Ronald Ottaviano

[Pottapaug1938]

His motion is granted. I can only imagine that this will be spun to indicate that Total Victory is His.

Just like the unreconstructed Nazis out there are saying that the Wehrmacht's tactical successes as the Russians closed in on Berlin in 1945 indicate that Germany won the war.

[bmielke]

His motion is granted. I can only imagine that this will be spun to indicate that Total Victory is His.

Just like the unreconstructed Nazis out there are saying that the Wehrmacht's tactical successes as the Russians closed in on Berlin in 1945 indicate that Germany won the war.

Or like the Southerners that claim they won every battle but due to poor decision making by Lee lost the War.

[Gregg]

His motion is granted. I can only imagine that this will be spun to indicate that Total Victory is His.

Just like the unreconstructed Nazis out there are saying that the Wehrmacht's tactical successes as the Russians closed in on Berlin in 1945 indicate that Germany won the war.

Or like the Southerners that claim they won every battle but due to poor decision making by Lee lost the War.

It is said of General Sherman that he never won a battle and never lost a campaign, which may be true, but to the people in Georgia at the time it was pretty much a point they didn't quite get.

[Gregg]

And Judge Martini's response:

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Plaintiff
vs.
RONALD OTTAVIANO - Pro Se Defendant

Criminal No. 10-485 (WJM)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Judge William F. Martini


ORDER
This motion having come before the Court by Defendant Roanld Ottaviano, pro se in the above captioned matter and the Court having considered all papers in support and in opposition to that motion and after due deliberation
it is on this ___________ day of February 2011
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT the First Motion in Limine in this case be and the same is hereby granted.
_________________________________
William F. Martini, U.S.D.C./J.

Case 2:10-cr-00485-WJM Document 112-1 Filed 02/21/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 963

His motion is granted. I can only imagine that this will be spun to indicate that Total Victory is His.

Are you sure that is signed? It looks to me like he wrote the order and attached it to the motion just in case the Judge agreed (which I understand is not at all unusual, in fact)

[bmielke]

And Judge Martini's response:

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Plaintiff
vs.
RONALD OTTAVIANO - Pro Se Defendant

Criminal No. 10-485 (WJM)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Judge William F. Martini


ORDER
This motion having come before the Court by Defendant Roanld Ottaviano, pro se in the above captioned matter and the Court having considered all papers in support and in opposition to that motion and after due deliberation
it is on this ___________ day of February 2011
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT the First Motion in Limine in this case be and the same is hereby granted.
_________________________________
William F. Martini, U.S.D.C./J.

Case 2:10-cr-00485-WJM Document 112-1 Filed 02/21/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 963

His motion is granted. I can only imagine that this will be spun to indicate that Total Victory is His.

Are you sure that is signed? It looks to me like he wrote the order and attached it to the motion just in case the Judge agreed (which I understand is not at all unusual, in fact)

I agree and assumed there shoul have been an "If" in front of "His".

[Judge Roy Bean]

It is highly unlikely it could have been signed.

There hasn't been a response from the USAs office let alone a hearing.

Edited to add: I doubt he'll be successful in keeping the fact that he hasn't filed a tax return since 1991 out of the record.

[notorial dissent]

Are you sure that is signed? It looks to me like he wrote the order and attached it to the motion just in case the Judge agreed (which I understand is not at all unusual, in fact)

More in the realm of wishful thinking like those dismissal orders Pete attached to his motions.

[Parvati]

Someone filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Ottaviano's behalf, demanding his immediate release. (Ottaviano says he had no input in the filing.) One way or another it's a hot mess, and you can read it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49953944

It was filed in September last year, and was dismissed as moot last month:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________

RONALD OTTAVIANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ROY HENDRICKS, et al.,
Respondents.

Civil Action No. 10-5028 (WJM)

O R D E R
(CLOSED)
________________________________

IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On September 21, 2010, a friend of Petitioner’s filed this
habeas petition on his behalf, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging Petitioner’s confinement and requesting
Petitioner’s immediate release.
2. Since the filing of the petition, Petitioner has been
released, and has informed this Court that he does not wish
to pursue this habeas matter, which was filed without his
knowledge or input.
3. Further, it is apparent that the relief requested in the
petition, release, has been accorded. Federal courts are
not empowered to decide moot issues. See U.S. CONST. art.
III, § 2, cl. 1.; Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 313 (3d Cir.
2001)(citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246
(1971)). To avoid mootness, a controversy must exist at all
stages of review. See id. (citing New Jersey Turnpike Auth.
V. Jersey Central Power & Light, 772 F.2d 25, 31 (3d Cir.
1985)). "Mootness has two aspects: (1) the issues
presented are no longer ‘live’ or (2) the parties lack a
cognizable interest in the outcome." Id. (quoting New
Jersey Turnpike Auth., 772 F.2d at 31). In the instant
case, because the issues are no longer “live” and because a
controversy no longer exists, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S.
1, 7 (1998), the issues raised in the instant petition are
moot.

Therefore,
IT IS ON THIS 16 day of February, 2011;
ORDERED that the application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby dismissed as moot; and it
is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the
file in this matter.

s/William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI
United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-05028-WJM Document 2 Filed 02/16/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 31

[Parvati]

Ottaviano requested bail modification/relief. Specifically, he wanted to be free of electronic monitoring. The request letter is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49955721

His request was denied.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES,
v.
RONALD OTTAVIANO
Defendant.
Criminal No. 10-485-01(WJM)

ORDER

Upon consideration of defendant Ronald Ottaviano’s letter application to modify the
condition of bail which imposes electronic monitoring,
It is on this 1 st day of March, 2011 ORDERED that the letter application to modify bail conditions is DENIED.

s/William J. Martini
_____________________________
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:10-cr-00485-WJM Document 114 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 970

[Parvati]

The most recent Government filing in the MATA/Ottaviano trial:

Desirous of ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted presentation of evidence at trial, the Government writes to highlight possible evidentiary issues for the Court and the Government's proposed resolution of those issues.

The entire letter is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49956592

[Parvati]

Via PACER:

Full docket text:
NOTICE OF HEARING as to RONALD OTTAVIANO, MICHAEL BALICE, HARRIET FOSTER, WILSON CALLE, ANGEL DONE Jury Selection/Trial has been rescheduled for 5/24/2011 09:30AM before Judge William J. Martini. (gh, )

[Parvati]

Word on the street is that the trial is going to be delayed yet again--into May, this time. Should pop up on Pacer sometime next week. O has no problem engaging in delaying tactics, but he had no problem whatsoever claiming that he was denied his right to a speedy trial.

(Still have not posted the gov't letter regarding introduction of evidence related to O's extramarital affairs/liaisons, but the hosting site I was using seems to be borked. Will post when un-borked.)

[Parvati]

Ronald Ottaviano
(-address-)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES - Plaintiff
V.
RONALD OTTAVIANO - Defendant

Criminal No. 10-485 (WJM)
U.S. District Court Judge William F. Martini
________________________________
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Comes now Defendant and moves the Court for an order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 7(f) directing the government to provide the following
particulars with respect to the indictment in this case.
1. In Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200 (1998) the Court cited to Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991), and said “In certain cases involving willful
violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant
was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating.”
In light of this provision, Defendant makes the following requests.
2. Please identify the specific provision or provisions of the tax code that 1) the
Indictment claims imposed the tax due and owing upon him, as alleged in Counts 11,12 and 13, and 2) that Defendant stands charged with violating, with respect to counts 11-13.
3. Which crime under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 does Defendant stand accused of violating?
1) is it to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title, or 2) is it to evade or defeat the payment thereof?
4. Since tax evasion contains a required element the indictment must allege and the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt, please identify what you tendered to the Grand Jury and what you intend to present at trial that makes up the deficiency element of the alleged crimes in each of Counts 11, 12 and 13.
5. If the evasion charges are not based upon an assessed tax, what law does the
government rely upon to create a “tax owed” (theory) without an assessment?
6. What provisions of law does the government rely upon for its claim that Defendant
had taxable income in excess of the exempt amount for the prosecution years?
7. What specific tax does the Defendant stand accused of having evaded?
8. What is the specific calendar date Defendant first owed the tax alleged to have
become due in count 11, 12 and 13, and what was the specific amount allegedly owed on the date stated?
9. Please identify the specific provision or provisions of the tax code or regulation,
that Defendant stands charged with violating, with respect to count 1, that the government relies upon to trigger the penalties fixed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206 and 7203.
10. With respect to counts 12 AND 13, what information request form does the Defendant stand accused of failing to make for each prosecution year, respectively?
11. With respect to counts 12 AND 13, what part of said form informed the Defendant that he was required to make the respective form the Defendant stands accused of failing to make?
12. With respect to count 12, what is the 1) Common name of the form, 2) Number of
the form with any and all suffixes or prefixes) 3) OMB control number assigned for the
form, 4) date of approval of the form by OMB, 5) date of expiration of the form, and 6)
language on the form that informs the citizen whether completion of the form is Voluntary or mandatory?
13. With respect to count 13, what is the 1) Common name of the form, 2) Number of
the form with any and all suffixes or prefixes) 3) OMB control number assigned for the
form, 4) date of approval of the form by OMB, 5) date of expiration of the form, and 6)
language on the form that informs the citizen whether completion of the form is voluntary or mandatory?
14. What element of any criminal charge does the government allege to be proven in
whole or in part by the allegations with respect to Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators or alleged representations to any of the members or associates of such organization?
15. What affirmative acts does the government contend that Defendant did in furtherance of the evasion of tax with identification of specific dates?
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of March 2011
By: /s/ Ronald Ottaviano
Authorized Representative

[Famspear]

The Ottaviano motion reads in part:

1. In Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200 (1998) the Court cited to Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991), and said “In certain cases involving willful
violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant
was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating.”

This language is a bit troublesome, but it should be read in context. This is what the Court said in Bryan:

Petitioner next argues that we must read § 924(a)(1)(D) [of title 18 of the United States Code, relating to willfully dealing in firearms without a federal license] to require knowledge of the law because of our interpretation of "willfully" in two other contexts. In certain cases involving willful violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e. g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 201 (1991). Similarly, in order to satisfy a willful violation in Ratzlaf, we concluded that the jury had to find that the defendant knew that his structuring of cash transactions to avoid a reporting requirement was unlawful. See 510 U. S., at 138, 149. Those cases, however, are readily distinguishable. Both the tax cases and Ratzlaf involved highly technical statutes that presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct. As a result, we held that these statutes "carv[e] out an exception to the traditional rule" that ignorance of the law is no excuse and require that the defendant have knowledge of the law....

(footnotes omitted) (bolding added).

Without getting into the specifics of what Ottaviano is or is not arguing, I contend that awareness of the "specific provision" of the tax code does not mean, and the Court did not hold, in Cheek, that the defendant must be aware of the actual code section number or the verbatim language of the statute. And the Court in Bryan did not rule that knowledge of a specific, verbatim language in the Internal Revenue Code is required. In any case, the words in the quoted statement in Bryan appear to be obiter dicta.

....5. If the evasion charges are not based upon an assessed tax, what law does the
government rely upon to create a “tax owed” (theory) without an assessment?.....

Well, the "theory" is plain vanilla section 7201, in the case of a tax evasion charge.

First, I'm not sure that an assessment is required for a conviction under section 7201 (see below).

Second, an assessed tax is certainly not required in order for a tax to be legally owed:

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.....

--from Internal Revenue Code section 6151(a) (bolding added).

The assessment is done by the IRS -- and is done after the return is received by the IRS and processed. With respect to the federal income tax, the liability arises at the close of the tax year or, at the latest, at the time the related tax return is due -- not at the time of assessment.

The IRS files claims in bankruptcy cases all the time for unassessed federal taxes that are nevertheless legally owed, and which can become allowed claims approved by the bankruptcy court for payment without an assessment having been made.

The courts have interpreted 7201 to require that the defendant willfully attempt to evade or defeat either (A) the assessment of the tax, or (B) the payment of the tax. On the assessment side of things, I have always understood that to include a willful attempt to prevent the IRS from making the assessment (such as, by willfully providing false information on the tax return that understates the tax liability, with the intent to induce the IRS to materially "underassess" the amount of tax). Under this theory, obviously the act of assessment itself (the act of recording of the liability in the records of the Department of the Treasury) would not need to have already occurred at the time of the affirmative act (under 7201) by the defendant. And once all the three section 7201 elements are present -- (1) affirmative act, (2) existence of an actual tax deficiency (whether assessed or not), and (3) willfulness -- the crime of attempted tax evasion has already been committed. So, I would argue that there is no further requirement that the IRS then make the assessment in order for the defendant to be guilty.

[Parvati]

The minutes from Friday's hearing on pre-trial motions:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, Newark
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Date: 04/15/11
JUDGE WILLIAM J. MARTINI
Deputy Clerk: Gail Hansen
Court Reporter: Walter Perelli
Other:
Docket No. Cr. 10-485
TITLE OF CASE: United States v. Ronald Ottaviano, et al
Appearances:
AUSA Lee Vartan, Christopher Kelly and Gurbir Grewal
Michael Calabro, Stand-by Counsel for Ottaviano
Ronald Ottaviano
Joseph Donohue, Counsel for Balice
Gary Cutler, Counsel for Foster
Richard Verde, Counsel for Calle
Alexander Booth, Counsel for Done

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Hrg on pretrial motions:
Motion to suppress search warrants - Denied
Motion to dismiss Superseding Indictment for Speedy Trial Violations - Denied
Motion for bill of particulars - Denied
Gov’ts in limine motion with respect to 404 b statements - (IRS interview ) Decision Reserved
Various other motions made by Defendant Ottaviano - denied as moot

New Trial Date: 5/24/11; Next motion hrg: 5/18/11 at 10AM
Time Commenced: 11:30 a.m.
Time Adjourned: 12:45 p.m.
Total Time: 1 hour 15 minutes
Gail A. Hansen, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:10-cr-00485-WJM Document 126 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1194

[Parvati]

Ottaviano has filed four motions:

1.) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue Authority

2.) Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of Indictment

3.) Motion to Dismiss Count 10 for Lack of Evidence & Subject Matter Jurisdiction

4.) Motion to Dismiss Counts 11 12 & 13 from Indictment

On page 12 of the Motion to Dismiss Counts 11 12 & 13 from Indictment, Ottaviano states that:

Wilfulness cannot be proven, based on the fact that defendant has never filed a tax return in his life which goes to proving his belief{.}

[Dr. Caligari]

Ottaviano has filed four motions:

1.) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue Authority

2.) Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of Indictment

3.) Motion to Dismiss Count 10 for Lack of Evidence & Subject Matter Jurisdiction

4.) Motion to Dismiss Counts 11 12 & 13 from Indictment

Three of those motions are the usual TP gibberish. Motion #2, however (motion to dismiss Count 1) is even odder-- it cites a long string of cases, all decided by the courts of England. It appears Ottaviano pulled something off the internet without any idea of what he was copying.

[LPC]

Three of those motions are the usual TP gibberish. Motion #2, however (motion to dismiss Count 1) is even odder-- it cites a long string of cases, all decided by the courts of England. It appears Ottaviano pulled something off the internet without any idea of what he was copying.

Copying stuff off the Internet would explain why the fourth motion (which is the only one I skimmed through) is actually coherent and accurate (!) in spots.

The parts that are coherent and accurate are also irrelevant to his motion, but that's a different problem.

[Parvati]

Vartan's no longer handling the Ottaviano/MATA indictment. The new guy is a relative unknown.

[notorial dissent]

I've tried going to scribd to read thse and all I get is a blank page when I do. don't normally have a problem with this site, but can't get to these.