****COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST SAPF***
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
Therefore, there is no injunction order in effect against the Fellowship at the present time. The Fellowship will keep its members apprised of any new developments, and members will be more fully informed in the next Liberty Tree.
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Kotmair filed on Dec 13th: Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and for a New Trial and filed on the 14th a Motion to Stay, and on the 15th a motion with the 4th Appellate #06-2314, but the contents of that motion has not yet been published.
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
As far as it goes, the announcement is correct. What it did not disclose (from Judge Nickerson's order to stay):
Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully consider the motion for new trial as it is not yet ripe, the Court can say with some certainty that it will be denied. Defendants raise the same arguments in that motion that were raised and fully considered in the cross motions for summary judgment. The motion for modification of the injunction order is also not yet ripe, and the government has yet to respond. This motion, however, might prove to have some merit, particularly as it relates to assisting Defendants in discerning what is protected political speech and what is prohibited false commercial speech.1
1That said, the Court notes that much of Defendants' "confusion" results from their own intentional ignorance and obfuscation. As noted in the memorandum resolving the cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants continue to tout their chimerical theories despite the consistent rejection of those theories by all courts to have considered them. Nov. 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion at 12 ("just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid," quoting SAPF's Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 28 n.67).
While Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the ultimate merits of their claims, they may be entitled to some minor modifications or clarifications of this Court's injunction.
Do you not find it troubling that Kotmair is not more forthcoming with the facts on these rulings?
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Except they haven't actually updated anything as of this post - nothing since Sept 11th.
I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but the real scam is the legal
system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched,
constitutional argument.
but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument
Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
In general, I'm in total agreement with you. Again I’m way out of my league but tax arguments, regardless of merit, will never be allowed to advance IMO. To do so would be akin to the system committing suicide. Call me a cynic, but this beast won’t allow itself to be starved to death.