United States of America }
Plaintiff } No. 05cv2734-hmh
}
Vs. } Motion for New Trial
}
Robert Clarkson, individually }
and dba The Patriot Network }
Defendants
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59, Defendant Robert Clarkson aka The Patriot Network hereby files his motion for New Trial of the Magistrate’s Order dated December 21, 2005.
1. The Magistrate judge ordered The Patriot Network to obtain counsel. The Network is a non-profit political organization with little or no funds and is unable to obtain counsel. In effect, the Magistrate dismissed the association without a hearing or an opportunity to be heard.
2. The government takes the position that the Network is Robert Clarkson, a single entity, not two separate entities. Therefore, the association is not separate from Robert Clarkson and he has the right to self-representation.
In the government’s Response to Defendant’s Objection to Jurisdiction dated 20 Dec 05, the DOJ stated rather clearly: “The United States, however, has not named the Patriot Network as a separate defendant…the Patriot Network is Clarkson.”
3. The Marshal did not serve process on the Network as they contend that Clarkson and the Network are only one party. This issue needs to be resolved before the Network seeks an attorney.
4. This Order was handed down without notice, without a chance for Defendant(s) to file their position or an opportunity to be heard, all in violation of the Due Process provisions of the US Constitution.
5. The Network and Robert Clarkson, who is disabled, do not have the thousands of dollars needed to hire private counsel. Therefore, this holding discriminates against the Network/Clarkson on the basis of wealth. Our courts should not be open only to the wealthy and the well funded. Justice is not for sale, or at least, should not be.
Traditionally, small private, unincorporated associations appear in court with the being the only officer who represents himself. Clarkson has done that before. All in all, the issue is in the discretion of the trial court which generally tries to be fair and move the cases along. Sua sponte, one-sided opinions give the appearance of favoritism to the IRS.
The Courts have long recognized that unpopular political groups are unable to obtain counsel or at least local counsel. Therefore, Defendant requests that this Court direct a local attorney to represent the Network, as this Court has done in other cases involving Clarkson.
6. Therefore, this case should be reopened to allow Clarkson/Network a chance to present their side of the story.
7. The Magistrate cited cases holding that corporations or formal associations must have paid counsel. However, the Network is not formally organized or incorporated but only operates out of Clarkson’s pocket. The Network has no bank account, other officers, no structure nor anything to represent except Clarkson. If the Magistrate enjoins the club but not Clarkson individually, then nothing has happened, as Clarkson would not be subject to the injunction.
8. Clarkson does not dispute that corporations, trusts etc. should have expensive representation but that rule does not apply to the name that Clarkson uses for his political activities or an alter ego. In essence, the Network does not exist except on his letterhead and has no separate existence except for the living individual Robert Clarkson. No interests exist to safeguard.
9. If the Network is a separate entity from Clarkson, then it has not been served and therefore, is not yet party to this action. Consequently, the Magistrate’s Order does not take effect anyway. The Magistrate can examine the Return of Service in this case, that is on file at the Clerk’s Office. In spite of the crude alteration, the Return form clearly shows only one copy of the complaint was given to the Marshals to be served only on one entity, which was done.
10. Due to the issues involved in this case, this matter should be reopened so the decision maker will have the facts and cases from both sides.
The Network has not been served, appears specially now and its appearance is subject to its previously filed Special Appearance.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel by regular U.S.mail.
___________________________ Date: Jan 6, 2006
Robert Clarkson
515 Concord Ave
Anderson, SC 29621
864-225-3061
Note: My address is listed above. Please correct your records. This is the only address I have furnished to the Clerk’s office.