A common Law attempt at relief for apparent tax violations
Below we find a 1990 attempt to address the tax Laws in their proper form.
This was not an unusual presentation for that era of time, as many people were openly addressing the impropriety of the tax [labeled as tax protestors].
Note the references to the A.D.P. Code Book and the I.M.F. files, these would have exposed the foreign nature of the tax, that it was for importation of drugs and alcohol into United States territories.
It would be reasonable to presume that this attempted "Motion
Day" also failed to protect the party from prosecution, or
retreive the necessary exhibits.
These were NOT well accepted, moreover, this was likely placed
into a statutory administrative court, which would have
automatically denied the request. That court is limited to
"administering" for the government, not protection of the
Citizens.
You should also note that the Motion must contain ALL the requested actions from the court(which this one does not), NOT the Memorandum or "Points and Authorities". Therefore, the court could disregard the dismissal request (though that could be cause for appeal, due to the US Attorney refusal to comply with prior court ORDER), as the only relief in the Motion was for records/evidence.
The Memorandums should only contain extensions and support to the presentations (relief) within the Motion, not new requests (though "alternatives" may be addressed if supported within the body of the Motion).
TO: PLAINTIFF'S AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: that on the ______________ day of 1990, at the hour of 0930 hours a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in Department _____ , of the above entitled court, Accused White Citizen XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will move the court to order that the government provide copies or access to any and all documents, notes, investigation reports, Individual Master Files, (decoded into plain language or a copy of A.D.P. Code Book), that are maintained by any and all government agencies, which includes but not limited to, the Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, etc..
The reason for this request is that the records may contain exculpatory material. This request is not made to delay or hinder the court nor for any other improper purpose, and that this request is not unreasonable, given the needs of the case and the extreme importance of the issues involved.
This motion will be based upon the records, filings, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached herewith.
Dated ___________, 1990
Respectfully Submitted
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
As the Court is aware, this is a case of first impression and a highly unusual case regarding the Accused Citizen being placed within a class of specific persons, who are non-State Citizens. As such this case is particularly appropriate for liberal discovery treatment. See United States v. Narciso, 446 Fed. Supp. 252 (1977).
In a more recent case decided in November 1989, by the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Buford, 88-1924, the court reversed the convictions of two men, on 14 counts, stating that the I.R.S. cannot conceal evidence which may possibly contain exculpatory material, mainly the I.M.F. File.
The Defendant have requested discovery from the Plaintiffs, but the U.S. Attorney has stated that she would not recognize the request, that the Defendant would have to get a motion from the Court. Ordinarily, filing a request after the court has approved discovery should not require an additional order from the court to obtain discovery.
The U.S. Attorney, by refusing to answer the discovery request has made admissions and confessions of the concealment of exculpatory evidence and material facts. This wilful and deliberate concealment of evidence, which should be made available to the Defendant but, it has not been properly made available due to the possible fraudulent activities by the Plaintiffs.
The Accused Citizen's position is legally and morally correct, and completely supported by the law. In Republic of China v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., D.C. Md. 1956, 142 Fed. Supp. 551, the court declared that the United States, like any other litigant is subject to those rules, and may not refuse to make the same sort of disclosure, as would be required of any individual.
In People v. Riser, (1956) 47 Cal. 2d. 566, 305 P.2d. 1, the California Supreme Court held that:
"The decision of this court have always impliedly recognized that on a proper showing a defendant in a criminal case can compel production when it becomes clear during the course of trial that the prosecution has in its possession revelant and material evidence."
Also in Life Music, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., D.C. N.Y. 1966, 41 F.R.D. 16, it was held that if some expense or burden is involved in answering discovery, does not excuse failure to answer.
A protective order should not be issued if it would result in denying one party in the case access to proof necessary to defend themselves NAACP, Western Region v. Hodgson, 57 F.R.D. 81.
And merely because compliance with a request for production would be time consuming or costly is not ordinarily sufficient reason to grant a protective order where the requested material is relevant and necessary to the discovery of evidence. Kozlowski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 73 F.R.D.
Even though the releasing of the information may result in the correct application of some procedures and the correct application of the law as it is written, this Court must uphold the intent of the law and deny any protective order. Thereby denying the government the ability to conceal evidence that may be exculpatory in nature.
In the alternative, the Court would be proper in issuing an immediate dismissal of all charges, Robinson v. Transamerica Insurance Co. C.A., Utah, 1966, 368 Fed. 2nd. 37, against the Defendant, based upon the refusal to comply with the discovery request.
Dated