UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
HENRY R. PATRIOT ) CIRCUIT COURT No.06-1xxx
Appellant-Petitioner, )
) TAX COURT NOs. 1106xx; 208xxx
v. )
) MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE )
Appellee- Respondent )
____________________________________________)
Appellant-Petitioner, pursuant to Rule 26(b), FRAP, moves this Court for an Enlargement of Time and for a postponement of the filing of his Appellant-brief in this case for thirty days based upon the following grounds:
1. Appellant, as attorney pro se, needs additional time to research the law, gather evidence and prepare an adequate defense against the assertions of the Appellee both in fact and law. Since Appellant is not an attorney and in poor health, he is limited in his ability to prepare his case due to the small time allowed by the briefing schedule.
2. Plaintiff is 87 years old, in declining health and misplaced the notice dated September 13 informing him that the brief was due October 10, 2006. Also this court gives pro se litigants with no legal experience less than 30 days to file their briefs, but gives the DOJ with high paid legal talent 60 days to file theirs. This ought to be the other way around.
Further, the appeal brief will be very short and plaintiff does not have that good of case. However the Tax Court did not grant a stay of collections so any delay in this trial has no negative affect on the opposing party. Petitioner’s assets cannot be liquidated and his other prior tax debts will wipe out any sizeable assets. Petitioner’s other tax debts are greater than his assets therefore the government will not collect anything on this case no matter what.
3. Plaintiff’s brief is actually almost all written because he filed with the lower court a Motion for Rehearing. His Appellant Brief would be almost word for word the Motion for Rehearing. However, Petitioner is unable to use a computer and is involved in multitudinous litigation in other tax cases.
4. In Haines vs. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), the US Supreme Court ruled that the courts should relax procedural requirements for pro se litigants.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly to opposing party a copy of this pleading.
__________________________ Date: October 10, 2006 Henry R. Link Greenville, SC 29615