Quatloos!

The case has been transferred from Judge Pregerson to Judge Anderson, on the ground that it was "closely related" to 08-cv-01629. That's the docket where Judge Anderson held Champion in contempt and locked him up for failure to turn over records, whereupon Champion did a fine imitation of Brave Sir Robin.

Heh, heh.

wserra wrote:The case has been transferred from Judge Pregerson to Judge Anderson, on the ground that it was "closely related" to 08-cv-01629. That's the docket where Judge Anderson held Champion in contempt and locked him up for failure to turn over records, whereupon Champion did a fine imitation of Brave Sir Robin.

Heh, heh.

Is that a transfer from the frying pan into the fire or the other way around ?

http://www.davechampion.net/uploads/med ... nal%20.pdf

May not like the source ....but...here is his answer.

Noah wrote:May not like the source ....but...here is his answer.

While I don't like the source, I like the substance even less.

To the extent that one can tease any sense from repetitive, poorly-written bullshit, Champion appears to be arguing that the govt should not be able to use against him what he turned over to them in the prior enforcement proceeding - what I referred to as his "Brave Sir Robin" act above. He claims that, since it was the product of compulsion, it is not admissible against him.

First, of course, this argument is quite premature. Second, he would be estopped from raising it now due to either failure to raise it (or having raised it and lost) in the enforcement proceeding itself. Once he turned the stuff over, if the Court had not already decided the Fifth Amendment issue against him, Champion waived it. If the Court had decided the issue against him, it is the law of the case since Champion did not appeal. Moreover, there is likely no Fifth Amendment issue in any event, although one would need to know the exact nature of the records to be sure.

Schadenfreude is ugly - unless the Schaden in question is inflicted on a scamming jerkoff like Champion.

Champion seems to arguing that the previous summons was used for an improper purpose, namely a criminal investigation against him.

But the newest proceeding is a civil proceeding seeking an injunction. He can't raise a 5th Amendment defense in a civil proceeding on the grounds that the previous summons violated his 5th Amendment rights due to the possibility that a criminal proceeding *might* be brought someday. That's trying to close the basement doors after the horses have already escaped from the barn.

The 1st Amendment arguments are only somewhat interesting, but we've seen them before (e.g., Irwin Schiff) and they're clear losers because Champion is involved in "commercial speech" which the government can regulate to protect consumers (and it's revenue).

The biggest difficulty that the government (and the court) will have is trying to respond sensibly to conclusory gibberish.

Any update on this action? Seems like the government's response was due last friday... anyone got a copy?

Noah wrote:Any update on this action? Seems like the government's response was due last friday... anyone got a copy?

Sure.

wserra wrote:

Noah wrote:Any update on this action? Seems like the government's response was due last friday... anyone got a copy?

Sure.

Thanks again.

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court DENIES Defendant's motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 7 . Defendant's motion to enlarge time to file Answer 6 is GRANTED nunc pro tunc and his Answer and Counterclaim are deemed filed as of 3/18/2011. Defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than 5/4/2011 why Defendant's Counterclaim against "Judge John Doe," i.e., Judge Percy Anderson, should not be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant is advised that his failure to file a timely response to this Order shall be deemed his consent to the dismissal of his Counterclaim with prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

Did Champion file a response to the show cause order or did he consent to a dismissal?

Noah wrote:Did Champion file a response to the show cause order or did he consent to a dismissal?

Neither. He has twice asked for more time. Champion is such a fucking moron that he can't even request more time in a way that makes any sense:

Borat Champion wrote:Defendant will observe no particularity existing in this case as yet regarding the particularized defects giving rise to the apparently sua sponte motion to dismiss or any reasonable opportunity to make cure of those defects along with a reasonable time within which to do so.

It is worth noting that the moron's counterclaims are Bivens claims against the revenue agent who brought the summons enforcement action against him a couple of years ago and the judge who ruled on it (Percy Anderson). There is no Bivens action against the RA (by the words of Bivens itself) since Champion has a statutory remedy, and the judge is immune. It's time to shut Champion up.

Many years ago, I was sitting in the USDC courtroom of a very bright but occasionally curt judge for the best line I have ever heard from a bench. It occurred during argument on a public school "moment of silence" law which the record made clear was a substitute for a banned moment of prayer. When the very able ACLU lawyer finished her argument as to the statute's unconstitutionality, the judge started speaking, clearly agreeing with her. The state AG stood up and said, "Wait a second, Judge. Can't I be heard?" The judge looks at him and says, "Well, due process requires it, but it does take time."

Do it to Champion.

Thanks for the update Wes. Giving Champion all the rope he thinks he needs will not alter the outcome. Evidently he is unable to find an attorney who will rent out their license. Any volunteers?

I too had an uncle who, after he got out of the Marines after WWII, decided he was never going to pay a dime of income tax. He spent his entire life either working for family or doing carpentry work for cash. He never bought a house and the only new car that I remember him ever buying was a 1960ish pickup which he built a camper top on the back and that would be where he stayed unless he was crashing at our house, another family members or his girlfriends house. For quite a few years he lived in the oversize shed behind my grandmothers house. Sure he made it through life without paying taxes but also never really had anything either. He was also one of the nicest guys your ever meet and would help anyone out with anything they needed.

June 30, 2011
Champion's leash just got tighter and alot shorter.........

Extension of Time to File a Document
Document: 28

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Percy Anderson: Before the Court is defendant David Champion "Request to Enlarge Time Within Which to Timely Make and File Amended Counterclaim 27 ." Defendant seeks an additional twenty days beyond the current 6/30/2011, deadline to file an Amended Counterclaim. According to the "Request," plaintiff United States opposes the requested extension. Defendant need not file his Amended Counterclaim. Even if the Court eventually denies the requested extension, the Court would allow Defendant until, at the earliest 7/5/2011, to file his Amended Counterclaim. Any future "Requests" filed by Defendant will be summarily denied. (jp)

I think it's because of the holiday weekend.

notorial dissent wrote:That Minute, makes almost as little sense as most of Champion's drivel.

They're denying his extension request but will allow him at the "earliest" on 7-5-11 to file his amended counterclaim, but he doesn't need to file his counterclaim????? And that any future requests will be "summarily denied".

What????

I read that as follows:
Champion is asking for 20 working days beyond 6/30.
Plaintiff opposes extension because he doesn't need to file an amended counterclaim.
Champion actually has until 7/5 to file because of some time calculation that he got wrong.
The court still has to consider his request for an extension of time.
He will not be allowed to file any further requests for time extensions.

The only bit I can't explain is the "earliest". I would have thought it should be "latest".

What Arthur said. We can't all be Learned Hand - especially since clerks generally write minutes.