Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-mc-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-mc-00005-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Elkins
Respondent
David Palmer
Petitioner
United States of America
Petitioner
Alice Wight
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

DAVID PALMER, Revenue Officer, 

Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners, No. MC S-08-0005 FCD GGH

vs.

ANTHONY ELKINS and ALICE WIGHT,

Respondents. ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION

 / BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED

Previously pending on this court’s calendar for March 20, 2008, was a hearing on

the order to show cause, filed January 16, 2008. Respondents filed a one page “Answer” and

“Petition to Dismiss” on February 4, 2008 which merely objected to a magistrate judge presiding

at all in this case, and presenting the all too familiar jargon that the United States was a

“corporation” and a “foreign corporation” with respect to a state. A familiar, but baseless, 

accusation was also made that the revenue officer, David Palmer, was acting without authority. 

No substantive reply was made to the petition of the United States in respect to the tax summons

other than the above statements. After moving for a continuance of the hearing, which was

granted in part, respondent Wight appeared with a spokesperson. Evidently, Ms. Wight had a

medical condition which precluded her from speaking. The court allowed her spokesperson to

Case 2:08-mc-00005-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Respondents submitted the request twice, once to petitioners sometime prior to March

1

12, 2008, when petitioners filed it, and once by filing a duplicate of this same document on

March 17, 2008. (Docket # 8, Ex. A; docket # 10.) 

 Findings and recommendations addressing the government’s petition to enforce the 2

summons will be separately issued.

2

appear at the hearing. Respondent Elkins made no appearance. 

Because the purported answer/dismissal motion was frivolous, the undersigned

expressed his belief at hearing that no opposition had been filed. When the government attorney

indicated that one had, the undersigned asked to see it, but then recognized it as something 

which had previously found to be frivolous. The undersigned remarked to that effect, and after

refusing to be interrogated by Ms. Wight’s spokesperson, terminated the hearing.1

Sometime on the date of the hearing, respondents filed a notice of intent to appeal

and a request for stay of the order pending appeal. On March 27, 2008, respondents filed a

“motion for reconsideration,” which purports to criticize the undersigned’s knowledge of the case

and handling of the March 20 hearing. The motion also attempts to set a hearing date of April

th

24, 2008. 

The motion for reconsideration is also improperly noticed. See E. D. Local Rule

78-230. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ March 27, 2008 motion for reconsideration is denied; and

2. The hearing set by respondents on April 24, 2008 is vacated.2

DATED: 04/03/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/USElkins0005.rec.wpd

Case 2:08-mc-00005-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2