Pursuant to FRCP 69(a)(1), plaintiff petitions the Court for a Writ of Execution against defendant to effect recovery of a sum dully awarded plaintiff by the Court, and in support thereof avers the following:
1. On June 14, 2007, following two civil actions spanning four years, the Court granted defendant in the above captioned action summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, pursuant to which plaintiff was awarded the sum of $19,730.42, plus statutory interest, bringing the total to approximately twenty five thousand dollars at this writing.
2. Upon waiting a discreet interval, on September 4 of last year plaintiff submitted to the Court and served upon defendant on interrogatory inquiring how we might see to the judgment. Plaintiff is still waiting.
3. Supposing in due course that if two branches of government are good then three should be even better, Plaintiff late last year contacted the office of plaintiff’s Congressman, in hopes that a wider circle might cast a bigger net.
1
4. April has on some number of occasions talked to Amanda with the IRS, who plaintiff is given to understand may also have talked to Brenda. Who I think may know Deloris.
1or something like that
1
5. Anyhoo, friends April is, yet whatever inference we might wish to draw from the time worn and oft lauded phrase “checks and balances”, and whatever efficacy the principal may have on a larger scale, for trash such as plaintiff it transpires that the apparent net consequence of formally separating the powers of government is to insulate the various branches one from the other from mutual interference in their respective depredations.
2
6. In conjunction, wholly outside of, or in some combination thereof with the foregoing, on February 4 plaintiff received a check from defendant in the amount of $31.88. No explanation of any sort accompanied the check. The Court is as free to speculate as anyone.
7. Four days later plaintiff received a demand from defendant for $31.82 plus 9 cents interest and other charges, effectively leaving plaintiff 3 cents down. Plaintiff was to surrender the sum by March 3 to avoid further penalties and/or interest. The Court may not be surprised to learn that no explanation accompanied this check either.
3 And again, if the Court would like to speculate, feel free.
8. On March 3, plaintiff received a check from defendant in the amount of $303.18. Plaintiff notes 1) the possibly coincidental similarity between $303.18 and $31.88, and 2) $303.18 is appreciably more than $31.88, but still very much less than the 24 and some odd thousand dollars sought.
4
9. Unconfirmed reports from the Congressman’s office have claimed a check in the amount of $24,646.56 was last seen with the Department of Justice on or about January 10. The explicit phrase mutually agreed to was “the check’s in the mail”.
5
10. At this writing, plaintiff has been pursuing recovery of said starkly seized sum for five
6 years, and even assuming eventual recovery with statutory interest plaintiff’s net financial loss will by any realistic accounting certainly amount to many thousands of dollars, no trivial sum for such as us trash. We may nonetheless confidently suppose not a single one of the various cognizant federal employees involved will at any point incur the slightest consequence for their shabby conduct. For shame.
2Madison notwithstanding
3not making any of this up
4plaintiff is sad
5seriously, not making this up
6expletive
2
11. Still, it’s not like plaintiff has been tortured or imprisoned for years without charge. So it’s hard to complain.
7
Wherefore, on the chance that defendant IRS might be moved to responsible or at least coherent action by some small further submission by the Court, plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court for a Writ of Execution, or such other Order as the Court may at its discretion believe the defendant might find compelling, failing which the Court might perhaps in lieu thereof wish to add one or more of its own personnel to the phone tree.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March, 2008.
____________________________________
Gregory T. Christian/ Plaintiff
7but plaintiff manages
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that service of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION has this 5th day of March, 2008
been made via hand delivery upon Defendant's counsel of record:
George J. Conits
Assistant US Attorney for the District of South Carolina
105 N. Spring St., Suite 200
Greenville, SC 29601
______________________________________
Gregory T. Christian/Plaintiff