Opinion
CASE NO. 6:02-CV-951-ORL-19JGG
April 21, 2003
ORDER
This case was considered by the Court on the following:
1. Motion for Rehearing and Oral Argument on Verified Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 85.
2. Verified Motion for Declaratory/Summary Judgment. Doc. No. 86.
3. Amended Request for Judicial Notice. Doc. No. 102.
4. Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended Judicial Notice and Motion for Summary/Declaratory Judgment. Doc. No. 103.
5. Common Law Verified Writ of Error Coram Nobis Relating to Order of March 19, 2003 (Doc. No. 80). Doc. No. 104.
6. Opposition by the United States to Defendant Danny True's Motion for Summary/Declaratory Judgment. Doc. No. 107.
Defendants' motion for rehearing and oral argument (Doc. No. 85) is denied. Defendants petition the Court for this rehearing on the ground that the Court's denial of their motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 47) was not accompanied by any explanation or citation to authority. The Court denied Defendants' motion perfunctorily with an endorsed order. See Doc. No. 47, entered March 11, 2003. The Court summarily denied Defendants' motion because it was written in incomprehensible gibberish and, to the extent it was coherent, advanced patently meritless legal arguments. The Court is not obligated to justify itself to vexatious litigants and dignify their frivolity with serious analysis. See Cram v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 86) is denied. Defendants contend once again that there is no controversy before the Court because they discharged any debt they owed to Plaintiff through some dubious tender to the Secretary of the Treasury. Plaintiff, on the other hand, avers that Defendants' debts remain undischarged. Doc. No. 107. Citing Crain, Plaintiff declines to include in its memorandum any direct response to Defendants' legal position, noting that any such efforts would be futile and wasteful. The Court concurs. Defendants' bald representations that their tax liabilities have been extinguished on some technicality simply do not compel the conclusion under Rule 56 that Defendants have prevailed as a matter of law.
Defendants' motion at Doc. No. 102 is denied. Defendants characterize their motion as one for judicial notice. It appears, however, that it is really analogous to a motion to dismiss because Defendants set forth six arguments about why Plaintiff's case is no longer viable (if indeed it ever was). The Court shall treat this motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Predictably, Defendants' motion is an unconstrained harangue, including silliness such as the unconstitutionality of money. Once again, the Court feels no duty to respond to the substance of these preposterous claims. Suffice it to say that Defendants' motion is denied.
Defendants' motion at Doc. No. 104 is denied for the aforementioned reasons that the Court denied Defendants' motion at Doc. No. 85. See supra, p. 1.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions at Docs. No. 85, 86, 102, and 104 are DENIED.