The venue is interesting for any number of reasons.Plaintiffs Glen Suschanke Jr. and Tabitha Suschanke are suing Patrick Woods and several of his companies for allegedly reporting that Glen Suschanke earned tens of thousands of dollars from Woods' companies over the span of a decade.
I think they would be more likey to claim he worked for him but never earned any wages. If they are Pro Se then I agree TP, but this case may have some reasoning behind it.The Suschankes' claim that Glen never worked for Woods or his companies and that he never earned the income the IRS has sought to tax.
Nancy Montgomery-Ware tried this three times and lost all three.The Observer wrote:Not the first time that we have seen these kinds of suits. Angry and uneducated TP decides that, instead of confronting the federal government in federal district court, they will take their frustration out on the employer, their bank or whoever gave information and/or money to the IRS. In a weird way, this is akin to what David Merrill Van Pelt attempts to do with his "cure" for liens/levies - bypass the government and attempt to bluff the bank or employer into releasing funds.
BTW, she still has about 10 months left on her sentence:Desvaux-Bedke also questioned Montgomery-Ware about three lawsuits she filed against her former partner in Lakeland, Dr. Harry Bopp, because he withheld federal income taxes from her wages. Montgomery-Ware acknowledged that the court had ruled against her all three times, finding the lawsuits were filed in bad faith and ordering her to pay Bopp's legal fees.
Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date
Location
1. NANCY MONTGOMERY-WARE 49360-018 45-White-F 09-21-2010 COLEMAN MED FCI
For a while, there was a rash of lein-release actions in local and state courts.The Observer wrote:Not the first time that we have seen these kinds of suits. Angry and uneducated TP decides that, instead of confronting the federal government in federal district court, they will take their frustration out on the employer, their bank or whoever gave information and/or money to the IRS. In a weird way, this is akin to what David Merrill Van Pelt attempts to do with his "cure" for liens/levies - bypass the government and attempt to bluff the bank or employer into releasing funds.
I'll bet 1000 Quatloos that this is yet another TP pro se suit. Only a layers of the ilk of Lowell Becraft might put his name on twaddle like this.bmielke wrote:This Doesn't seem like the typical TP crap to me.
I think they would be more likey to claim he worked for him but never earned any wages. If they are Pro Se then I agree TP, but this case may have some reasoning behind it.The Suschankes' claim that Glen never worked for Woods or his companies and that he never earned the income the IRS has sought to tax.
One of those specific federal statutes is IRC §7434, civil damages for fraudulant filing of information returns. If the facts are on Suschanke's side, he should have brought suit under 7434. Damages under 7434 are the greater of $5,000 or the sum of actual damages, costs and, at the court's discretion, attorneys fees.Nikki wrote:1 - Removal to Federal District court, since there are specific federal statutes addressing the issue and immunizing the employer from exactly this type of action
2 - Dismissal by the District court for failure to state a justicable claim.
I would take that bet, I re-read the article.Pottapaug1938 wrote: I'll bet 1000 Quatloos that this is yet another TP pro se suit. Only a layers of the ilk of Lowell Becraft might put his name on twaddle like this.
Bolding added.The Suschankes argue that they have been forced to declare bankruptcy, close bank accounts, have seen their credit ruined and have suffered emotional distress due to Woods' actions. They claim that they contacted Woods asking him to cease reporting the non-existent income as did their accountant and attorney.
Although damages are unspecified in the suit, the couple seeks payment of their legal fees for both the suit and their IRS legal issues, payment of the taxes and penalties they have suffered and other relief.
The plaintiffs are represented by David Damick.
From this one:Cpt Banjo wrote:Here's an earlier article about the suit:
http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/22308 ... fraud-case
In this case he was a contractor. It was probably a dispute that got out of hand so the slimeball that reported the earnings just was trying to get back at the Plantiff.A non-jury trial is scheduled to start Monday over allegations that a man used fraudulent companies and tax numbers to distort a couple's earnings that were reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Plaintiffs Glen Suschanke Jr. and Tabitha Suschanke claim that defendant Patrick Woods and his agents misreported Glenn Suchanke's status as an independent contractor from 1999 to the present. Those reports allegedly have false reports of the couple's income to the IRS, leading, they claim, to unjust tax penalties, interest and bankruptcy.
Sounds like an undocumented worker to me.Those named in the complaint include Woods Drywall Materials Inc., Woods Drywall & Painting, Inc., "Drywall Supply," and "Drywall Material."
...
The Suschankes claim that Woods reported on numerous occasions during the last 10 years that Glen Suschanke had been paid sums of money as an independent contractor when he had not worked for any of the businesses.
Over time, the sums reported were between $15,700 to $45,700.
True, TP's fight as hard as they can to get a jury.Nikki wrote:We all have WOOOOOSHed ourselves.
If this were a TP or Sovereignoramus suit, the last thing requested would be NON-JURY
No self-respecting dim-bulb pro se would ever pass up the chance for a jury nullification.
I would take that bet, I re-read the article.bmielke wrote:Pottapaug1938 wrote: I'll bet 1000 Quatloos that this is yet another TP pro se suit. Only a layers of the ilk of Lowell Becraft might put his name on twaddle like this.
got to love straw men.Pottapaug1938 wrote:I would take that bet, I re-read the article.bmielke wrote:Pottapaug1938 wrote: I'll bet 1000 Quatloos that this is yet another TP pro se suit. Only a layers of the ilk of Lowell Becraft might put his name on twaddle like this.
A check for 1000 Quatloos is on its way to you -- drawn on my strawman account.
IRS may have investigated. If Suschankes told the IRS only that he had not worked for Woods, the IRM requires the relevant IRS employee to send a letter to Woods asking if he had paid Glen Suschanke Jr. the money he claims to have paid him. If someone has been working for Woods under Suschanke's name and SSN, Woods would have responded that he had paid Suschanke. He could even supply cancelled checks. But, if Suschanke told the IRS that he was the victim of identity theft and supplied a picture ID and the ID-theft paperwork de jour, IRS might have then asked Woods if the guy pictured on the ID was the Glen Suschanke Jr. who had worked for him. Depending on where at the IRS the ID theft paperwork wound up, the IRS might instead have acknowledged and logged it, then ignored it for all practical purposes.Judge Roy Bean wrote:All of this is why I wondered if someone had access to the case.
I can't fathom why the IRS didn't at least investigate allegedly false 1099's, particularly since there was a bankruptcy involved somewhere along the line.