Alphonse Faggiolo Pinned Messages

Jarksy V SEC citing “Why should Article III, the Seventh Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process be any different? None of them exists to “protec[t] judicial authority for its own sake.” Oil States, 584 U. S., at 356 (GORSUCH, J., dis- senting). They exist to “protect the individual.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. 211, 222 (2011).

yep, and official court record - no paperwork to commence any kind of case

“Congress, in enacting the Act of 1937, was not concerned with all federal interference with state and local taxation, but only with taxpayers litigating the validity of their taxes prior to payment. “ S. REP. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2 (1937)

You don’t even need to worry about all that. Just explain to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, that opposing counsel never filed any signed affidavit testimony from the nitwit Defendants. You should have had a default judgment because it worked in state court against a bunch of banks looking to collect on a debt. Remand for further proceedings. Simple.

The argument that I made and ultimately won on was based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4(e). Basically states that the LIEyer is prohibited from asserting personal knowledge unless they are testifying as a witness. In short, LIEyers can write motions and litigate them all day long as long as they get a declaration or affidavit in support of that motion from their client that claims to have personal knowledge. If it’s a corporation, the individual must be a affiliated with the corporation in a substantial way so as to show the court that they have “skin in the game” Here’s the link to the rule: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_4_fairness_to_opposing_party_counsel/

I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING HE WROTE! 1.2 Appellees’ legal conclusion that Michelle Portnoff and Robert P. Daday can conduct “efforts” to purportedly collect from the Appellant or for the Appellant’s properties, is not a statement of fact. Appellees’ failed to make a legal argument that applied a law to support their motion’s legal conclusion, that third-party debt collectors Michelle Portnoff and Robert P, Daday, were authorized by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to purportedly collect from the Appellant or for the Appellant’s properties. It’s a FACT that when the Appellant requested through the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, records of “who, EXACTLY, from the Borough of Ridley Park directed and authorized Portnoff Law Associates to file Municipal Claims against 1) 505 Johnson Avenue, Ridley Park, Pennsylvania; 2) 215 Kane Avenue, Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, and 3) 0 Kane Avenue, Ridley Park, Pennsylvania” [Document No. 1], Appellee Richard Tutak, speaking and acting for Appellee Borough of Ridley Park, provided the Appellant a sworn affidavit, in which Tutak averred, “the Borough has made a good faith effort to locate any document which fulfills this request and has found that there is no record or document which exists in the possession or control of the Borough which satisfies this request” [Document No. 1].

1. Paragraph 1 of Appellees’ motion is DENIED for the following reasons: 1.1 Appellees’ legal conclusion that Appellant is a Taxpayer, made 21 times, is not a statement of fact. Appellees’ failed to make a legal argument that applied a law to support their motion’s legal conclusion, that the Appellant is a statutory taxpayer, pursuant to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law. The Pennsylvania Legislature clearly defined the term taxpayer to be: “A person or business required under this act to file a return” and that “the term does not include a person or business with no taxable income, which person or business shall not be required to file a return of income or to pay an income tax under this act.

Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 518, 101 S.Ct. at 1231-32 (stating that "[a] remedy to contest a tax that requires repetitive suits on the same issue in succeeding years may not be `efficient'")

Alphonse take a gander thru this case in the 11th circuit. https://casetext.com/case/colonial-pipeline-co-v-collins/

Although a district court has wide discretion to determine the scope of such discovery, a plaintiff must have ample opportunity to present evidence bearing on the existence of jurisdiction. See Gould, 853 F.2d at 451; Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Community Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir. 1984).