- 11 -
On January 16, 2002, Richards Management Trust filed a
response to respondent’s motion to hold petitioner in default in
the case at docket No. 10764-00, and Mr. Richards filed a re-
6(...continued)
2. This Courts’ [sic] order states “. . . petitioner
purports to be a trust . . .” Petitioner is a
trust, and the respondent has never been able to
prove otherwise. Nor does the respondent have the
right or ability to set aside a contract.
* * * * * * *
4. Petitioner does not want this false tax claim to
be litigated in court, and has petitioned this
Court to have this case removed from the docket as
having been petitioned in error due to the errone-
ous instructions given by the respondent.
WHEREFORE it is prayed that:
1. This Court dismiss this case at petitioner’s re-
quest as the original petition was issued in error
due to false directions given to petitioner by
respondent. Petitioner believes that he has the
right to correct his mistake and withdraw the
original petition.
2. This Court and the respondent recognize the peti-
tioner as a Trust and cease attempting to set
aside a contract in direct opposition to the Con-
stitution of the United States of America.
3. This court sanction the respondent for using this
Court for illegal purposes. Respondent has no
legal tax claim as petitioner has noted to respon-
dent and this Court on numerous occasions. With-
out a legal claim, respondent fraudulently in-
structed petitioner to use this Court to legiti-
mize his illegal attempt to deprive petitioner of
his assets.
4. This Court instruct the respondent to cease, now
and forever, harassment of petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011