- 8 -
granted,[6] because they were imposed with respect to
transactions or events that occurred more than three
years before the filing of the petition. * * *
On December 24, 2003, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell filed a
notice of appeal with the District Court regarding the Bankruptcy
Court’s final judgment with respect to the adversary proceedings.
On November 30, 2004, the District Court affirmed that final
judgment.
On February 12, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered findings
of fact and conclusions of law with respect to a motion that the
United States filed in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case requesting
relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. sec. 362. Those
findings and conclusions stated in pertinent part:
6. Debtors [Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell] have for
several years been involved in contentious litiga-
tion with the IRS. In this Court, the Debtors
have been uncooperative in discovery, have
launched personal attacks on government counsel,
and have begun to advance theories of tax protest,
questioning the federal income tax, the authority
of the IRS to collect taxes, and the authority of
a Department of Justice lawyer to represent the
IRS. Those arguments are frivolous and have been
rejected by this Court.
* * * * * * *
4. The automatic stay of Section 362 will be lifted
effective March 8, 2004. After that day the IRS
may seek appropriate orders from Judge Fish to
enforce the judgment [District Court judgment]
obtained in his court.
6Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell were not granted a discharge
under Chapter 7. On Sept. 3, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court dis-
missed Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011