionality of an issue if the rest of the
>government can hide the legal authority that it claims?
>
>
>P. 20. I have a Supreme Court citation for the “Capstone” right, if you
>want
>it.
>
>I don’t have much to say on the Anti Injunction Issue except for one thing
>that follows as a matter of logic. If you have a right to declaratory
>relief, and the court makes the declaration that you seek holding that the
>questioned government conduct is unconstitutional, then a consensual
>“injunction” follows as a matter of prudence, because once the law is
>declared, strict liability follows for violating it and/or, that declared
>unconstitutional law has no compulsory effect. Moreover, a writ of mandate
>follows to compel the government to obey the declared law.
>
>Bob, I’ve dedicated as much time to this as I can for awhile, and I’ve
>addressed the issues that I’m best briefed in. I’ve noted previously that
>the issue or retaliation has been addressed and clarified just this week by
>the DC Court of Appeals in Moore v Hartman.
>
>I want to reiterate what a superb job Mark Lane is doing. Because of the
>nature of the issue, its central constitutional importance, the best that
>you can hope for is that he lays good foundations for appeal. He has done
>that; and a lot more.
>
>Wolfgram |
