VIRGINIA CIRCUIT COURT UPDATE
Earlier, I said I would neither forgive nor forget what has been done to me during this litigation. So, today I served a new lawsuit upon the following defendants:
1. The Virginia Attorney General's Office
2. The Attorney General
3. The Senior Assistant Attorney General
4. The Assistant Attorney General
5. The Tax Commissioner
6. The Department of Taxation and
7. Unnamed defendants 1-10
When the Department of Taxation issued the lien release, these claims "ripened," or became new causes of action I could not file before. More than likely, OAG thought to damage civil rights claims through the three-years-late release; they're failing there, but now they also created entirely new claims, when they all of a sudden just erased my tax liability on no new evidence; in other words, they had no reasonable justification or probable cause to assess it and engage in asset searches and seizures all over this country for almost $2 million. And the Attorney General's Office sought to enforce this chicanery through state and federal court since 10/03. All defendants were involved, engaged in the conduct described below, which I can and will prove with substantial evidence. Claims are for:
1. Malicious Prosecution
2. Defamation and
3. Gross Negligence
Damages are in the millions. The Counts are as follows (from the Circuit Court Complaint):
COUNT I
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
NO PROBABLE CAUSE
20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, as if set forth fully herein.
21. Defendants prosecuted tax claims against Plaintiff without known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, which would have provided a man of reasonable caution or prudence sufficient justification to believe that Plaintiff had evaded paying taxes on more than $14 million in income.
22. The Tax Defendants based their actions on obviously incomplete data, 224 IRS records not containing any securities purchases, only sales, which moreover, if complete, would have indicated a $75 million income, not $14 million.
23. The Tax Defendants violated their own procedures by not contacting Plaintiff or his broker to verify an income of $14 million before proceeding. In addition, the Tax Defendants never contacted IRS, which never took action against Plaintiff based on the exact same records, though the amount of income calculated in this instance was $14 million.
24. Later, during pending litigation, all Defendants completely ignored three sworn affidavits and substantial evidence proving beyond any doubt that Plaintiff earned no taxable 1999 income, and proceeded against him anew. Defendants never even attempted to contradict Plaintiff’s affidavits and evidence, refused to provide Plaintiff any justification for their conduct or any remedy short of paying them nearly $1.7 million.
25. Finally, only after their attempt to force Plaintiff to post a $1.7 million bond was summarily denied by this Court, the Tax Defendants finally released the lien, based on no new evidence, on no reasonable justification whatsoever that they did not have for nearly two years previous to this abrupt and complete reversal.
MALICE
26. For nearly three years, the Tax Defendants acted with deliberate malice against Plaintiff. For example, among other things, they:
i. Over a period of two years, sent eleven lien letters to a dozen of the most prominent financial institutions in this country, knowing the damage this would do Plaintiff’s reputation. One of the lien letters was sent to Plaintiff’s bank, which the Tax Defendants did using information they obtained through Plaintiff’s own Federal Tax Action complaint against the Tax Commissioner;
ii. Entered a Memorandum of Lien in the Fairfax Circuit Court without ever giving Plaintiff any notice or opportunity, knowing the damage this would do Plaintiff’s credit record;
iii. Thirteen months after the lien was already recorded in the Fairfax Circuit Court, sent Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to File Memorandum of Lien that directly threatened damage to Plaintiff’s “credit…ability to purchase items such as an automobile or home, or ability to obtain employment…for twenty years, or until you pay the liabilities in full”; and
iv. On numerous occasions, including during pending litigation, authorized and ordered collection agencies to demand Plaintiff pay up to nearly $1.7 million, which collection agency letters contained offers to pay this amount via credit card, when they knew the likelihood that Plaintiff could have a credit card with a credit limit of nearly two million dollars was absolutely nil.
27. For nearly two years, all Defendants have demonstrated a repeated and consistent pattern of deliberate malice. For example, among other things, they:
i. Responded to the Virginia RICO Action, which brought no damages claims against them, by escalating matters, opposing removal of the liens, totally and completely ignoring all evidence Plaintiff provided them that there was no probable cause to prosecute tax claims against Plaintiff, in fact authorizing collection efforts against Plaintiff, and effectively rejecting Plaintiff’s request that they provide him information regarding the brokerage firms and officers involved in seeking to ruin Plaintiff, knowing that without this information his claims against those firms and officers would be irreparably damaged;
ii. Responded to the Federal Tax Action by not only again opposing removal of the liens, yet again totally and completely ignoring all evidence Plaintiff provided them that there was no probable cause to prosecute tax claims against Plaintiff, but in fact issuing a new lien based upon information Plaintiff himself filed in the complaint filed in that action;
iii. Responded to a settlement offer Plaintiff sent them in early 2004, during the Federal Tax Action, by inquiring whether Plaintiff was offering to pay them to settle his purported tax liability, knowing very well the opposite was true ;
iv. Responded to the Civil Rights Action by: (i) filing a motion for sanctions, a motion for an injunction against further legal action (that in effect would have granted Defendants blanket immunity from suit based upon renewed unlawful conduct) and punitive damages; and (ii) adding to their implicit claim that Plaintiff was an evader of Commonwealth income taxes, made dozens of defamatory statements, including accusing Plaintiff of “continued harassment and abuse of the judicial system,” “filing frivolous, baseless lawsuits,” “misuse of the Courts,” filing the Civil Rights Action “for an improper purpose, to wit: to harass the defendants and to impede the judicial system,” “continued harassment and abuse of the judicial system,” “persist[ing] on end runs through the courts,” filing the Civil Rights Action “in order to harass Defendants,” having a “history of harassing tactics,” having a “chronic history” of litigation that “shows a marked disregard for the judiciary and the legal process,” “filing of a frivolous and harassing suit,” and “assertions of valid claims for improper purposes.” Defendants made these statements knowing that Plaintiff, not an attorney, has achieved substantial success through the litigation he has pursued pro se against some of the most talented and well-funded counsel in this country; they also made these statements knowing the damage they would do Plaintiff’s reputation as a litigator far into the future: a state Attorney General accusing Plaintiff of being a tax evader, a chronic harasser and abuser of the judicial system is not an especially positive recommendation for Plaintiff being accepted to a first-class law school, let alone ever being employed as a trial attorney at a reputable law firm ;
v. Alleged in briefs filed in the Federal Tax Action that Plaintiff had himself forfeited any right to an administrative appeal and then in this Court claimed that they had actually offered Plaintiff an administrative remedy all along, a blatantly false statement;
vi. Demanded in this Court that Plaintiff post a bond of nearly $1.7 million or else be barred from bringing any Circuit Court proceedings;
vii. Claimed in this Court that they are immune from any legal responsibility for civil rights violations, an insult to not only Plaintiff but also this Court;
viii. Claimed in this Court that assessment notices are not recorded (this would be similar to OAG not recording indictments), they cannot say to which address they sent Plaintiff any notice, because, they claimed, “we updated his address when he sued us,” thereby effectively claiming that, when attempting to seize millions of dollars from citizens, they are not required to prove service of process ;
ix. In a transparent attempt to evade any accounting for the damages they have caused Plaintiff, unabashed sandbag tactics, after nearly three years finally sending Plaintiff a Release of Memorandum of Lien twenty-four hours after he filed the Amended Complaint in the Civil Rights Action. In addition to their motion for an injunction against further lawsuits (even if they caused Plaintiff new damages), which injunction would be unconstitutional, by releasing tax claims against Plaintiff only after the Amended Complaint was filed, Defendants clearly intended to “lock-in” any and all claims Plaintiff would file against them.
PLAINTIFF PREVAILED
28. On March 25, the Virginia Department of Taxation sent Plaintiff a Release of Memorandum of Lien. Therefore, Plaintiff has prevailed on the question of any tax liability. As the Department of Taxation itself issued the Release, this decision is final and Defendants can no longer dispute Plaintiff’s tax liability.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s financial standing has been damaged, his claims against the RICO defendants have been damaged, his good name, character and reputation have been damaged and his emotional well-being has been damaged. Defendants are therefore jointly and severally liable to redress the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of their malicious prosecution.
COUNT II
DEFAMATION
30. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, as if set forth fully herein.
31. On several occasions on and after July, 2002, Defendants, and their agents and employees acting pursuant to their direction, maliciously and willfully, defamed Plaintiff by making statements and claims, in the Courts and via the numerous lien letters, which Defendants knew to be false. These statements and claims were made with the intent and certain knowledge that they would be used by the RICO Action defendants against Plaintiff in order to damage his claims against them, and that they would destroy Plaintiff’s credit record, thereby severely damaging his ability to judicially pursue claims against not only the RICO Action defendants, but also they themselves. Defendants further knew the damage their defamatory statements would do Plaintiff’s reputation, as for example they knew these statements would almost certainly be republished by the RICO Action defendants.
32. Such statements and claims by Defendants, their agents and employees, among other things, characterized Plaintiff as a tax evader and an abuser of the judicial process, and damaged his good name, character, and reputation.
33. As alleged above, Defendants accused Plaintiff of “continued harassment and abuse of the judicial system,” “filing frivolous, baseless lawsuits,” “misuse of the Courts,” filing the Civil Rights Action “for an improper purpose, to wit: to harass the defendants and to impede the judicial system,” “continued harassment and abuse of the judicial system,” “persist[ing] on end runs through the courts,” filing the Civil Rights Action “in order to harass Defendants,” having a “history of harassing tactics,” having a “chronic history” of litigation that “shows a marked disregard for the judiciary and the legal process,” “filing of a frivolous and harassing suit,” and “assertions of valid claims for improper purposes.” Plaintiff repeats and reemphasizes that Defendants made these defamatory statements knowing that, far from abusing the judicial system, he has settled a large number of claims he litigated pro se against dozens of the most prominent attorneys in this country, and the damage their statements would do Plaintiff in the future, if he ever pursued a career in the law. Indeed, this form of threatening intimidation and damage parallels the August 6, 2003 Notice threatening to directly damage Plaintiff’s “credit…ability to purchase items such as an automobile or home, or ability to obtain employment…for twenty years.”
34. Defendants disseminated the false and defamatory statements and claims to numerous third-parties, including counsel to every defendant in the Virginia RICO Action, which included more than two dozen attorneys in Washington, DC, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas and California, including partners of Arnold & Porter, Jenkens & Gilchrist, [redacted], in-house counsel to five brokerage firms including [redacted] and, not least, the President of the Virginia State Bar, which counsel naturally provided their clients with this information. Moreover, Plaintiff was compelled to – and Defendants knew Plaintiff would be compelled to – self-publish this information in the San Francisco Superior Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and elsewhere, in order to defend himself against Defendants’ outrageous claims, and those made by the RICO Action defendants, who relied on Defendants’ outrageous claims, third-party reliance previously conceded in this Court by Defendants themselves, by their filing in this Court of a filing made in the Eastern District of Virginia by two RICO defendants, against whom litigation is ongoing. Indeed, the two alleged racketeers in the Texas RICO Action filed a motion to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, for sanctions and injunctive relief (summarily denied from the bench on December 3, 2004) that is an almost exact carbon-copy of Defendants November 12, 2004 sanctions motion.
35. Defendants’ defamatory statements are all the more malicious and damaging because Defendants have known all along the damage they would do Plaintiff far into the future, severely damaging any legal career on which he might embark, which damage is virtually unlimited.
36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamation of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s financial standing has been damaged, his claims against the RICO defendants have been damaged, his good name, character and reputation have been damaged and his emotional well-being has been damaged. Defendants are therefore jointly and severally liable to redress the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of their defamation.
COUNT III
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above, as if set forth fully herein.
38. The Tax Defendants, by repeatedly seeking to seize Plaintiff’s assets through unlawful liens, the ordering for which they had no basis in fact whatsoever, for which they themselves through the March 25, 2005 lien release now clearly concede they never had any basis in fact whatsoever, engaged in such gross negligence that they knew or should have known to be likely to cause great harm to Plaintiff. The Tax Defendants knew or should have known that the liens would destroy Plaintiff’s financial standing. In fact, the August 6, 2003 Notice threatening a court order contained the following text that Plaintiff wishes to repeat and emphasize:
“A Memorandum of Lien is a matter of public record…all recorded documents may be accessed at courts by credit reporting agencies…this may adversely affect your credit, ability to purchase items such as an automobile or home, or ability to obtain employment…this recorded document will remain in force for twenty years, or until you pay the liabilities in full.” (emphasis added)
39. Twenty years. The liens are unsupported by substantial evidence and Plaintiff in federal and Commonwealth court, three times over nearly two years, repeatedly swore under penalty of perjury that the liens were unjustified, which affidavits Plaintiff supported with substantial evidence. For nearly two years, Plaintiff through the OAG Defendants repeatedly requested that the Tax Defendants remedy their previous unlawful actions. All Defendants completely ignored these entreaties, refusing to remove the liens. Defendants have never given any possible explanation why the Tax Defendants, having thrice been sued, in state and federal court repeatedly refused to take immediate action to rectify their previous “mistakes” and/or “omissions.”
40. The OAG Defendants likewise ignored all evidence before them, and sought to judicially enforce the Tax Defendants’ gross negligence, which ultimately, totally and completely failed. The OAG Defendants, entrusted with law enforcement in the Commonwealth, in this instance attempted to actually enforce the Tax Defendants’ unlawful conduct through the Courts, and thereby themselves engaged in what is charitably defined as grossly negligent conduct. Their representation of the Tax Defendants went far beyond merely legal representation. The OAG Defendants actively supported the Tax Defendants’ false claim to nearly $1.7 million in taxes from Plaintiff, when they knew the claim to be totally and completely unjustified. Moreover, the OAG Defendants have since October, 2003 taken the lead in maliciously prosecuting and defaming Plaintiff.
41. The above acts constitute an utter disregard of prudence amounting to the complete neglect of the safety of Plaintiff’s financial standing and reputation, the absence of slight diligence, and/or the want of even scant care for the substantial damage Defendants were inflicting upon Plaintiff.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ gross negligence, Plaintiff’s financial standing has been damaged, his claims against the RICO defendants have been damaged, his good name, character and reputation have been damaged and his emotional well-being has been damaged. Defendants are therefore jointly and severally liable to redress the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of their gross negligence. |
