TUC Still Passing Funny Money

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by The Observer »

wserra wrote:Update on The United Cities civil side: nobody showed for them at the contempt hearing Tuesday. Marrero, of course, is in jail, and Cruz is a fugitive.
I distinctly remember one of the TUC groupies coming here and posting several bombastic and gushing posts how Cruz and Co. were going to show up and just blow BofA and the government out of the water with their legal knowledge.

And now Wes tells us that they aren't showing. I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:Note the date of the due installment (that's the actual text of one of the letters) - April - in other words, this borrower apparently turned to TUC to resolve a delinquency/default that was in the fifth month.
And I feared that this was the prime target of Cruz - people who had some misfortune in their lives and would be desperated enough to sign up for his nonsense. I wonder how many of these same people signed over their homes to TUC, I have only heard of one so far.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Famspear »

SteveSy wrote:I don't get it, how can someone be that dumb? I honestly can not understand how any of them thought they could do what they did and there wouldn't be severe repercussions for doing it. Even if they really thought what they were doing was legal under some secret code, what made them think B of A or the government would just let them do it, after all they're committing a massive fraud according to TUC. Why would the bank or the government all of a sudden follow the law as they saw it? It's as if they think they have discovered the super secret magic incantation or something. "Ah ha! We discovered the magic words, you are now under my control." I think its likely they're sharing some new drug causing severe psychosis that we haven't publicly heard of yet.
Good points. Steve's comments -- aimed at the "TUC" scammers -- could also aptly describe the situation for tax protesters, in terms of the positions the protesters take on tax returns and in court pleadings, and on the internet. Why do they seem to think that the government is just going to magically lie down and accept the tax protesters' positions -- when there is absolutely no case where that has ever happened? We see it all the time in comments over at losthorizons. Look at this one, by user "kensei":
It looks to me, that with the clear language about one 'collecting the tax' then 'turning it over', etc... And with the implementing regs from Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, explosives), that this section SPECIFICALLY applies to those businesses who collect excise taxes related to these ATFE taxes. After all, what 'individual' (other than withholding agents and federal 'employers') collects tax from others and sends it to the IRS/Treasury? I sure don't and I don't think you do either!

I would think that a reply would clarify that one is not involved in the business of selling alcohol, tobacco, or firearms and specifically mention the implementing regs to clarify that this Code section DOES NOT APPLY to your situation and is thus without merit and void. Or you could also say their allegations are 'frivolous' too... can they please send proof of my 'business activity' in those areas... Oh - you have none? I must not be liable for what you are claiming, then.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=903

(bolding added)

Why does "Kensei" even bother with describing these kinds of proposed "clarifications"? This stuff has never worked with the IRS or the courts; it never will work. It's gibberish. Yet these people keep banging their heads against the brick wall.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by webhick »

SteveSy wrote:
wserra wrote:I'd say these guys have had their fifteen minutes of fame, and now it's time for those dumb enough to have been part of it to pay.
I don't get it, how can someone be that dumb? I honestly can not understand how any of them thought they could do what they did and there wouldn't be severe repercussions for doing it. Even if they really thought what they were doing was legal under some secret code, what made them think B of A or the government would just let them do it, after all they're committing a massive fraud according to TUC. Why would the bank or the government all of a sudden follow the law as they saw it? It's as if they think they have discovered the super secret magic incantation or something. "Ah ha! We discovered the magic words, you are now under my control." I think its likely they're sharing some new drug causing severe psychosis that we haven't publicly heard of yet.
All I can say is that Cruz is a con artist. He knew all along how this would turn out, so he made his money and now he's taken off, leaving everyone else involved holding the bag. Any decent con artist can make you believe just about anything that comes out of their mouth, so there was no shortage of fall-guys or victims. It's a pity that people like him won't use that talent for good.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

webhick wrote:....

All I can say is that Cruz is a con artist. He knew all along how this would turn out, so he made his money and now he's taken off, leaving everyone else involved holding the bag. Any decent con artist can make you believe just about anything that comes out of their mouth, so there was no shortage of fall-guys or victims. It's a pity that people like him won't use that talent for good.
I think there's going to be more to this than meets the Internet and news eye.

This is the strangest mixture of whacky theories I've come across with the exception of some of Van Pelt's full-on gibberish.

But I'm beginning to think at least some of the people involved really thought they were on their way to creating a socialist economic "nation." One that a bank would have to recognize and accept its monetary system just because there were so many people involved.

Someone convinced someone that the phrase "full faith and credit" applied to small bands of immigrants led by bombastic promoters.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by The Observer »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:But I'm beginning to think at least some of the people involved really thought they were on their way to creating a socialist economic "nation." One that a bank would have to recognize and accept its monetary system just because there were so many people involved.
From what I see, it is not likely that Cruz ever believed any of this hogwash given his sudden disappearance, which in itself seems to indicate that he had prepared for it long before the federales started moving. As I have said before, Professor Hill would have been proud.
Someone convinced someone that the phrase "full faith and credit" applied to small bands of immigrants led by bombastic promoters.
Again, my money would have been on Cruz - leaving Marerro and Gardner as the suckers who thought this scheme was going to work.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Dezcad »

wserra wrote:Update on The United Cities civil side: nobody showed for them at the contempt hearing Tuesday. Marrero, of course, is in jail, and Cruz is a fugitive. The Court entered the following order:
Notice was provided to each of these parties [see DE 42], however United Cities, and Messrs. Gardner, Cruz and Marrero, failed to appear at the September 2, 2008 status conference. At the status conference, counsel for The Bank of America informed the Court that Mr. Marerro remains in custody in the Middle District of Florida on federal charges. Agents of the United States Secret Service appeared at the status conference, apparently hoping to find Mr. Cruz, and informed the Court that they had an arrest warrant for Mr. Cruz, but had been unable to locate him. As for Mr. Gardner, Plaintiff’s counsel provided the Court with a copy of an email Mr. Gardner sent her that morning, stating that he was having difficulty retaining counsel and requesting a 60-day continuance of the contempt hearing. Mr. Gardner has not filed a motion for continuance of the contempt hearing with this Court, and his email did not provide any information that would justify this Court postponing contempt proceedings for another two months. More to the point, Mr. Gardner did not appear at the September 2, 2008 status conference, which is a violation of Court order.

It is hereby ORDERED that The United Cities Group, Inc. and Gladstone Gardner,
Angel Cruz and William Marrero appear before this Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2008
at 1:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, David W. Dyer Federal Building and
Courthouse, 300 N.E. First Avenue, Courtroom VII, Miami, Florida, to show cause why
they should not be held in contempt of court for violation of Temporary Restraining Order
[DE 22], and the Preliminary Injunction [DE 28, 40]
I'd say these guys have had their fifteen minutes of fame, and now it's time for those dumb enough to have been part of it to pay.
Instead of appearing at the 9/2/08 hearing, Gladstone Gardner filed numerous documents as "Authorized Representative" of TUC:
09/02/2008 51 NOTICE of Special Appearance; Challenge to Jurisdiction by Gladstone Gardner (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/02/2008 52 JUDICIAL NOTICE; Claim of Rights by Gladstone Gardner (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/02/2008 53 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE and Demand for Identification and Creditials Quo Warranto by Gladstone Gardner (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/02/2008 54 MOTION to Vacate void judgment by Gladstone Gardner. Responses due by 9/19/2008 (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/02/2008 55 NOTICE of Lodgement of Security Agreement by Gladstone Gardner (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/02/2008 56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gladstone Gardner re 54 MOTION to Vacate, 53 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE and Demand for Identification and Creditials Quo Warranto, 55 NOTICE of Lodgement of Security Agreement and Individual Challenge to Jurisdiction (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/03/2008 57 NOTICE of Conflict of Interest; MOTION for Extension of Time by Gladstone Gardner. (vjk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by wserra »

These are some dumb m*****f*****s.

Here we have three people against whom the Court has issued show cause orders to punish for contempt - Marrero, Cruz, Gardner. Marrero is in jail. Cruz is a fugitive. If Gardner had two firing cranial neurons, he would conclude that it might be a good time to cooperate. Since he doesn't, he files gibberish instead.

I think that, since TUC has been warned multiple times that it must appear (and file) through counsel, these pearls of wisdom may not be long for the docket. I therefore offer three here for your amusement - a Notice of Appearance (by a non-lawyer), a "Claim of RIghts", and a "Motion to Void Judgments".

Did I already remark on how dumb these guys must be?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by fortinbras »

Not just a non-lawyer but one with a copyright symbol in his name. Supposedly TUC is a corporation (it used "Inc." in its title) -- is it really incorporated, 'cause pretending to be incorporated when you're not is punished as fraud? Anyway, this crowd knows that corporations must be represented by members of the bar, and not out-of-state bar but the Florida bar.
Nikki

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Nikki »

Do you think it's too much to ask that, when doing a cut-and-paste from a paytridiot source, the people submitting the documents make some minor effort to apply subject-object agreement?

Other than the documents being submitted by someone who has no standing to represent anyone beside himself and lacking even the semblance of documentation of service on the prosecution, ....



they should work


for about 12 seconds.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Dezcad »

fortinbras wrote:-- is it really incorporated,
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Profit Corporation
THE UNITED CITIES GROUP, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P08000005263
FEI Number NONE
Date Filed 01/15/2008
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 01/09/2008
Principal Address
147 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE
SUITE 100
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Mailing Address
147 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE
SUITE 100
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Registered Agent Name & Address
JOHNSON, DONNA-MARIA
147 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE
SUITE 100
CORAL GABLES FL 33134 US
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title P
CRUZ, ANGEL
147 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE #100
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
Document Images
01/15/2008 -- Domestic Profit
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by fortinbras »

The motion to void judgments is especially hilarious. Here this dumbf**k is, in a federal district court in Florida, and he cites state courts from Tennessee, Illinois, Texas....all over the place EXCEPT Florida.

The failure to include a Florida precedent is the least of it. This guy is citing a string of cases, possibly cribbed from a legal encyclopedia, simply to say that a void judgment is a nullity. That's a truism that is immediately recognized by any court and citing any sort of precedent is unnecessary.
BUT this guy cites no authority whatever -- and doesn't even offer specific reasons -- of WHY the judgment is or should be considered void.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by wserra »

UGA Lawdog wrote:Well, in his string of cites, he seems to be arguing that there was one or more of the following: lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and complete failure of due process.
I know I'm dating myself, but does anyone remember the scenes in the old Perry Mason TV show when the hapless prosecutor would object to something Perry asked? Remember his objection - "Irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial!"? Like the TUC-moron, I'd say that he pretty well covered the ballpark.

And he never won, either.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by LPC »

wserra wrote:I know I'm dating myself, but does anyone remember the scenes in the old Perry Mason TV show when the hapless prosecutor would object to something Perry asked? Remember his objection - "Irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial!"?
You left out "incompetent."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by Gregg »

CaptainKickback wrote:
fortinbras wrote:Not just a non-lawyer but one with a copyright symbol in his name. Supposedly TUC is a corporation (it used "Inc." in its title) -- is it really incorporated, 'cause pretending to be incorporated when you're not is punished as fraud? Anyway, this crowd knows that corporations must be represented by members of the bar, and not out-of-state bar but the Florida bar.
Ideally, the best bar in florida......which raises the questions, which is the best bar in Florida? :roll:
The Stoned Monkey, in Bonita Springs
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by cynicalflyer »

UGA Lawdog wrote: And was anyone else as shocked as I was to see Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 with the parenthetical (Colo. 1994)? I had no idea Colorado Supreme Court cases were now published in the Federal Reporter.
I found the case cited as such in various other places, too.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... 1994%29%27

Including some perennial favs

August 2003 - http://www.sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/Sec ... 20tocs.pdf
March 2004 (at least) - http://www.amatterofjustice.org/amoj/li ... hority.htm
March 2004 - http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/255 ... -file.html
September 2004 - http://www.commonlawvenue.com/Court/040 ... ndamus.doc
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by fortinbras »

Here is the Orner v. Shalala decision. It would ordinarily be cited as Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 1994). BUT some reference - such as West's Federal Digest - may have cited it by the state the case originated in (namely Colorado), for the convenience of legal researchers who needed to localize precedents, AND with the expectation that such legal researchers would be savvy enough to know that a Circuit Court decision (and that's all that get published in F.3d) from Colorado is the Tenth Circuit.
Obviously someone started with such a localized citation and didn't understand it enough to write the citation to conform to proper usage, and his quotation was picked up by others who similarly didn't know any better .... and, I'll bet, none of them bothered to read the decision themself.

30 F.3d 1307
29 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1003, 45 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 181,
Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14055B

Eugene R. ORNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of the United States Department
of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-1400.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

July 19, 1994.


Frederick W. Newall, Colorado Springs, CO, for plaintiff-appellant.
James R. Allison, Interim U.S. Atty., Stephen D. Taylor, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, CO (Randolph W. Gaines, Acting Chief Counsel for Social Security, John M. Sacchetti, Chief, Retirement, Survivors and Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, Ira E. Ziporkin, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM, * District Judge.

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff appeals 1 from a district court order granting the Secretary's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to amend a prior order that mistakenly awarded plaintiff $18,159.82 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d). The amendment deleted all references to the EAJA and provided, instead, that the fees were awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 406(b). Fees under Sec. 406(b) satisfy a client's obligation to counsel and, therefore, are paid out of the plaintiff's social security benefits, while fees under the EAJA penalize the Secretary for assuming an unjustified legal position and, accordingly, are paid out of agency funds. Thus, the amendment in question effectively returned the $18,159.82 erroneously awarded plaintiff back to the Secretary.

The following events are essential to a proper understanding of the issues raised by this appeal:

(1) July 23, 1992. Judgment is entered on the parties' stipulation to a period of disability commencing February 15, 1977.

(2) August 10, 1992. Plaintiff moves for fees under the EAJA.

(3) August 28, 1992. The district court enters judgment on the parties' stipulation to an EAJA fee award of $4,000.

(4) December 2, 1992. Plaintiff moves for approval of an $18,159.82 fee under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1728 (i.e., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 406(b)). The Secretary is given until December 15 to respond to the motion, but does not oppose it.

(5) December 23, 1992. The district court enters judgment on plaintiff's unopposed motion, but inexplicably awards the requested fee under the EAJA.

(6) June 18, 1993. The Secretary moves to amend the December 23, 1992 judgment, generally citing Rule 60(b).

(7) August 10, 1993. Relying on Rule 60(b)(1), the district court enters an amended judgment, over plaintiff's objection, identifying Sec. 406(b) as the proper basis for the $18,159.82 fee awarded December 23, 1992.

The district court's final order amending judgment in favor of the Secretary consists of a frank acknowledgment that the court had made a mistake and the legal conclusion that the error was correctable under Rule 60(b)(1). See App. at 196-97. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land, 840 F.2d 760, 761 (10th Cir.1988); Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 497 (10th Cir.1993). "A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling [under Rule 60(b) ] on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 727 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)).

Plaintiff argues that, under this circuit's case law, the Secretary's motion was untimely with respect to Rule 60(b)(1). We agree. This court has held, without qualification, that "a mistake of law cannot be reached under [Rule] 60(b)(1) where [as here] no notice of appeal was timely filed from the order in which the mistake is alleged to have occurred, and the time for filing such a notice of appeal had expired when the [Rule] 60(b) motion was filed." Morris v. Adams-Millis Corp., 758 F.2d 1352, 1358 (10th Cir. 1985); Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992). Consequently, Rule 60(b)(1) was not available to the district court as a basis upon which to grant the Secretary discretionary relief from its judgment regarding EAJA fees.

That conclusion does not end our inquiry, however, as we may affirm challenged decisions of the district court on alternative grounds, so long as the record is sufficient to permit conclusions of law. United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 977 (10th Cir. 1993). We recognize that the assessment of a motion for relief from judgment under the various subsections of Rule 60(b) is committed, in the first instance, to the discretion of the district court. Thus, a remand would be the usual disposition following appellate detection of error with respect to any one particular basis for granting such relief. However, as explained below, "remanding on the basis of [the court's] legal error [granting relief under Rule 60(b)(1) ] would be pointless, because it would have been an abuse of discretion for the trial court to [rule otherwise] under Rule 60(b)[ (4) ]." Lyons, 994 F.2d at 729.

Unlike its counterparts, Rule 60(b)(4), which provides relief from void judgments, "is not subject to any time limitation." V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n. 9 and accompanying text (10th Cir.1979) ("if a judgment is void, it is a nullity from the outset and any 60(b)(4) motion for relief is therefore filed within a reasonable time"); Venable v. Haislip, 721 F.2d 297, 299-300 (10th Cir.1983). Furthermore, when Rule 60(b)(4) is applicable, "relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory." V.T.A., Inc., 597 F.2d at 224 n. 8; see also Venable, 721 F.2d at 300.

This court has indicated on a number of occasions that a judgment may be void for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) if entered in a manner inconsistent with due process. See, e.g., V.T.A., Inc., 597 F.2d at 224-25; Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Ohio (In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws Litig.), 502 F.2d 834, 842 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1974). We ultimately rejected the due process arguments asserted in the cited cases because fundamental procedural prerequisites--particularly, adequate notice and opportunity to be heard--were fully satisfied. Here, in contrast, the Secretary was not given any notice that her EAJA liability, already resolved by stipulated order, would be redetermined in the proceeding on plaintiff's second motion for attorney fees and, given plaintiff's express reliance on Sec. 406(b), had no reason whatsoever to anticipate this development. Accordingly, the Secretary did not oppose the motion, which to all appearances was primarily a matter between plaintiff and counsel. Under the circumstances, entry of the resultant order under the EAJA, which everyone involved concedes was an improbable mistake, cannot be deemed consistent with due process. Therefore, relief was not only appropriate but mandatory under Rule 60(b)(4).

We are very troubled by the conduct of plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, who were willing to accept the fruits of the district court's obviously mistaken and unlawful EAJA order and, since discovery of the error, have doggedly opposed its correction. Moreover, plaintiff's position that due process was satisfied because the Secretary "had notice that attorney's fees were at issue [prior to the December 23, 1993 award]," Appellant's Reply Brief at 5, is patently disingenuous and misleading. The only pertinent question is whether the Secretary had notice that EAJA fees were--or even possibly could have been--at issue, and the circumstances recited above demonstrate she clearly did not. Finally, plaintiff defends his self-aggrandizing exploitation of an obvious judicial mistake with an audacious non-sequiter: the "equities" are somehow in his favor as he lays claim to funds rightfully belonging to the public fisc, because his underlying disability (for which the government pays him benefits) arose out of a service-related injury, see Appellant's Brief at 11. Only the provisions of Fed.R.App.P. 39(b) and the strictures of due process, Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1515 (10th Cir.1987), restrain us from awarding the Secretary her costs on this appeal.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

---------------

* Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Last edited by fortinbras on Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by wserra »

What do you say about folks who keep doing the same s**t despite their leaders' indictment and the fact that they have never experienced any success?

Well, TUC is still trying to slip funny money past BofA, apparently not caring that, even if they get it past the first line of the bank's defenses, their "draft" will obviously never clear. BofA has moved for a third time to sanction them for contempt of the preliminary injunction.

It's actually getting pretty pathetic.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by LPC »

wserra wrote:Well, TUC is still trying to slip funny money past BofA,
TUC is also continuing to use the same fictitious ABA routing number on its "checks," and it's the same routing number that the FRB, OCC, and FDIC identified in public fraud alerts more than a year ago. You'd think that they might vary the scam at least a little bit once it's been exposed.

And I can see it as a debt elimination scam now, because the "check" is payable to "first mortgage payoffs" and the name and address of the mark is in the memo field. (What happens to the mark, by the way? Criminal prosecution? Or is it enough to let the foreclosure process continue?)
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by . »

You'd think that they might vary the scam at least a little bit once it's been exposed.
Too much work.

Especially when you have as few firing neurons as these guys do.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: TUC Still Passing Funny Money

Post by wserra »

LPC wrote:TUC is also continuing to use the same fictitious ABA routing number on its "checks," and it's the same routing number that the FRB, OCC, and FDIC identified in public fraud alerts more than a year ago. You'd think that they might vary the scam at least a little bit once it's been exposed.
Good point. I think that "." has the only explanation: these guys are even dumber than the average "debt eliminator", which places them in the "turnip" family.
(What happens to the mark, by the way? Criminal prosecution? Or is it enough to let the foreclosure process continue?)
They certainly could be prosecuted, but I would guess that they will first be offered a cooperation/non-pros agreement. Only those who decline face arrest.

I know how I would advise them.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume