Tax Repeal Fight Ain’t
Over ‘til It’s Over
Chuck
Muth
October
16, 2015
Paraphrasing
the great Mark Twain, reports of the death of the We Decide Coalition’s
referendum to repeal the largest tax hike in Nevada history – including that
new gross receipts tax – have been greatly exaggerated.
While
it’s true that on October 1, 2015, Carson City District Court Judge Todd
Russell did rule that our original filed referendum violated the single-subject
rule, as well as “description of effect” requirements, there’s a huge problem
with his ruling.
He
never should have heard the case in the first place.
On
September 11, 2015, I filed a Petition for Removal with the federal court in
Clark County, alleging constitutional infringements on our right to petition
the government, as well as other First Amendment rights. Notice of that request to remove the case
from Judge Russell’s court was promptly and properly filed with the court clerk
and opposing counsel.
And
that’s where sub-section (d) of section 1446 of title 28 of the United States
Code Service comes into play. It reads,
in part…
“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...”
Pretty
clear, even to a layman.
Nevertheless,
at 2:30 pm on October 1, 2015, Judge Russell willfully conducted his hearing
knowing a Petition for Removal had been filed, knowing that it had not been
remanded (returned) to his court, and knowing that I would not be there.
Judge
Russell, clearly itching to rule against the referendum, opened the hearing by
asking the attorneys for the tax hikers if they thought he could hold the
hearing even though he acknowledged the rule that he should “proceed no further.”
This
was like a pregnant schoolteacher suffering from an insatiable and
over-powering craving for ice cream asking a room full of second-graders if
they’d like to go to Baskin Robbins for lunch.
Naturally,
the attorneys for the tax hikers then proceeded to argue that the hearing could
go forward despite the clear prohibition on doing so, venturing opinions as to
why the federal court had no business interfering with their business.
The
problem is it’s not their opinion that counts.
It’s the opinion of the federal court judge who was assigned my Petition
for Removal. And at the time of the
writing of this column, the federal judge has not yet ruled.
As
the saying goes, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
And despite all the media reports to the contrary, this tax repeal
referendum ain’t over.
P.S.
Judge Russell's action in this matter was so egregious, and resulted in
such serious public relations damage to our referendum efforts, that I
filed an official complaint against him this week with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
His
conduct clearly undermined the public trust and confidence in our
judicial system. I mean if a judge doesn't have to follow the rules,
why should anyone else, right?
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
(Mr.
Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.com
and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. You can reach him at ChuckMuth.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment