Shirley S. Hirsh - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          spaced manuscript containing tax protester-type arguments.                  
          Generally, it rejects the validity of the notice of deficiency on           
          the ground that petitioner never consented to it and denies the             
          authority of this Court to adjudicate this matter.  At the trial            
          session, respondent orally moved to dismiss for failure to                  
          properly prosecute and to award a penalty to the United States              
          because petitioner took frivolous or groundless positions.                  
               On January 27, 1997, respondent's counsel filed a written              
          motion for imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673.  The           
          next day, this Court issued an order that petitioner respond or             
          object to respondent's motion on or before February 27, 1997.               
               On February 28, 1997, petitioner’s document entitled "Notice           
          to the United States Tax Court" was filed.  This 40-page, single-           
          spaced document is a confused dissertation purporting to examine            
          various aspects of common law, constitutional history, various              
          U.S. territorial statutes, 19th-century case law, the Federal               
          Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of                 
          Evidence, and U.S. Postal Service regulations.                              
               To the extent discernible, petitioner contends:                        
          (1) Generally, the "50 independent republics" that make up the              
          United States have failed to control and restrain their common              
          agent, the United States Federal Government; (2) this Court                 
          retains no authority over petitioner since it is a Federal court            
          and she is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia;                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011