United States District Court

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

 

 

 

 

Harry Patriot                           }                      Case No. 2:06-cv-00000-xxx

Petitioner                                 }

                                                }                      OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES

vs.                                            }                      OF AMERICA’S RESPONSE

                                                }                      TO PETITIONER’S MOTION

United States of America       }                      FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent                             }                      (6320 & 6330)

 

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff Harry C. Patriot hereby files his Opposition to United States of America’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, based on the following reasons:

1.   Plaintiff had full belief that all Responses to Motions carried a 20-day window in which to reply because:

(a)    as all other State and District Courts have a 20-day or more window for replies, resulting in the 20-day window becoming the known, accepted, and established rule, and

(b)   since it is presumed that all District Courts, being part of one national federal system operating in different States, carry, and adhere to, the same rules, whether deemed “local” or not, and

(b)  any hidden, sharp or unusual curtailment from standard practice should be considered by the Court to be a trap for the unwary and for those not in the “inside legal clique”, and

 

 

(c)  The Department of Justice wants obscure rules with contradict the Common Law applied vigorously which would limit access to the Court to only the rich. When the Department of Justice knows a pro se is on the case, it should be required to notify same of unusual local rules that no one knows about. Otherwise, Justice is only available to the well-healed who can afford local federal attorneys and retired US Attorneys.

 

2.   This Court has full jurisdiction over this matter due to the Constitutional issues involved. These issues may only be addressed by Article III courts, issues in which such rulings of a Constitutional magnitude the United States Tax Court is not qualified to make (See Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed December 21, 2006.). The Department of Justice is trying to hide the proper jurisdiction from the proper Court.

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Government’s Response be ignored and the case be reopened.

 

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

________________________________ January 22, 2007

Harry Patriot, Petitioner pro se

1776 Patriot Way

Dahlonega, USA