Plaintiffs tried the deposition route. Government refused to answer, on the grounds cited in this court opinion. Court wouldn't make them answer. That is essentially what the case has been.
Peter Mancus wrote: > Dear All: > I am not part of Bob Schulz's inner circle brain trust, and Mark > Lane does not consult with me. Since I am not privy to their thinking, > I feel awkward in making the commentary that follows, which is a > repeat of what I have communicated to others before. > The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain a federal statute > which states this: Mr. Lane could send the DOJ attorney assigned to > this WTP case a formal notice of deposition, a special kind of notice. > This special notice would, with the force of law behind it--federal > law, require the US, at Bob Schulz's/WTP's request [polite for demand] > to designate the person the US deems to be most knowledageable about > federal income tax matters and empowered by the US Federal Govt to > speak, under oath, officially, in a binding manner, for the US Federal > Govt. Once that govt's legal representative makes that formal > designation, Mr. Lane would then have the legal right to cross examine > that official designee, get answers [not subject to the First > Amendment but subject to the Fed Rules of Civ Proced,] and that > official designee's answers, whatever they are, and his/her reasons > for same, would be, for force of law, automatically legally binding on > the US Federal Govt. > Now, why Mr. Lane/Mr. Schulz do not op for this remedy, or why they > did not do it before, escapes me. > I presume that do not do it now because they are legally barred > from doing it now since their case was thrown out and they are on appeal. > One way to fix that is to file a new lawsuit and, at the earliest > opportunity, serve the special notice of deposition that I described > above. > That special notice is one legally authorized way to force the US > Federal Govt to answer the questions WTP claims it wants answers to. > I have read the particular FRCivProced that I described. As of > approximately 12 months ago, it existed. I presume it still exists. It > has been on the books for a long time. > To not use that legal tool is akin to having the enemy in your > sights, within easy range, with the cross hairs on the target, and > just not pulling the trigger. > Makes me suspect there is either a different strategy or a > different agenda at play, all foreign to me, all not understood by me. > -- Peter Mancus -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------
