Opinion
Case No. 6:02-cv-951-Orl-19JGG
October 25, 2003
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the following:
1. Motion by the United States for Summary Judgment. Doc. No. 124.
2. Memorandum of Law [in Support of the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment]. Doc. No. 125.
3. Notice of Acceptance and Return of Milburn Order. Doc. No. 127.
4. Acceptance of Motion by the United States for Summary Judgment for Settlement and Closure. Doc. No. 128.
5. Praecipe for Mandatory Judicial Notice of House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; and Tender for Settlement and Closure. Doc. No. 129.
6. Bond for Acceptance of Motion by the United States for Summary Judgment; Specific Security Bond for Subrogation. Doc. No. 130.
Background
On August 19, 2002, the United States filed a complaint against Danny True for unpaid federal taxes for the tax years 1994 and 1995. The United States also stated that it would seek interest and statutory penalties. Dantz Enterprises Trust was named as Defendant because, the United States claims, it is the alter ego of Danny True and was created by him only to conceal assets that may have to be liquidated to discharge the tax debt. See generally, Doc. No. 1.The history of this case is difficult to summarize because Mr. True has steadfastly refused to participate in a constructive way. His voluminous submissions to the Court are written in gibberish. He stamps almost everything he receives with a meaningless reference to the Uniform Commercial Code and a certain Congressional resolution, and then returns these stamped papers to the United States and the Court under the apparent belief that by doing so he has miraculously satisfied his tax debt. Using this stamp, it should be noted, seems to be only a precaution for Mr. True because he has concluded, by virtue of reasoning comprehensible only to himself, that the United States long ago conceded that no such debt exists. For example, in an affidavit filed at the inception of this case, Mr. True stated that his debt was discharged, settled, and his case subject to closure because the U.S. Marshal who served the summons did not enclose a check with it. Doc. No. 13 ¶ 13. This sort of bizarre logic, liberated from even the most basic standard of commonsense, pervades Mr. True's writing and has rendered it all but impossible for the Court to understand him.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate only in circumstances where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could [not] return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
In determining whether the moving party has satisfied the burden, the court considers all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and resolves all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The court may not weigh conflicting evidence or weigh the credibility of the parties. See Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). If a reasonable fact finder could draw more than one inference from the facts, and that inference creates an issue of material fact, then a court must not grant summary judgment. Id. (citation omitted).
Analysis
As a preliminary matter, Mr. True has not filed a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment in a form consistent with Local Rule 3.01(b). He did, however, file several documents, Doc. Nos. 128-130, which the Court will collectively treat as his response.
In its motion, the United States seeks to reduce to judgment the income tax liabilities against Mr. True and to foreclose federal liens arising out of these liabilities on real property held by Dantz Trust Enterprises. Doc. No. 125, p. 1. Citing exhibits two and three of its memorandum in support of summary judgment, the United States represents that Mr. True's tax liability is $60,306.27, excluding interest and penalties. Id. at p. 3. The United States contends that there is no material dispute as to this sum because: (1) federal tax assessments are presumptively correct; and (2) Mr. True does not dispute this.
The United States is correct. Federal tax assessments are a presumptively accurate accounting of a taxpayer's liabilities. Bone v. Comm'r, 324 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115(1933)). When a taxpayer contests a tax assessment, the burden falls upon the taxpayer to set forth why the assessment is wrong. Id. Mr. True does not appear to contest the accuracy of his assessments. As the United States points out, Mr. True's failure to respond to the Government's request for admissions constitutes an implicit admission of everything alleged in the request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a); United States v. 2204 Barbara Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Furthermore, Mr. True has throughout this litigation continuously repeated his mantra that there is no dispute concerning the facts of this case. See, e.g., Doc. No. 128, p. 2 ("The undersigned [i.e. Mr. True] does not see where closure of this matter and honor has not been sought from the outset of this action."); Doc. No. 86 (Mr. True's Motion for Summary Judgment), ¶ 1 ("The Defendants [i.e. Mr. True and Dantz Enterprises Trust] do not see a controversy before this Court in that there are no disputes with the facts of this case."). Therefore, the only question at this juncture is whether the various documents (Doc. Nos. 128-130) Mr. True filed in response to the United States' motion raise any issue that ought to preclude summary judgment.
Once again, Mr. True's submissions to the Court are indecipherable. Document 128 begins with four paragraphs of vacuous, pseudo-legal nonsense and concludes with ten enumerated paragraphs in which Mr. True purports to "repent" before the Court for ten instances of "dishonor." Indefatigable to the end, Mr. True also appends to document 128 a copy of the Government's motion for summary judgment with each page imprinted with what must by now be Mr. True's well-worn yet always faithful UCC stamp. Nothing in document 128 precludes summary judgment.
Document 129 is a demand, one Mr. True has made before, that the Court take notice of House Joint Resolution 192. Mr. True cites without explanation an excerpt from this document, which, as best as the Court can ascertain, involves the suspension of the gold standard in 1933 during what Congress characterized as "the existing emergency" (the Great Depression, presumably). Mr. True appears to believe that this passage extinguishes all debts — past, present, and future — between the United States and any other person or entity, including himself. The meritlessness of this argument is obvious. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that courts are not obligated to respond to the frivolous arguments of vexatious litigants). Nothing in document 129 precludes summary judgment.
Finally, document 130, heavily salted as usual with Mr. True's inimitable use of language (for example, titling this submission "specific surety bond under subrogation"), seems to be a declaration by Mr. True that he plans to pay, or perhaps has paid, his tax debt. He attached to this document photocopies of what may (or may not) be wire transfers made through the Federal Reserve system. Given his penchant for claiming that he has satisfied his tax debt and his citation in document 129 to House Joint Resolution 132, the Court is skeptical, to say the least, that Mr. True has done what is necessary to discharge his debt to the United States. In other words, document 130 is either one of Mr. True's usual tricks or it is evidence that he is trying to pay what he owes. In any case, nothing about document 130 precludes summary judgment.
Summary judgment for the Government is appropriate. Upon review of the record, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. As of September 1, 2003, Danny True is indebted to the United States for unpaid tax liabilities for the tax years 1994 and 1995 in the amount of $60,306.27. He also owes any interest that accrues on this amount between September 1, 2003 and the date of payment.
2. Mr. True is specifically instructed that when the Court stated in the preceding paragraph that Danny True is indebted to the United States, the Court means Danny True the person. The Court, in other words, does not mean Danny True in "mirror image" or Danny True© or any fictitious version of "Danny True" such as a trust. Furthermore, all references to Danny True or Mr. True in this Order refer to Danny True the person.
3. Dantz Enterprises Trust is the nominee or alter ego of Danny True, and was created for the purpose of concealing assets needed to discharge a lawful tax debt to the United States,
4. As a result of this debt, the United States has a valid lien against all property and all rights to such property belonging to Danny True and Dantz Enterprises Trust, including, but not limited to, the real property at 8300 Murray Court, Sanford Florida. See Doc. No. 125, p. 4, ¶ 6 for a precise description of the subject property.
5. The Government is instructed to provide the Court with a proposed Order of foreclosure and sale.
6. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case for the purposes of, inter alia, entering a judgment of deficiency if the proceeds of the sale of the real property are insufficient to satisfy the debt.
7. Mr. True has exhausted the Court's patience. His memoranda have been turgid, opaque, and all but meaningless, and, in rare moments of lucidity, they argued meritless positions. His obstreperous approach to this case has wasted the time and resources of everyone involved. Mr. True is to consider himself forewarned. Any farther failure to participate in this case in a form consistent with the requirements of Rule 11 will result in sanctions under that provision and the Court's own inherent power.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 124) is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants. The Clerk is directed to close this case.DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida