The Art of the Deal, cont'd

Listen to the article

0:00

0:00

1.0x

Key Takeaways

Playback Speed

Select a Voice

Following up my earlier post about the truly outrageous so-called “Settlement Agreement” between the IRS and our President, thirty-five (!) retired federal judges have submitted a “Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order,” calling that Agreement “the product of collusion and a fraud on the Court.” Accordingly, they ask the Court to use its power under FRCP 60 to set aside its earlier judgment dismissing the case, re-open the case, and “commence an inquiry into whether the Court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve it.”

The purported “settlement” that the parties never placed before this Court raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. As former judges, Movants have an interest in bringing to the Court’s attention these concerns and the availability of relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the Court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case. . . .

The Court was deceived. Despite Plaintiffs not having mentioned any settlement in their Notice, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) publicly announced a “settlement” of this action shortly after Plaintiffs filed their dismissal. That “settlement” commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President. The DOJ is calling this the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The day after the “settlement” containing the Anti-Weaponization Fund was announced, the DOJ announced that it had subsequently agreed to release “any and all claims . . . whether presently known or unknown, that—as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement—have been or could have been asserted by [the United States] against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals . . . or parties . . . by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of . . . any matters currently pending or that could be pending . . . before Defendants or other agencies or departments.” The plain language of this extremely broad provision sweeps in Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audits of Plaintiffs’ tax returns and all other claims the United States might have against Plaintiffs—extraordinary benefits for which no consideration was provided to the government.

Movants submit that this “settlement” is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court. But the Court need not decide that ultimate issue now. At this juncture, Movants request only that the Court exercise its powers under Rule 60 to set aside its order ending the case based upon Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal. That will allow the Court to commence an inquiry into commence an inquiry into whether the Court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve it.

As set forth below, this Court has the power under Rule 60 to determine whether there has been a “corruption of the judicial process itself,” and may set aside a judgment and reopen a case under Rule 60(d)(3), as well as other subsections of Rule 60, whether by this motion or sua sponte. Doing so will allow judicial review of the extraordinary—and historically unprecedented—circumstances presented by this litigation and by the collusive “settlement” that invokes this litigation as the legal justification for its terms. [Emphases not really necessary, but added anyway]

To be continued (I hope).  If this “Settlement” is allowed to stand, we have truly lost our way.

The post The Art of the Deal, cont'd appeared first on Reason.com.

Read the full article here