Karl Kleinpaste, Sui Juris
Citizen of Pennsylvania state
c/o general delivery
Penn Hills, Pennsylvania state
 
In Propria Persona
 
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
 
 
 
 
 
 
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 
                WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
 
 
Karl Frank Kleinpaste,          )  Civil Action No. 97-0884
                                )
          Plaintiff,            )  NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                )  MOTION FOR REHEARING
     v.                         )  AND RECONSIDERATION
                                )
United States,                  )
Internal Revenue Service, and   )
Gavin Chafin,                   )
                                )
          Defendants.           )
________________________________)
 
 
COMES  NOW   Karl  Frank   Kleinpaste,  Sui   Juris,  Citizen  of
 
Pennsylvania state,  expressly not a citizen of the United States
 
("federal citizen"),  and Plaintiff  in the above entitled matter
 
(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to submit this, Plaintiff's MOTION FOR
 
REHEARING  AND   RECONSIDERATION,  in   order  to  petition  this
 
honorable Court  to reconsider  its ORDER, dated August 27, 1997,
 
in  the   instant  case,   denying  Plaintiff's  MOTION  TO  STAY
 
PROCEEDINGS filed on August 8, 1997 (hereinafter "STAY MOTION").
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 1 of 8

                   INCORPORATION OF PLEADINGS
 
     Plaintiff hereby  incorporates by reference the STAY MOTION,
 
also  DEFENDANTS'   OPPOSITION  TO  MOTION  TO  STAY  PROCEEDINGS
 
(hereinafter  "OPPOSITION")   allegedly  filed   by  Mr.   Clarke
 
("Clarke"), and also Plaintiff's REBUTTAL to Clarke's OPPOSITION,
 
as if all were set forth fully herein.
 
     Plaintiff addresses  this Court's  ORDER of August 27, 1997,
 
denying Plaintiff's  STAY MOTION, as having been in error for the
 
following specific reasons, to wit:
 
     DENYING STAY MOTION FORCES COURT TO PROCEED OUT OF ORDER
 
     Such a denial is out of order, because the questions already
 
raised  by   Plaintiff's  STAY   MOTION  are   critical  to   the
 
determination    of    fundamental    issues    of    appearance,
 
representation, and  standing.   The  controlling  and  requisite
 
credentials requested by Plaintiff are necessary to establish, as
 
a matter  of law,  the propriety  and validity of representations
 
already claimed by Mr. Clarke.
 
     Plaintiff hereby  formally  rebuts  all  presumptions  which
 
assume the  existence of  the requisite  credentials and  of  the
 
requisite statutory  authorities.    Plaintiff  denies  that  the
 
requisite  credentials   and   that   the   requisite   statutory
 
authorities exist in the first instance.
 
     The proponent  of  specific  rules  carries  the  burden  of
 
proving their  application in  the instant  case.   See 5  U.S.C.
 
556(d).   The "rules"  in question are the Powers of Attorney, if
 
any, to represent Defendants Internal Revenue Service and Chafin,
 
and the  Oath of Office, Appointment Affidavit, and Delegation of
 
Authority required  to demonstrate,  as a  matter  of  law,  that
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 2 of 8

Clarke is duly appointed to the Office of United States Attorney,
 
to which  Congress has delegated authority to represent Defendant
 
United States.
 
                       FAILURES TO APPEAR
 
     Plaintiff argues  that it  is now  clear, from the statutory
 
evidence previously  detailed  in  Plaintiff's  STAY  MOTION  and
 
REBUTTAL, that  neither Defendant IRS, nor Defendant Chafin, has,
 
in fact,  made any  proper appearance(s)  before  this  honorable
 
Court whatsoever.
 
     Moreover, Plaintiff  has now  demonstrated that IRS is not a
 
bureau, organization,  or department  within  the  United  States
 
Department of  the Treasury.   See 31 U.S.C. in toto.  Therefore,
 
Plaintiff concludes  that Defendant  IRS is not entitled to legal
 
representation by the Office of the United States Attorney.
 
     Similarly, neither  is Defendant  Chafin, alleging  to be an
 
employee of  Defendant IRS,  entitled to  legal representation by
 
the Office of the United States Attorney.  Such representation is
 
beyond the  statutorily defined  scope of  the Power  of Attorney
 
which Congress has conferred upon the Office of the United States
 
Attorney at 28 U.S.C. 547.  See also 31 U.S.C. in toto.
 
     Title 28  of the  United States  Code  ("U.S.C.")  has  been
 
enacted  into  positive law.   See  1 U.S.C.  1 et seq. for rules
 
applicable to prima facie and conclusive evidence of law.
 
     Given the lack of appearances and the lack of representation
 
by at  least two  of the named Defendants (IRS and Chafin), it is
 
impossible for  Plaintiff properly  to respond to Clarke's MOTION
 
TO DISMISS,  as indicated by the Court in its ORDER of August 27,
 
1997, because  Plaintiff cannot even know to whom Plaintiff would
 
be responding.  Lex non cogit impossibilia.
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 3 of 8

     If Clarke  is not duly appointed to the Office of the United
 
States Attorney,  Plaintiff could  not have  been responding to a
 
REBUTTAL allegedly  submitted by Defendant United States, because
 
Clarke would  enjoy no  Power(s) of  Attorney to  represent  said
 
Defendant in the first instance.
 
     If Plaintiff  cannot respond  to  Defendant  United  States,
 
because said  Defendant has  not submitted a proper REBUTTAL, and
 
also, if  the Court were subsequently to dismiss the instant case
 
with prejudice, the net result would be contrary to justice, when
 
default and/or  summary judgment(s) would be the more appropriate
 
action(s), at this point in the instant proceedings.
 
 
             ABSENT THE REQUISITE CREDENTIALS, THEN
        CLARKE HAS MADE NO APPEARANCES FOR UNITED STATES
 
     This point  is so  fundamental, Plaintiff  risks reiterating
 
key points  already made above, in order to demonstrate, once and
 
for all,  that Clarke  has yet  to prove  that Clarke  is a  duly
 
authorized employee  and attorney within the Office of the United
 
States Attorney.   In  light of  this demonstrable  fact,  it  is
 
proper to  conclude therefrom  that Defendant  United States  has
 
still not formally appeared either.
 
     Plaintiff  argues   that  Defendant   United  States,   once
 
challenged, has  not appeared  until and unless a duly authorized
 
officer of  the United  States Attorney,  in  the  United  States
 
Department of  Justice, has  submitted  into  evidence  certified
 
proof of the requisite credentials.  See 5 U.S.C. 3331, in chief.
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 4 of 8

     By comparison,  Plaintiff can be, and is fully, known to the
 
Court and  to all  interested party(s), as a Proper Party who has
 
come and  who now comes before this honorable Court directly.  On
 
the other  hand, Defendants  have had one claim of representation
 
(for the  United States)  fail for  lack of  proof, and  two more
 
claims of  representation repudiated  by silence  now verified by
 
Plaintiff, under penalty of perjury, under 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
 
     This  Court,  and  all  interested  party(s),  are  able  to
 
identify Plaintiff  by  virtue  of  Plaintiff's  having  appeared
 
directly before this Court.  But none of the named Defendants has
 
yet made any proper appearances, as a matter of law.  This is so,
 
particularly in  light of  the fact that the Office of the United
 
States Attorney has yet to come forth with the credentials of any
 
of the  attorneys [sic]  whose names  have been  listed in  Court
 
documents filed by Clarke to date in the instant case.
 
     Said  credentials   were  requested  under  the  Freedom  of
 
Information Act  ("FOIA"), which  Act creates  a federal cause of
 
action in the instant case.
 
     The  initial   administrative  deadline  for  production  of
 
documents  requested   under  the   FOIA  has   already   passed;
 
administrative appeals  are now  in progress.   The  deadline for
 
exhaustion of  administrative remedies in the matter of the first
 
group of  FOIA requests  is MM/DD/YY,  allowing two  (2) days  of
 
grace beyond the strict statutory deadline for same.
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 5 of 8

            COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER FOIA
           IS THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 
     Further, it is worthy of close observation that, pursuant to
 
5 U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B), the  United States  District Court  lacks
 
original jurisdiction  to enforce the FOIA.  Plaintiff now argues
 
that this  Court must  vacate its previous ORDER dated August 27,
 
1997, so  as to  make it  procedurally possible  for Plaintiff to
 
invoke the  clear judicial  remedies which are Plaintiff's right,
 
upon exhaustion  of all  administrative remedies in the matter of
 
the documents which Plaintiff has now requested under the FOIA.
 
     Specifically, Plaintiff enjoys and hereby reserves the right
 
to  enjoin   the  improper   withholding  of  documents  properly
 
requested under  the FOIA,  and to compel production of documents
 
improperly withheld  by the  agency(s) in question.  Again, see 5
 
U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), in chief.
 
     In the  alternative, Plaintiff reserves the procedural right
 
to transfer  the instant  case from  the United  States  District
 
Court ("USDC"),  to the  District  Court  of  the  United  States
 
("DCUS"), pursuant  to 28  U.S.C. 1631, to cure this obvious want
 
of original  jurisdiction over  the subject matter created by the
 
Freedom of Information Act.
 
                        REMEDY REQUESTED
 
     Wherefore, all  premises having been duly considered by this
 
honorable  Court,   Plaintiff  respectfully  requests  that  this
 
honorable Court  reconsider its  ORDER dated  August 27, 1997, by
 
vacating  same,  and  by  granting  Plaintiff's  MOTION  TO  STAY
 
PROCEEDINGS, thereby  permitting Plaintiff  to pursue the federal
 
cause of  action which has arisen by virtue of Plaintiff's proper
 
and timely  FOIA requests, and from a failure by the agency(s) in
 
question timely to produce the documents requested by same.
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 6 of 8

                          VERIFICATION
 
I, Karl Frank Kleinpaste, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty
 
of perjury,  under the  laws of  the United  States  of  America,
 
without the  "United States" (federal government), that the above
 
statement of facts is true and correct, to the best of My current
 
information, knowledge,  and belief,  so help Me God, pursuant to
 
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).  See Supremacy Clause.
 
 
Dated:  September 3, 1997
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
 
______________________________________________
Karl Frank Kleinpaste, Sui Juris
Citizen of Pennsylvania state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 7 of 8

                        PROOF OF SERVICE
 
I, Karl  Frank  Kleinpaste,  Sui  Juris,  hereby  certify,  under
 
penalty of  perjury, under  the laws  of  the  United  States  of
 
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years
 
of age,  a Citizen  of one  of the  United States of America, and
 
that I personally served the following document(s):
 
                      NOTICE OF MOTION AND
            MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION
 
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
 
class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
 
 
R. Scott Clarke
U.S. Department of Justice
c/o P.O. Box 227
Ben Franklin Station
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 
General Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 
Gavin Chafin
Internal Revenue Service
c/o 213 Executive Drive
Cranberry Township [zip code exempt]
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
 
 
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
 
 
Dated:  September 3, 1997
 
 
______________________________________________
Karl Frank Kleinpaste, Sui Juris
Citizen of Pennsylvania state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 
            Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration:
                           Page 8 of 8

 
                             #  #  #
 

Return to Table of Contents for

Kleinpaste v. U.S. et al.