STORIES OF TAX REPEAL DEATH GREATLY EXAGGERATED
You may have heard that a judge in Carson City yesterday
killed the tax repeal referendum that we filed in early August and that I
didn’t “show up” for the hearing. Here’s
one such story by Geoff Dornan of
the Nevada Appeal...
To the extent that I did not participate in the hearing and
that Judge Todd Russell did rule
that the repeal referendum violated the single subject rule and had an inadequate
description of effect, the stories are true.
However…
1.) The wording of
our “Description of Effect” for the referendum that the judge struck down was IDENTICAL
to the description of effect written by the Legislative Counsel Bureau for the
bill that we’re trying to repeal.
And we always expected the judge to rule against us on the “single
subject” rule. For that we’ve always
assumed an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court will again become necessary.
2.) The claim made by
opponents in the original story by Mr. Dornan - that I tried to avoid service
of their lawsuit five times - is total BS. Gratefully, the reporter removed these
accusations from an updated version of the story that was published this
morning.
In the original story, the process server claims he “heard
voices” coming from inside my house, but that no one would come to the
door. If he did actually say that, then he’s
a liar.
The fact is, our house is inside a gated “compound” and the
front door to my house is some 50 feet away from the street (see picture
below).
Plus, thanks to the September heat in Vegas, our windows are
closed because the air conditioning is on during the day.
There’s simply no way this guy could “hear voices” coming
from inside my house even if I was home at the time he tried to serve the
papers…which I was not.
Instead, he
threw the papers on the ground outside the gate rather than call me to set up a
time for me to be home and accept the documents.
So it was improper service.
And if I was really trying to drag this matter out - as Lori Story of the Attorney General’s
offices falsely accused me of doing in court yesterday - I would have filed a
motion alleging improper service.
I didn’t.
I’m telling you folks, these people will say and do anything
to keep you from voting on this tax repeal referendum.
3.) By law, they
never should have held that hearing in the first place.
On September 11, 2013 I filed a “Petition for Removal of State Court Action to Federal Court”
alleging First Amendment violations by the PAC that sued us to block the
referendum. The petition was accepted by
the United States District Court of Southern Nevada and assigned to Judge
Jennifer A. Dorsey.
As required by law, I mailed compete packets of the petition
and all supporting documents to both of the lawyers representing the PAC that’s
suing us, as well as the First Judicial District Court – Judge Russell’s court
– in Carson City.
At that point, by law, all proceedings on the lawsuit at the
state level should have been halted immediately.
According to Sub-section (d) of Section 1446 of Title 28 of
the United States Code Service…
“Notice to adverse parties and State court. Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
“…and the State court shall proceed no further...”
Indeed, since Judge Dorsey has NOT remanded the case
back to the First Judicial Court in Carson City, Judge Russell – who admitted
in court yesterday that he KNEW about the Petition for Removal – should
not have proceeded with yesterday’s hearing.
And that’s exactly why I didn’t drive eight hours up to
Carson City to attend. The bottom line
is that I did not want to risk waiving my petition for removal by showing up
while my request to the U.S. court is still pending.
That the two attorneys hired to block the referendum and
Judge Russell *think* there are no grounds for removal and chose to ignore the
U.S. District Court’s authority in the matter is irrelevant.
It’s not their “opinions” that matter. It’s the law.
It’s right there in black-and-white.
You could look it up.
As for Benson’s, Griffin’s, Story’s and Judge Russell’s
*opinion* that there are no grounds for removing the lawsuit from state court,
Judge Dorsey hasn’t ruled on that yet.
In fact, on September 23, 2015, Judge Dorsey signed an order
- delivered electronically to Story, Benson and Griffin – that concluded as
follows…
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the non-moving party [the PAC that sued us] or parties shall have fourteen (14) days, or twenty-one (21) days for a motion for summary judgment, from the date of this Minute Order within which to file and serve points and authorities (and any other required documents) in opposition to the pending dispositive motion pursuant to the instructions herein, and the moving party [me] shall thereafter have seven (7) days, or fourteen (14) days for a motion of summary judgment, after filing the opposing points and authorities within which to file and serve reply points and authorities (and any other required documents). The pending motion(s) shall then be submitted to the court for a decision.”
So not only did Benson, Griffin and Story KNOW about
the Petition for Removal, but they also KNEW the U.S. District Court ordered
them to respond and defend their position.
So yesterday’s “star chamber” hearing was nothing more than
a PR effort to embarrass me – because they KNEW in advance that I
wouldn’t be there – and to block our effort to let the voters decide on whether
or not to repeal Gov. Brian Sandoval’s
$1.4 billion tax hike.
All I can say is that if they thought this would discourage
me and cause me to throw in the towel, they were seriously mistaken.
All this stunt did, in the immortal words of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on
Pearl Harbor in the movie Tora, Tora,
Tora, was “awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
We still have an uphill fight.
The odds are against us.
We could very well still lose.
But we will not quit.
Onward!
RALSTON’S RANT ON COURT DECISION
Naturally, liberal blogger “Sputtering Jon” Ralston - ill-informed, as usual - sputtered away
with glee about the court decision on Twitter yesterday afternoon…
“So @nvdornan [Geoff Dornan of the Nevada Appeal] reports from Carson City that @chuckmuth didn't show for hearing on tax repeal, judge tossed it, refused to move to fed ct. . . . So @chuckmuth retains title as head of Serial Loser Caucus…”
Again, Judge Russell KNEW why I wasn’t going to be there and
about the federal stay.
Because even if he missed the notice from the federal district
court that was sent to his court, I FedEx’ed him a letter to that effect which
was delivered and signed for more than four hours before yesterday’s hearing
(see delivery receipt below)…
No comments:
Post a Comment