| Robert Clarkson 864-225-3061 email | Nelson Waller 864-225-0882 |
|
In Forma Pauperis application for appeals
Instructions: You can pay the approx $250 filing fee to appeal. Or you can file free as an indigent. You need permission from the court for this. Click here for application, fill out and submit to the clerk of court. You need to be truthful on this and some people take the 5th instead of furnishing financial information. This of course is unpopular with the courts. |
TOPp>
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT United States of America
and
CIVIL ACTION #
Petitioners
) 1. Respondent, as attorney pro Se, needs
additional time to research the law, gather evidence and prepare
an adequate defense against the assertions of the Petitioners
both in fact and law. Since Respondent is not an attorney and
also employed full time, he is limited in his ability to Prepare
his case due to the small time allowed by the Show Cause Order. Haines VS. Kerner, 404
USS 519; 1972. The US Supreme Court ruled that the court
shall allow procedural time for pro se litigants. 2. Respondent will be harmed and suffer
irreparable damage if not granted additional time to prepare for
the hearing, locate and subpoena witness, and complete his
discovery. 3. Respondent requests this continuance in order
for the Government to fulfill his discovery request. In the
event Government gains protective order to halt discovery,
Respondent needs more time in order to find and utilize
additional methods to gather information. When the IRS fails to
comply with the request for Discovery, Respondent is entitled to
a separate hearing. 4. And other grounds as permitted by law and as will
be hereinafter submitted to this court. I hereby certify that I have on this date
delivered or mailed to opposing parties copies of this pleading,
postage prepaid and properly addressed. Address: __________________________ __________________________________
_________________________
Request For Production Of Documents UNITED
STATES DISTRICT
Plaintiff(s)
)
CIVIL ACTION ____________________________
OF DOCUMENTS To: can
obtain about requester and his party. 2.
Each and every document, record and material that you have or can
obtain about this action or pertaining to it. 3.
Each and every document, record and material about or
pertaining to this requester and this action held of
obtainable by your attorney
and the firm or agency for which he works. 4.
The documents of yours and your attorney’s pertaining to the witnesses
in this case or potential witnesses. 5. This
request is continuing in nature and applies to documents as
described above that hereafter are obtained by you. Date:_______________ Requester_____________________
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff's)
) Defendant(s)________________________ TO:_______________________ TO: I
hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy
of this pleading to opposing parties. Date:
_____________________
__________________________
Address:______________________
STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Medley & Medley Law Firm P.A _________________________ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: Medley & Medley Law Firm P.A. ________________________________
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT ________________
)
CIVIL NO._____________________
vs.
) The United States
and
) _________________
) Pursuant to Rule 37 FRCivP, Petitioner moves this court for
an order requiring the above-named to answer Interrogatories
propounded by Petitioner pursuant to Rule 33 of said rules: 1.
Heretofore, Petitioner filed Interrogatories in this case which
were to be answered by the above-named in 30 days or objected
to, as the rules required. 2.
The above-named have not answered said interrogatories, made
objections thereto, nor made any response whatsoever. 3.
Petitioner moves this court for an order requiring the
above-named to answer the Interrogatories heretofore filed, to
pay Petitioner his expenses and costs in preparation of this
motion, to issue sanctions against Respondents and to admonish
their attorney. 4.
The sanctions against Respondents for failure to answer
Interrogatories should include: I certify that I mailed on or about this date a copy of this
Motion to opposing party. Date:
______________________
_______________________________ Address:___________________ (1) Give the names and addresses of persons known to the parties or counsel to be witnesses concerning the
facts of the case and indicate whether or not written or
recorded statements have been taken from the witnesses and
indicate who has possession of such statements. Date:_________ _________________________ pg 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pg
2 Attachment A:
Definitions of Terms and Directions DEFINITION OF TERMS Pg
2
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Affidavit In Support of Motion To Recuse
UNITED STATES TAX COURT IN the prior case as Clarkson and his client
watched, Queerly told the obviously incompetent IRS attorney to
shut up, and then Queerly vigorously cross-examined a taxpayer,
badgered the witness, and antagonized the horrified tax
attorney. When Clarkson's case came up, the young attorney
would not allow such, and immediately Clarkson and Queerly
became involved in a scurrilous argument. When Clarkson entered
into the record his objection to Queerly's outrageous conduct,
the overbearing fool shrieked: I rule against your motions, I
find for the government; case dismissed. 11. Since Queerly had with typical tax
court finesse ruled against Clarkson's client, Clarkson appealed
on grounds of Judicial Misconduct; mainly basing his
objections on the bases of Queerly's conduct in the case
Clarkson only witnessed. Without objection of the IRS, which knew the tax
court allowed deranged persons to hold court, Clarkson won his
appeal! 12. Unfortunately, Queerly regulated to
the seminar circuit on behalf of the IRS and appeared at the
University of South Carolina Law School tax seminar in January
1977. At the end of the speaking, Clarkson happened to be near
Queerly and introduced himself. Queerly shouted: "I
remember who you are. I'll get you!! 13. As before, later in March 1977,
Clarkson had Queerly, Featherston's personal friend, to recluse
himself from all of Clarkson's cases. 14. Featherston's action against Clarkson,
as indicated above, shows a predisposition and bias, and clearly
indicates he has irrevocably made up his mind regarding any
issues in this case. His conduct, preserved on the record,
creates such an appearance of partiality and bias that any
actions in this matter are subject to extreme question. 15. The tax court has 17 other judges,
available to hear and decide these issues and Featherston has a
responsibility and duty in light of questions of his partiality
to allow another judge to determine the issue. 16. As a result of Featherston's personal
prejudice, and bias and attacks against petitioner, as well as
his relationship with Queerly, he should remove himself from any
involvement whatsoever from this case. Date: 10 Feb
81
________________________________
Sworn to before me this 10th day of February 1981 Freedom Tip When sending things to governmental agencies bent on loosing things, one needs some form of delivery confirmation. Ideally this is certified mail with return receipt. However is you’re cheap like me, you’ll discover this incurs quite an expense at about $5 per mailing.
With the Automated Computer System at the IRS one can be kept quite busy just with response letters at $5 per pop. However, you need to be aware that certified and return receipt are two different services. The first is the numbered green stick-on label; the second is the green card that gets sent back.
You don’t really need the green card. Just pay the $1.80 for the green label with the numbers. Go down to the post office and pick up a stack of them. Whenever you write a letter put the number for one of the labels on the top of the letter. This way you can track them and keep track of them yourself.
To verify delivery go to the UPS website and click on track and confirm. Enter the number and track the date it was delivered. Print this out if you wish as your receipt. INTERROGATORIES
by Robert Clarkson 515 Concord Ave. Interrogatories are a list of questions sent by a
party in a lawsuit to the opposing party, or any other person
with knowledge pertaining to the subject of the suit. Under
rules of the various courts, the person who receives the
interrogatories must answer them within so many days. Rule 33 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCivP) mandate an answer
or an objection within thirty (30) days. 1. If the Patriot frames his question properly, he
can force opposing party to reveal a great deal of information
at almost no cost. However, if the questions are not framed
properly and request irrelevant materials and overbroad
question, the opposing party is entitled to a protective order
squashing the Interrogatories. 2. In any event, Interrogatories save the litigant
time and money. The only costs to the requestor is postage.
However, the opposing party must spend a great deal of time and
effort to furnish the information. 3. Unlike depositions which must be scheduled and
then typed, interrogatories are relatively swift and sure. Also,
Interrogatories are precise; the answers are definite and the
recipient cannot be easily weaseled out of them later as the
Interrogatory must sign them. Since they are directed to a
particular person, the Bureaucratic run-around can be lessened.
Answers to Interrogatories, in fact, speak for the government
agency. 4. Interrogatories are an important part of
DISCOVERY, ie. where parties in a lawsuit seek to learn the
rules of court and about the opposing side and witnesses prior
to the trial. The Discovery process includes: (1) Deposition,
(2) Admission of facts and admission of documents, (3)
Interrogatories, and (4) Production of documents. 5. However, Interrogatories do have some problems
in that one receives a lawyer's answer, carefully coined and
screened, phrased in the least helpful and harmful terms
possible. Unlike a deposition, an answer to an Interrogatory can
be evaded without a sharp follow-up question, and also can tip
off the opposing party to one's line of approach. Also, the
recipient of an unsatisfactory or evasive answer is stuck
without opportunity of a fast follow-up. 6. Drafting Interrogatories is not hard at all if
one remembers the KISS principal: Keep it short, simple. Word
your questions narrowly, on point, relevant to the issues
involved. Do not ask senseless questions or your opponent will
use them against you as an excuse to delay or move for a
protective order. Expect the government attorneys to violate the
law, to use evasive and useless answers. You may end up in Court
on the Interrogatories, so do some research. 7. Do not use interrogatories as a harassment
weapon until you have all the information you want. Courts can
easily see during a Protective Order hearing the real purpose of
your questions. If you have irrelevant materials in with solid
questions, the Court may throw them all out. Stick to the issues
until you get the information you need. Then if you want proceed
with harassment, delay9 Refusal to answer Interrogatories is an excellent
dilatory tactic which the government will use at great length,
especially in FOIA suits. Therefore, normally one would not use
an interrogatory when he is in a hurry to resolve the suit in
more FOIA-Privacy Act Litigations. I 8. You file Interrogatories like any other
pleading, according to local rules. See Clarkson's "How
to File Pleadings , Law Course #7, insert to Patriot Cannon,
October 80. PLUS, you apparently need to send one copy of
the Interrogatories to the person or agency to whom it is
addressed. 1. Make each interrogatory TO THE POINT.
_____________________________ Rule 26 letter
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Notice is hereby given that Petitioner above-named
hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the
____________________ Circuit, from the order dated ______________ from the Honorable
______________________________________________________ U.S.
District Judge for the above District, which denied Petitioner damages under illegal tax collection act IRC §7433 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this date I sent to opposing counsel a copy of this pleading, postage prepaid and properly addressed. UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
Petitioner
)
CIVIL NO._________
vs.
)
ORDER FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
The United States
and
) ____________________________
)
Respondent This matter comes before me, upon request of
Petitioner for a stay pending appeal of the Order of the
District Court which required third-party record keepers to
deliver records and papers to the Internal Revenue Service. I find that Petitioner's rights would be violated
unless a stay is granted. Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED, that a stay be, and the same is
hereby granted, pending the hearing and determination of the
appeal, or until further order of the Court.
_____________________
United States District Judge Date:_________________________ Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. For Web questions and information contact
PNwebmaster
DISTRICT OF__________________________
Internal Revenue Agent
________________________________
)
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
)
)
)
vs.
)
_____________________
Respondent
)
Respondent pursuant
to Rule 6B, FRCivP moves this Court for an Enlargement of Time
and for a postponement of the hearing in this ease for thirty
days or ___ based upon the following grounds.
Date: ____________________________
Respondent, Pro Se
top
DISTRICT OF____________________
top
DISTRICT OF____________________
) CIVIL
ACTION #________
Plaintiff pro se
top
) Civil Action
No._________________
COUNTY
OF____________
)
)
Medical
Center,
Inc.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
)
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
TO: Defendants,
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED, pursuant to Rule 36(a) of the South
Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure, to admit or deny the following
numbered requests for admission, in
writing, within thirty (30) days after service of this Request.
If you cannot admit or deny any such request, you are under a
duty seasonably to amend a prior response if (a) you know that
the response was incorrect when made, or (b) you know that the
response though correct when made is no longer true and the
circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is,
in substance, a knowing concealment. If you fail to admit the
truth of any matter as requested and this Defendant thereafter
proves the truth of the matter, Defendant may apply to the Court
for an order requiring you to pay to it the reasonable expenses
incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorneys’
fees. Further, if you fail to admit or deny the request in
writing within thirty (30) days after service, exclusive of the
day of service, the request shall be deemed admitted.
1. Do you admit that _____________________was a patient at
____________Area Medical
Center, Inc. from October 26, 2000 through October 28, 2000?
2. Do you admit that during her hospitalization during the
period set forth above ______________ received hospital services
and supplies pursuant to the direction and orders of her
admitting and attending physicians?
3. Do you admit that _________ was the husband of ______________
during the period from October 26, 2000 through October 28,
2000?
4. Do you admit that payment has not been made to ___________
Area Medical Center,
Inc. for the hospital services and supplies provided to
_____________________
during her hospitalization from October 26, 2000 through October
28, 2000?
John Doe Deere
500 South Patriot Street
P.O. Box YYYY
__________, SC 29622
Attorneys for Plaintiff
_______Area Medical Center, Inc.
May, 2003.
top
STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
)
Civil Action No.___________________
COUNTY
OF____________
)
)
Area Medical Center,
Inc.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST
) FOR PRODUCTION, INSPECTION
) AND COPYING OF DOCUMENT TO
DEFENDANT
Defendant(s).
)
TO: Defendants,
The Plaintiff, Area Medical Center, Inc., by and through its
undersigned attorneys, hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 34 of
the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Defendant
produce and
permit the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the following
documents:
INSTRUCTIONS:
If any request for documents is deemed to call for the
production of privileged or immune materials
of whatever kind and such privilege or immunity is asserted,
identify’ in writing each document so withheld and provide the
following information:
(a) The reason for withholding the document;
(b) A statement of the basis for the claim of privilege, work
product or other ground of
non-disclosure;
(c) A brief description of the document, including the date, the
number of pages, the
name of its authors or preparers, the name of each person to
whom it was sent, the present
custodian and the subject matter of the document;
With respect to any responsive document which was formerly in
your possession, custody or control
and has been lost, destroyed or is no longer in your possession
for any reason, state the type of document, the subject matter
of the document, the author, the person to whom it was sent and
the date on which the document was lost or destroyed.
1. Any and all documents identified in response to Plaintiffs
Interrogatories numbered I through 8.
2. Any and all medical records, medical reports, and other written
documents pertaining to the care, treatment, examination, testing or
other observation of the Defendant.
3. A copy of a current Curriculum Vitae of each and every expert the
Defendant intends to call or list as a witness to testify against
the Plaintiff concerning Plaintiffs charges.
4. Any and all other documents or photographs of any type, nature,
or description whatsoever not produced in response to any of the
preceding requests which the Defendant will rely upon at trial,
either for the proof of Defendants’ case or impeachment purposes.
The Plaintiff requests that these documents be made available for
inspection and copying at the
offices of the Plaintiffs attorneys at XYZ Street, ____________South
Carolina, or at such place
as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties at 10:00 A. M. on
the thirtieth day after service hereof. In lieu of production
for inspection and copying at the aforesaid time and place, the
Defendants’ attorneys may, if they so desire, comply with this
request by forwarding legible photo static copies of these documents
to the undersigned attorneys at Post Office Box XPZ, _________,
South Carolina 29000 prior to the date and time mentioned above.
John Doe Deere
SC 29000
Telephone: (864)
Facsimile: (864)
________, South Carolina
Attorneys for Plaintiff
______Area Medical Center, Inc.
May, 2003.
top
DISTRICT OF_______________
Petitioner
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
Respondents
TO:______________
a. This Court should order that the questions or designated
facts should be taken to be established for the proposes of this
action;
b. This Court should refuse to allow Respondents to oppose
Petitioner's designated claim as in the Interrogatories and
prohibit Respondent from introducing matters in opposition;
c. The Court should strike out these parts of Respondents
pleadings pertaining to the questions on the Interrogatories
and/or refer judgment by default against Respondents.
d. That Respondent: and their counsel should he held in contempt
of Court for failure to obey any orders of this Court
Respondent
________________________
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF ANDERSON
Civil Action No: 2002-CP-04-XXX
The Evil Corporation; Inc
Plaintiff,
}
vs.
DEFENDANT
IMO PATRIOT FIRST INTERROGATORIES
TO
PLAINTIFF, The EVIL CORPORATION
Ima Patriot and
Imo
Patriot,
Defendant's).
TO: Plaintiff: The Evil Corporation; Inc
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 33 of the
South Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure, you are hereby required to respond fully in
writing, and under oath, to the following
Interrogatories, and to serve your answer to these
Interrogatories upon the undersigned, within thirty (30) days
after service of the same upon you, subject to the Definition of
Terms and Directions attached hereto as attachment A
INTERROGATORIES
(2)
For each person known to the parties or counsel to be a
witness concerning the facts of the case, set forth either a
summary sufficient to inform the other party of the
important facts known to or observed by such witness, or
provide a copy of any written or recorded statements taken
from such witnesses.
(3)
Set forth a list of photographs, plats, sketches or other
prepared documents in possession of the party that relate to
the claim or defense in the case.
(4)
In cases involving personal injury, set forth the names and
addresses of all physicians who have treated the party
and
all hospitals to which the party has been committed in
connection with said injuries and also set forth a statement
of all medical costs involved.
(5) Set forth an
itemized statement of all damages, exclusive of pain and
suffering, claimed to have been sustained by the party.
(6) List the names and addresses of any expert witnesses
whom the party proposes to use as a witness at the trial of
the case as well as said witness~ professional occupation,
subject matter in which said expert is expected to testify,
the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert
is expected to testify and the specific grounds on which
said expert’s opinion is based.
(7) As to each person the Defendant expects to call as
an expert witness at trial, please also state:
(a)
Expert’s educational background;
(b)
The subject matter or area on which each such person is to
testify,'
(c) A
list of books, treatises, journal articles or other works
with which each such person regards as authoritative on the
subject matter on which such person is
expected to testify.
(8) Identify all exhibits that you plan to use at the
trial.
Each of the above Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing
from the time of service until the trial of the case, and
any further information obtained by any party to this action
shall be promptly submitted to
the undersigned.
Ima Patriot, Attorney Pro se
The following definitions apply to each of the Interrogatories
set forth below, and are deemed to be incorporated in the
Interrogatories:
A.
The word person” means all entities, including all
individuals, joint owners, companies, partnerships, joint
ventures, corporations, trusts and estates.
B.
The word “document(s)” means all written, recorded or
graphic matter, whether produced or reproduced or stored on
papers, cards or tapes, belts, computer devices, or in the
constructive possession, custody or control of you, your
officers, directors, agents or employees or which are known by
you to exist; and includes originals, all copies of originals,
and all prior drafts, including but not limited to the
following: writing, papers, correspondence, drafts, notebooks,
telegrams, diaries, accounts, invoices, orders, letters,
reports, notes, memoranda, manuals, drawings, diagrams,
sketches, charts, dictating tapes, the notes or shorthand of
secretaries or stenographers or assistants, photographs,
negatives, prints, tape or disc recordings, photo records,
sound recordings, movie films, doctors’ reports,
descriptions, books, checks, bank account records, memos of
telephone conversations, and any substance supporting or using
the preparation thereof, as well as any other written
material.
C.
The word “identify” when used with respect to a person or
persons means to state the names, addresses and telephone
numbers of such persons or person.
D.
The word “identify” when used with respect to a document
or documents, means to describe a document or documents by
date, the subject matter, name of persons who wrote, signed,
initialed, dictated or otherwise participated in the creation
of the same, the name of the addressee or addressees, if any,
and the name and addresses of the person(s) who have custody
of said documents.
E.
The word “identify”, when used with respect to an act,
means to describe the substance of the event or events
constituting such act and to state the date when such act
occurred, the identity of each and every person or persons
participating in such act; the identity of all other persons,
if any, present when such act occurred; whether any minutes,
notes or memoranda or other recording of such was made;
whether such recording now exists; and the identity of the
person or persons presently having custody or control of such
recording.
F.
“The date” means the exact day, month and year if
ascertainable, or if not, the best approximation thereof.
DIRECTIONS
A. In answering each Interrogatory:
1. Identify each writing or document relied upon in the
preparation of each answer;
2. Which forms all or part of the basis for the answer,
or
3. Which corroborates the answer; or
4. The substance of which forms all or part of the
answer.
B. If all information furnished in answer to all or any part
of an Interrogatory is not within the
personal
knowledge of the affiant, state the name of each person to
whom all or any part of the
information furnished is a matter of personal knowledge, and the
name of each person who communicated to the affiant any part
of the information furnished.
C. If the answer to
all or any part of the Interrogatory is not presently known or
available, include statement to that effect, furnish the
information known as available, and respond to the entire
Interrogatory by Supplemental Answer in writing under oath
within ten (10) days from the date the entire answer becomes
known or available.
D. These
Interrogatories are deemed to continue up until the time of
trial
Washington, D.C 20217
ROBERT B. CLARKSON
and
FRAN P.
CLARKSON
}
Docket No. 201.59—80
Petitioner,
V.
Respondent,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Motion to Recuse
Petitioner coves that C. Morley Featherston, Chief Judge of this
institution before whom certain motions in this case are now
pending, and may in the future be placed, recluse himself on the
following grounds:
1. That Featherston has personal bias and prejudice against Mr.
Robert B.
Clarkson, Petitioner and favors the party, as explained in the
accompanying
affidavit.
2. That Featherston purposefully in March of 1977, -played a
sneak trick
personally against Clarkson who then was serving as attorney pro
bono.
That Featherston was personal friend of the late Tax Court Judge
Queerly,
who made a direct and intentional threat against Mr. Clarkson.
That
Featherston knows that Clarkson has political and economic Views
opposing the Marxist, income tax system to the extent that he
represented
free, pro bono close to 500 American citizens against IRS
tyranny.
3. That Featherston proceed no further in this ease and another
Tax court
Judge be -assigned to hear the proceedings, any further motions,
and the
motion filed herewith.
_________________________
R. B. Clarkson, pro se
Dated: 10 Feb. 80
515 Concord Ave.
Anderson, S. C. 29621
864-225-3061
Washington, D.C. 20217
Robert B. Clarkson
Fran P.
Clarkson
Docket No. 20159-80
Petitioner,
}
v.
Affidavit in Support of
Motion to Recluse
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondent
Petitioner R.B. Clarkson deposes and states under oath:
1. That be is the Petitioner in this case and that the sayings
and doings
here below are taken from the best of his memory
2. In March 77, in Columbia, S.C. Attorney R.B. Clarkson was
representing a client in a special Tax court session. That
earlier that month, the regular Tax court had net in Colombia,
and Attorney Clarkson had about a dozen cases scheduled for
trial. However, tax court ‘Judge” Queerly was scheduled to
hear Clarkson's numerous cases; none of which had been settled
or compromised; in fact Clarkson had approximately one-half the
cases scheduled for trial.
However, Clarkson moved that Judge Queerly recluse himself
because of his prior direct threat against Attorney Clarkson.
Judge Queerly realizing the wrongfulness of his prior actions
(described more graphically below) granted the motion and
removed himself from Clarkson’ s case.
3. Consequently, Featherston and his staff flew to Columbia
later that month for a special session for Clarkson's cases.
However, when Featherston, his clerks, and retainers, plus
several IRS Attorneys arrived, Attorney Clarkson, as assistant
public defender for his county, was trying criminal cases 40
miles sway, and unable to attend the special session.
4. Later Clarkson did appear, but without his clients who were
not notified of this special session.
Featherston then personally accused in effect Attorney Clarkson
of dilatory tactics of actually trying to delay a case. Such
false accusations are totally incorrect, malicious, harmful, and
serve convincing evidence that Featherston has great personal
bias against Clarkson, disregard of Clarkson's duties as public
defender; unwillingness to listen to Clarkson's explanation and
those of the witnesses who exclaimed the delay.
Featherston's personally prejudiced against Clarkson is great,
even to the extent that he would make such a wrongful
accusation. Now that the accusation end Clarkson's fervent
denials are on record, featherston is biased and prejudiced
against Clarkson personally.
b. That finally alter several unfortunate postponements, the
case was heard, and at the conclusion, Featherston played a
dirty, sneaky, low, disgusting, shameful trick on Clarkson.
6. Prior the case being held, Clarkson bad subpoenaed a large
number of top-level IRS agents, but due to his huge case load,
be had subpoenaed the wrong agent who had a similar name to the
one Clarkson needed.
The correct procedure and human courtesy would have been for the
bureaucrat (who later testified that he knew immediately that
Attorney Clarkson had made a simple error ) to simply call
Clarkson. But no, in typical IRS mentality, the incorrectly
subpoenaed agent went directly (against
Court rules) personally (violation of roles) to Featherston,
without notifying opposing counsel.
Featherston demonstrated his great bias and prejudice against
Clarkson, demonstrated his respect for the rules, for fair play,
for decency. for our system of law, by joining with the agent to
trick unsuspecting Clarkson.
Featherston had only that agent, and none of the numerous others
sit in his courtroom for weeks as the case was postponed without
even telling Clarkson of the typing error!! Featherston let his
hatred, bias, and prejudice against Clarkson override decency,
respect for law, and Tax court rules. His zeal to “get”
Clarkson was so great that he also abandoned his judicial oath.
He is still biased against Clarkson.
At the closing of the case, alter hearing the evidence
supposedly in fair and impartial manner, Featherston announces:
a. Sanctions against Clarkson both for subpoenaing the incorrect
agent, and allowing him to sit there for weeks (now how was
Clarkson supposed to know he was there).
b. That he, Featherston had known about this problem for weeks!!
and never corrected Clarkson.
c. Without allowing Clarkson either notice of the sanction or an
opportunity to contest. Featherston just announced his
punishment.
Unlike the IRS attorneys, clerks, “judge”, Clarkson was not
informed until the agent testified as to his real name.
9. Featherston abandonment of judicial ethics was so gross that
he should not be allowed to sit on any of Clarkson’ s cases or
any case - where decency and respect for judicial ethics would
be required.
l0. Further, Featherston was a co-hurt, co-worker, and friend of
Tax court Judge (sic) Queerly. In March l976 Attorney Clarkson
represented pro-bono a taxpayer harassed by IRS goons,
before Queerly in Columbia, S.C. However, Queerly's conduct in a
prior case was shocking, disgusting, horrifying, even worse than
Featherston's earlier conduct.
Without hearing the motions, even starting the case, or allowing
Clarkson an opportunity to proceed under objection, Queerly ran
out of the room, robe slapping behind him. Queerly's mental
defect by then was obvious even to his buddies at the IRS and he
was later removed from the bench.
Anderson,
SC
R.B. Clarkson, PRO SE
I certify that this motion is made in good faith
_______________________________
R.B. Clarkson, PRO SE
Mailing the IRS
by Sovereign Dave
Anderson1 SC 29621
864-225-3061
2. Read your complaint, pull out what points of law need to be
proven; what facts are needed to back up your allegations. Draw
a list of salient points, legal issues, allegations, legal
complaints, needed facts. The examine each of these and draw
from each of these the facts or happening which would lead to
the salient point, i.e. the proof to lead up to conclusion.
3. After listing these needs, draw questions from them, frame
interrogatory to meet certain needs, i.e. rewrite the factual
statement in form of a question. Draw questions which would lead
to answers to prove points of law.
4. As Cooley says: "Stay On Point!"
Draft questions on point, to illicit a certain answer to confirm
a fact, to dispose of an unknown. The questions should all head
toward a salient issue.
5. Examine all pleading in your case, opponent's answer, then
the material court decision and pick out issues, disputed areas
and again pull out questions - interrogatories which would lead
to useful answers.
6. Make each interrogatory meaningful, relevant, and material.
Do not waste your time sending in ridiculous, non-sensitive
discovery. You will only grieve the judge and infer that you
either did not know what you are doing or have filed an
harassing, vexatious complaint.
7. Protective orders, i.e. judicial order halting discovery are
easily obtained by government attorney from his buddy - the
judge.
So why mess up good elicitations with irrelevant ones, Draw good
ones first. Then, after you have the needed and essential
information, if you want to file the harassment discovery, do so
later. Do not mix the good with the bad, or DA in black robe
will squash all of them; even ones that might have survived a
protective motion had they been standing on their own.
8. Actually, you would be wasting your time and energy sending
in foolish questions. Best: do good work - consistent.
Do not try to use courts and lawsuits for harassments; the
establishment has methods to forestall that - so you are only
wasting your own time ruining your chances later if you have a
legitimate claim. Better methods of egg-throwing is available.
Interrogatories are a list of questions sent by a party in a
lawsuit to the opposing party. or any other person with
knowledge pertaining to the subject of the suit. Under rules of
the various courts, the person who receives the interrogatories
must answer them within so many days. Rule 33 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCivP) mandate an answer or an
objection within thirty (30) days.
1. If the Patriot frames his question properly, he can force
opposing party to reveal a great deal of information at almost
no cost. However, if the questions are not framed properly and
request irrelevant materials and overbroad question, the
opposing party is entitle to a protective order squashing the
Interrogatories.
2. In any event, Interrogatories save the litigant time and
money. The only costs to the requestor is postage. However, the
opposing party must spend a great deal of time and effort to
furnish the information.
3. Unlike depositions which must be scheduled and then typed,
Interrogatories are relatively swift and sure. Also,
Interrogatories are precise; the answers are definite and the
precipitant cannot be easily weaseled out of them later as the
Interrogatory must sign them. Since they are directed to a
particular person, the Bureaucratic run-around can be lessened.
Answers to Interrogatories, in fact, speak for the government
agency.
4. Interrogatories are an important part of DISCOVERY, ie. where
parties in a lawsuit seek to learn the rules of court and about
the opposing side and witnesses prior to the trial, The
Discovery process includes: (1) Deposition, (2) Admission of
facts and admission of documents, (3) Interrogatories, and (4)
Production of documents.
5. However, Interrogatories do have some problems in that one
receives a lawyers answer, carefully coined and screened,
phrased in the least helpful and harmful terms possible. Unlike
a deposition, an answer to an Interrogatory can be evaded
without a sharp follow-up question, and also can tip off the
opposing party to one's line of approach. Also, the recipient of
an unsatisfactory or evasive answer is stuck without opportunity
of a fast follow-up.
6. Drafting Interrogatories is not hard at all if one remembers
the KISS principal:
Keep it short, simple. Word your questions narrowly, on point,
relevant to the issues involved. Do not ask senseless questions
or your opponent will use them against you as an excuse to delay
or move for a protective order.
Expect the government attorneys to violate the law, to use
evasive and useless answers. You may end up in Court on the
Interrogatories, so do some research.
7. Do not use Interrogatories as a harassment weapon until you
have all the information you want. Courts can easily see during
a Protective Order hearing the real purpose of your questions.
If you have irrelevant materials in with solid questions, the
Court may throw them all out. Stick to the issues until you get
the information you need. Then if you want, proceed with
harassment, delay,
Refusal to answer Interrogatories is an excellent dilatory
tactic which the government will use at great length, especially
in FOIA suits. Therefore, normally one would not use an
Interrogatory when he is in a hurry to resolve the suit in more
FOIA-Privacy Act Litigations.
8. You file Interrogatories like any other pleading, according
to local rules. See Clarkson's "How to File Pleadings , Law
Course #7; PLUS, you apparently need to send one copy of the
Interrogatories to the The person or agency to whom it is
addressed!
Clarkson's Law Course # 10
Patriot Law Reporter
From:________________________
To:
U S Attorney
Attn: AUSA
US
Courthouse
Re:_____________________________________
Dear Government Attorney:
1.Pursuant to Rule 26a)(1) FRCP, I hereby provide the other
parties the following information:
A. Plaintiff does not know any person who has discoverable
information relevant to disputed facts, except employees and
agents of defendants and these are known to defendant and
This is an FOIA action, defendants have all of the discoverable
information and Plaintiff has little or none.
B. FOIA Plaintiff does not have any documents or things relevant
to disputed facts, except those of the defendant and those are
know to defendant.
C. Plaintiff has no computation of damages.
D. Plaintiff has no insurance agreements pertaining to this
case.
2(A) Plaintiff has no witnesses, expert or otherwise.
(B) Plaintiff has no experts or statement of experts.
(C) Plaintiff does not expect to have any more information in
this case, but will send to defendants if such becomes
available.
3. (A)(B)&(C) Plaintiff has no witnesses, evidence or
documents (except those released by defendants) or exhibits
except those attached to the complaint or addendum to complaint
and these have been filed in Court already.
4. Pursuant to Rule 26(d) & (f), I request that you meet
with me within 14 days after the date of this letter at 10 am at
my address above or to discuss the nature of the claims,
discovery, settlements, etc. If you are not at that place at
that time, or make suitable arrangements, then
I will proceed with discovery in the normal manner.
Date:
_____________
Yours,
______________________
_______________DISTRICT OF _______________
____________________ )
Petitioner ) CIVIL ACTION NO. _______
)
vs. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
)
____________________ )
Respondents
_______________________________ Date: ___________________
Petitioner, Pro Se
Address:_______________________
_______________________
DISTRICT OF___________________
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S. , 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S. , 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."