meidinger response to appellee's reply brief case 16-10071 (2)
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
1/39
15-15465-DD, 16-
10071-EE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ROY J. MEIDINGER,
Plaintiff-Appllant
!.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Dfn"ant-Appll
ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
REPLY #RIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
R$% J. Mi"in&', P'$ S
()*+ A'ian Ea&l Ct.
F$'t M%'/, Fl. +(0
Tl 1 0+-2+)-33+4
Cll 1 +3)-4+5-+)54
Eail-R$%JMi"in&'6$a/t.nt
_____________________________________________ Dat7785805(2
Roy J. Meidinger P'$ S
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
2/39
TA#LE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.Table of Contents………………………………………………………. iTABLE OF CITATION………………………………………………... iv
Certificate of Interested People…………………………………………v
Corporate Disclosre !tate"ent………………………………………... vi
Certificate of !ervice…………………………………………………...vii
Certificate of Co"pliance………………………………………………viii
I. T#e Co""issioner of Internal $evene Actions %CI$&………… 'II. T#e CI$ #as not dispted t#e (e) allegations raised in t#e
Appeal…………………………………………………………..*
III. T#e Appellee abandoned all rig#ts to dispte Appellants clai"s +I,. Appellant-s relief reest never inclded a pra)er for a re/ard…. 0,. Congress enlisted Citi1ens to stop Ta2 Evasion…………………. 34,I. Dt) o/ed to Plaintiff……………………………………………. 33,II. Co""issioner Does not #ave Discretionar) At#orit)………… 35,III. Federal District Corts 6ave At#orit) To Isse 7rits Of
8anda"s……………………………………………………………….. 39I:. Congress never re"oved t#e at#orit) of t#e Federal District
Cort to /rite /rits of "anda"s or gave t#is at#orit) to t#e
Ta2 Cort………………………………………………………'*
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
3/39
:. Legal !tanding…………………………………………………'5
:I. Bot# cases #ave to be revie/ed in t#eir entiret)………………'0
:II. T#e Appellant;s filings are "ade Pro se and "st be #eld to less
stringent standards………………………………………... '9
:III. T#e Appellant-s filings are not barred b) res A>……………………………………………….. ='
i
TABLE OF CITATION
Page No. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States? 535 F.=d 3=@'?
3=@904 %Fed. Cir. '440&………………………………………………... '*Associated eneral Contractors of California v. Coalition for Econo"ic
Eit)? 954 F.'d 3*43? 3*4+ %9t# Cir. 3993&…………………………… '@Association of Data Processing !ervice Organi1ations? Inc. v. Ca"p?
spra? =9@ .!. at 35=…………………………………………………... '=
C!: Transp.? Inc. v. Cit) of arden Cit)? '=5 F.=d 3='5? 3==4 %33t# Cir.
'444&……………………………………………………………….. @E2 parte Levitt? =4' .!. +==? +=* %39=@&……………………………… '@For"an v. Davis? =@3 .!. 3@0? 303 %39+'&……………………………. '96aines v. erner? *4* .!. 5'4 %39@3&…………………………………. '9
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a159.htmhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/a159.htm
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
4/39
6arold Brce LONDON? C#ristine !anders London?
PlaintiffsAppellants?v.FIELDALE FA$8!
CO$PO$ATION? DefendantsAppellees? No. 4*344*4…. 34
ii
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
5/39
err8cee Nclear Corp v. Ne/ 8e2ico Environ"ental I"p. Bd.?
App.? 9@ N.8. 00? +=@ P.'d =0? *'……………………………………... '9ic(lig#ter v. Nails b) annee? Inc.? +3+ F.'d @=*? @=0 n. 3%5t# Cir.
3904&…………………………………………………………………….. '9Le2"ar( Int-l? Inc. v. !tatic Control Co"ponents? Inc.? spra? 3=* !.Ct.
at 3=09…………………………………………………………………... '=L
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
6/39
iv
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
7/39
C'tifiat $f Int'/t" P$pl
No C#ange
v
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
8/39
C$'p$'at Di/l$/9' Statnt
No C#ange
vi
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
9/39
C'tifiat $f S'!i
A cop) of Appellant-s $epl) Brief #as been priorit) "ailed on ==4'43+? toJ
Depart"ent of sticeTa2 DivisionAttorne) !#erra 7ongPost Office Bo2 54'7as#ington? D.C. '44**
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
10/39
vii
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
11/39
C'tifiat $f C$plian
T#e $epl) Brief is /ritten in 3* pt.? in Ti"es Ne/ $o"an. T#e Brief is
+?0*= /ords long.
T#e Appellee-s $epl) Brief /as served? b) first Class "ail on ='5'43+.
T#is repl) brief is filed in a ti"el) "anner.
viii
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
12/39
15-15465-DD, 16-10071-EE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ROY J. MEIDINGER,
Plaintiff-Appllant!.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Dfn"ant-Appll
ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
REPLY #RIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
R$% J. Mi"in&', P'$ S
()*+ A'ian Ea&l Ct.
F$'t M%'/, Fl. +(0
Tl 1 0+-2+)-33+4
Cll 1 +3)-4+5-+)54
Eail-R$%JMi"in&'6$a/t.nt
APPELLANT? $OH 8. 8EIDINE$? litigant pro se? respectfll) files t#is repl)
brief in response to t#e $espondentAppellee;s Appeal Brief? and states as follo/sJ
VII. T: C$i//i$n' $f Int'nal R!n9 Ati$n/ ;CIR
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
13/39
In all pleadings filed b) t#e Appellee in t#e District Cort and in t#e
Appellate Cort? T#e Co""issioner of Internal $evene ad"itted t#at #e did not
and /ill not investigate and collect ta2es fro" t#e ta2pa)ers identified in t#e
#ealt#care indstr). T#e CI$ ad"its #e deliberatel) and (no/ingl) bloc(ed an)
investigations of t#e t#osands of identified ta2pa)ers violating t#e ta2 code per infor"ation rela)ed to t#e office b) t#e Appellant in t#e For" '33 sb"itted to t#e
I$! and dl) received b) said office. 6e alleged t#at #e #as t#e discretionar)
at#orit) not to condct an) investigation and not to collect an) ta2es de. 6e
provided no statte giving #i" t#is at#orit). In all denials? t#e CI$ never gave a
reason /#) #e sed #is discretionar) at#orit). T#e Ta2 code sa)s
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
14/39
VIII. T: CIR :a/ n$t "i/p9t" t: % all&ati$n/ 'ai/" in t: Appal
T#e Co""issioner of Internal $evene #as not dispted t#e follo/ingJ
a. T#e Appellant did identif) specific ta2pa)ers and specific ta2 evasion
practicesG b. T#e Patients- contracts /it# t#e provider spersedes t#e contract bet/een t#e
provider and t#e Insrance Co"paniesGc. T#e Patient-s bill is t#e recogni1ed inco"e revene for ta2 prposesGd. T#e #ealt#care providers give no disconts to an)one? patient or insrance
co"pan)G
e. T#e accralbasis of acconting is t#e reired "et#odolog) in t#e
#ealt#care indstr) for deter"ining t#e reali1ed inco"e for ta2 prposesGf. T#e partial cancellation of debt given to t#e insrance co"pan) is a
(ic(bac( or a pa)"ent? to t#e insrance co"pan) for steering or referring
insred "e"bers to t#e providerG T#is "a) also be called as $eferral feeMG
%a&7#oever co""its an offense against t#e nited !tates or aids? abets? consels? co""ands? indces or procres itsco""ission? is pnis#able as a principal.
%b&7#oever /illfll) cases an act to be done /#ic# if directl) perfor"ed b) #i" or anot#er /old be an offense againstt#e nited !tates? is pnis#able as a principal.>
30 .!. Code K = Accessor) after t#e fact
>Accessor) after t#e fact7#oever? (no/ing t#at an offense against t#e nited !tates #as been co""itted? receives? relieves? co"forts or assistst#e offender in order to #inder or prevent #is appre#ension? trial or pnis#"ent? is an accessor) after t#e fact.
E2cept as ot#er/ise e2pressl) provided b) an) Act of Congress? an accessor) after t#e fact s#all be i"prisoned not"ore t#an one#alf t#e "a2i"" ter" of i"prison"ent or %not/it#standing section =5@3& fined not "ore t#an one#alf t#e "a2i"" fine prescribed for t#e pnis#"ent of t#e principal? or bot#G or if t#e principal is pnis#able b) lifei"prison"ent or deat#? t#e accessor) s#all be i"prisoned not "ore t#an 35 )ears.>
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
15/39
g. Congress specificall) incorporated stattes in t#e Ta2 Code to penali1e t#e
#ealt#care providers /#o paid (ic(bac(s to an)one referring patients to t#e
providerG#. T#e Internal $evene !ervice gave carte blanc# freedo" to t#e 6ealt#care
Indstr) to violate t#e Antiic(bac( statesG for instance t#is
7#istleblo/er #as identified t#osands of ta2 pa)ers violating t#e ta2 code
and not one #as been investigated? becase t#e CI$ sa)s #e #as t#e
discretionar) at#orit) not to investigate an) of t#e"G
i. T#e Appellee #as not dispted t#e at#orit) and
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
16/39
in eit#er case. T#e Appellee abandoned all rig#ts? t#erefore onl) t#e pleadings filed
b) t#e Appellant can stand. T#is cort alread) decided t#is isse in UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appll !. RICY NELSON DASON,
Dfn"ant-Appllant. N$. (-(((+*, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Ot$' *, 05(), /#ere t#e Cort statedJ
= al/$ "n% Da/$n/ 'lat" $ti$n t$ $"if% t: '$'" $n
appal. F"'al R9l $f Appllat P'$"9' (5;
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
17/39
t$ a $9nt'lai - it:in 25 "a%/ aft' /'!i $n t: $ffi' $'
pl$%, $' /'!i $n t: Unit" Stat/ att$'n%, :i:!' i/
lat'.=
. Appllant/ 'lif '@9/t n!' inl9"" a p'a%' f$' a 'a'"
Appellant disagrees /it# state"ent on pg. 0 of t#e Appellee;s Brief. >T#e
District Cort #as no
T#e CI$ goes to great lengt#s in #is repl) brief? to convince t#is cort t#e
Appellant is reesting a re/ard as #is relief. T#e Appellant is reesting an
ad"inistrative procedre t#at t#e I$! 7#istleblo/er Office denied #i". T#e
deter"ination of t#e a"ont of ta2es to be collected is t#e responsibilit) of t#e
I$!. T#e deter"ination of t#e re/ard and t#e a"ont is covered b) stattes K
@+'=%b3&%b'&%b=&.
T#e Appellant reested t#e acconting adit stated in t#e I$! stattes? /#ic#
for t#e #ealt#care ta2pa)ers is t#e accralbasis of acconting? sing enerall)
Accepted Acconting Procedres %AAP& and t#e I$! Ta2 Code. T#e Ta2 Code
finall) deter"ines if t#ere e2ists a dispte.
T#e Appellant also failed to note on pg. * of t#e Appellee;s Brief t#e
discssions? /#ic# too( place bet/een t#e I$! and 7#istleblo/er and #is attorne)?
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
18/39
/ere condcted? prior to an) denial of t#e '33 clai". T#e discssions? /#ic# did
ta(e place /it# t#e I$! Attorne)? verified t#e ta2 isses? t#at reslted in t#e
7#istleblo/er evalation done b) t#e Ogden T. tea"? reco""ending to proceed
for/ard. T#e 7as#ington 7#istleblo/er Office and t#e CI$ deferred an)
investigations. T#ese are t#e individals?t#at t#e Appellant in #is /rit of
"anda"s? are reesting to do t#eir dt) nder t#e la/.
On pg. * of t#e brief? t#e Appellee notes t#at dge C#appell instrcted t#e
Appellant to petition t#e ta2 cort for revie/ of t#e I$!-s re
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
19/39
Federal District Cort. I t#an( t#e DC Circit Appeals cort of identif)ing t#e
isse involved and stating it /as not a Ta2 Cort isse.
I. C$n&'// nli/t" Citi?n/ t$ /t$p TaB E!a/i$n
'+ !C @+'=? t#e intent of Congress /as to see( t#e aid of individals to
identif) ta2 evasion sc#e"es and illegal practices. B) bringing t#ese ta2pa)ers to
t#e attention of t#e I$!? t#e I$! /old investigate? calclate t#e ta2es and
penalties de and collect t#ese a"onts. n Harold !ruce "#$%#$, Christine
Saunders "ondon, &laintiffs'Appellants,v."%A" ARMS C#RRAT#$,
%efendants'Appellees? No. 4*344*4? nited !tates Cort of Appeals? Elevent#
Circit? ne 3? '445 t#is cort statedJ
=A/ in all a// $f /tat9t$'% $n/t'9ti$n, $9' ta/ i/ t$ int'p't t: $'"/ $f t:K
/tat9tK in li&:t $f t: p9'p$// C$n&'// /$9&:t t$ /'!.= Norfolk Redevelopment
& Housing Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potoma !el. Co." )2) U.S. 5, 2, (5) S.Ct. 5),54, 4* L.E".0" 0+ ;(+*
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
20/39
Appellant disptes pg. iv? of t#e Brief? /#ic# states t#at >t#e Co""issioner
o/es no dt) to 8eidinger to investigate> bt on page '0 of t#e sa"e Brief? t#e
Appellee statesJ
'see also (our Home )isiting Nurse $ervs." In. v.$halala" 303
U.S. ))+ ;(+++< ;ptiti$n' n$t ntitl" t$ an"a9/ 9n"' 0*U.S.C. > (2( :n t: &$!'nnt an9al at i//9 /9&&/t/
p'i//i!, 'at:' t:an an"at$'%, ati$n
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
21/39
app'$p'iat, inl9"in&, f$' Bapl, 'l!ant p$'ti$n/ $f '!n9
a&nt 'p$'t/, $pi/ $f a&'nt/ nt'" int$ it: t:
taBpa%';/
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
22/39
IRM 03.0.0.+.0 ;)< ;52-(*-05(5<
Aa'" C$p9tati$n - Sti$n 420;a< lai/ fil" $n $' aft'
J9l% (, 05(5 an" Sti$n 420;< lai/
%=& an individal /#o provides infor"ation t#at leads to an
ad"inistrative or
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
23/39
=In Cooper II" t: TaB C$9't $/'!" t:at t: S'ta'% :a/
t: '/p$n/iilit% $f /in& taB '!n9 in !'% p$//il
/it9ati$n. (2 T.C. at 25( ;iting 02 U.S.C. >> 425( an" 4250
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
24/39
pa'a&'ap:, a ia inl9"/ a pa%nt in $n/i"'ati$n $f
t: 'f''al $f a lint, patint, $' 9/t$'. T: 9'"n $f p'$$f
in '/pt $f t: i//9, f$' p9'p$// $f t:i/ pa'a&'ap:, a/ t$
:t:' a pa%nt $n/tit9t/ an ill&al 'i, ill&al ia,
$' $t:' ill&al pa%nt /:all 9p$n t: S'ta'% t$ t: /aBtnt a/ : a'/ t: 9'"n $f p'$$f 9n"' /ti$n 4)3)
;$n'nin& t: 9'"n $f p'$$f :n t: i//9 'lat/ t$ f'a9"
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
25/39
ta2pa)ers na"e on a for" 33=+9 and give t#e reason /#) t#e clai" is being
denied. T#e CI$ is reired to "a(e a deter"ination on a case b) case basis. T#e
CI$ gave and is giving? fll i""nit) to t#e entire #ealt#care indstr) of t#e ta2
code in connection /it# its (ic(bac( sc#e"eQ T#is is be)ond #is at#orit).
IV. F"'al Di/t'it C$9't/ Ha! A9t:$'it% T$ I//9 'it/ Of
Man"a9/
T#e federal District Cort gets its at#orit) to isse /rits of "anda"s fro"
stattes '0 !C 3==3 and '0 !C 3=+3. T#e case of t#e action is 5 !C KK @43
@4+? t#e Ad"inistrative Procedres Act. T#e Ad"inistrative Procedre Act %APA&?
Pb.L. @9*4*? +4 !tat. '=@? enacted ne 33? 39*+? is t#e nited !tates federal
statte t#at governs t#e /a) in /#ic# ad"inistrative agencies of t#e federal
govern"ent of t#e nited !tates "a) propose and establis# reglations. T: APA
al/$ /t/ 9p a p'$// f$' t: Unit" Stat/ f"'al $9't/ t$ "i'tl% '!i
a&n% "i/i$n/. It is one of t#e "ost i"portant pieces of nited !tates
ad"inistrative la/. T#e Act beca"e la/ in 39*+.
To set aside for"al rle"a(ing or for"al adsbstantial evidence> after t#e cort reads t#e >/#ole record>? /#ic# can be
t#osands of pages long.
nli(e arbitrar) and capricios revie/? sbstantial evidence revie/ gives t#e
corts lee/a) to consider /#et#er an agenc)-s factal and polic) deter"inations
/ere /arranted in lig#t of all t#e infor"ation before t#e agenc) at t#e ti"e of
decision. Accordingl)? arbitrar) and capricios revie/ is nderstood to be "ore
deferential to agencies t#an sbstantial evidence revie/. Arbitrar) and capricios
revie/ allo/s agenc) decisions to stand as long as an agenc) can give a reasonable
e2planation for its decision based on t#e infor"ation it #ad at t#e ti"e. In contrast?
t#e corts tend to loo( "c# #arder at decisions reslting fro" trialli(e
procedres becase t#ose agenc) procedres rese"ble actal trialcort
procedres? bt Article III of t#e Constittion reserves t#e
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
26/39
/#en agencies acts li(e corts becase being strict gives corts final sa)?
preventing agencies fro" sing too "c#
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
27/39
9n/9pp$'t" % /9/tantial !i"n in a a/ /9t t$ /ti$n/
332 an" 334 $f t:i/ titl $' $t:'i/ '!i" $n t: '$'" $f
an a&n% :a'in& p'$!i"" % /tat9t $'
;F<
9na''ant" % t: fat/ t$ t: Btnt t:at t: fat/ a' /9t
t$ t'ial " n$!$ % t: '!iin& $9't.
In ain& t: f$'&$in& "t'inati$n/, t: $9't /:all '!i
t: :$l '$'" $' t:$/ pa't/ $f it it" % a pa't%, an" "9
a$9nt /:all tan $f t: '9l $f p'9"iial ''$'.=
T#e "odernM 1one of interest for"lation originated as a li"itation on t#e
case of action for
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
28/39
Potta/ato"i Indians v. Patc#a(? 3=' !.Ct. '399? ''34 %'43'& %1one of interests test
in APA conte2ts is not especiall) de"andingM&.
T#e Federal District Cort #as not s#o/n an) case la/ sa)ing it does not
#ave t#e at#orit) to grant t#e relief reested. !ee Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action
Comm. v. United States? 535 F.=d 3=@'? 3=@904 %Fed. Cir. '440&. %Or case la/
is argabl) inconsistent abot /#et#er a finding t#at a cort does not #ave
at#orit) to grant t#e relief reested s#old be considered !ince a /rit of "anda"s cannot co"pel a discretionar) action? ta2pa)ers-
contention t#at t#e Federal 8anda"s Act? '0 .!.C. K 3=+3? conve)s
V. C$n&'// n!' '$!" t: a9t:$'it% $f t: F"'al Di/t'it C$9't
t$ 'it 'it/ $f an"a9/ $' &a! t:i/ a9t:$'it% t$ t: TaB C$9't
7#en Congress c#anged t#e I$! 7#istleblo/er progra" in '44+? it did not
c#ange '0 !C K 3==3 or '0 !C K 3=+3 or 5 !C KK @43@4+. T#ese stattes
give t#e Federal District Corts t#e at#orit) and
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
29/39
t#e district cort cases t#e Appellant;s reest for relief did not e2ceed t#e
at#orit) of t#e federal district cort. T#e relief reested never as(ed t#e cort to
isse a re/ard? or "a(e a deter"ination as to #o/ "c# ta2es t#e identified
ta2pa)ers o/ed. T#e Appellant onl) as(ed t#e cort to ensre t#at t#e I$!
perfor"s a "andator) ad"inistrative dt). T#e relief as(ed for /as to correct a/rongfll) denied investigation of t#e ta2pa)ers /#ic# t#e Appellant identified.
T#e co""issioner is /rong /#en #e sa)s #e #as discretionar) at#orit) not
to do an investigation becase of '+ !C b3. T#is provision deals /it# t#e
estion of t#e a"ont of t#e re/ard? not /it# t#e discretionar) at#orit) of t#e
CI$. %!ee I$8 '5.'.'9.'%*& %34&%b&&
XVI. Legal Standing
T#e legal rig#t to initiate a la/sit. To do so? a person "st be sfficientl)
affected b) t#e "atter at #and? and t#ere "st be a case or controvers) t#at can be
resolved b) legal action. T#ere are t#ree reire"ents for Article III standingJ %3&
in
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
30/39
!tanding is fonded >in concern abot t#e properand properl) li"itedrole
of t#e corts in a de"ocratic societ). > 7art#? *'' .!. at *90. 7#en an individal
see(s to avail #i"self of t#e federal corts to deter"ine t#e validit) of a legislative
action? #e "st s#o/ t#at #e >is i""ediatel) in danger of sstaining a direct
in E2 parte Levitt? =4' .!. +==? +=* %39=@&. T#is reire"ent is necessar) toensre t#at >federal corts reserve t#eir Associated eneral Contractors of
California v. Coalition for Econo"ic Eit)? 954 F.'d 3*43? 3*4+ %9t# Cir. 3993&
%oting nited Pblic 7or(ers? ==4 .!. at 09&? cert. denied? 33' !. Ct. 3+@4
%399'&. National Environ"ental Polic) Act %NEPA&? *' .!.C. ! *==3? et se.
!o"eone /#o see(s in"st s#o/ a ver)
significant possibilit)- of ftre #ar" in order to #ave standing to bring sit.>
Nelsen v. ing Cont)? 095 F.'d 3'*0? 3'54 %9t# Cir. 3994&? cert. denied? 33' !.
Ct. 0@5 %399'&.
T#e in
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
31/39
• T#is nation /ill never be able to co"pete in t#e international indstrial arena
becase t#e I$! /ill contine to cover p its error. %!ee Attac#ed
Addend"&
T#e #ar" sstained b) t#e Appellant and t#e nation? /ill contine forever if
t#is Appeal is denied.
:,II. #$t: a// :a! t$ '!i" in t:i' nti't%
T#e CI$ #as e"p#aticall) stated t#e final orders of eac# cort are correctl)
and ti"el) appealed. T#ese final orders /ere "ade in response to all t#e
Appellant;s "otions for reconsideration. T#ese "otions incorporate t#e entire case
filed /it# t#e Cort? /#ic# inclded dis"issal orders 3 ' of eac# case. Case '
/as dis"issed prior to case 3 being dis"issed. dge o#n !teele cited case 3 as
#is at#orit)? not t#e conclsions listed b) dge !#erri C#appell.
In note *? on page 39? t#e Appellee stated t#at >Bt see Fo"an v. Davis? =@3
.!. 3@0? 303 %39+'& %corts of appeal s#old not dis"iss notices of appeal on
gronds a"onting to >"ere tec#nicalities>&G ic(lig#ter v. Nails b) annee? Inc.?
+3+ F.'d @=*? @=0 n. 3%5t# Cir. 3904& %appeals of orders not specificall) designated
in t#e notice of appeal are allo/ed /#ere it is clear t#at t#e overriding intent /as to
give effectivel) to appeal&.
$econsiderationJ As nor"all) sed in conte2t of ad"inistrative adreconsideration> i"plies ree2a"ination? and possibl) a different decision b) t#e
entit)/#ic# initiall) decided it. err8cee Nclear Corp v. Ne/ 8e2ico
Environ"ental I"p. Bd.? App.? 9@ N.8. 00? +=@ P.'d =0? *'.
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
32/39
VIII. T: Appllant/ filin&/ a' a" P'$ S an" 9/t :l" t$ l//
/t'in&nt /tan"a'"/
T#e Appellant in t#is case #as co""enced t#e filing of t#e cases sb
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
33/39
Defense la/)er? /#o appeared for t#e CI$ verified t#is procedre and infor"ation?
after t#e Appellant spo(e to #er and /#en t#e repl) /as filed in response to
defendant-s "otion to dis"iss.
In addition? t#e Appellee #as filed an ans/er to t#e Allegations "ade b) t#e
Appellant in #is appeal and Appeal Brief? /#ic# connotes t#at t#e Appellee is no/
estopped to raise t#e isse on valid service of s""ons considering t#at t#e) #ave
been infor"ed and received a cop) of t#e Appellant;s Notice of Appeal and Appeal
Brief.
I. T: Appllant :a/ t all '@9i'nt/ f$' t: 'lif '@9/t"
Based on all t#e filings in Federal District Cort T#is Cort "st isse t#e
/rit of "anda"s.
If t#is Cort decides not to isse t#e /rit t#e da"ages identified in Appendi2
A /ill contine. T#ese da"ages can be stopped b) si"pl) telling t#e CI$ to do
#is
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
34/39
A'ian :alt:a' /tan"/ apa't, an" n$t in
a &$$" a%
$o) . 8eidinger 3'J*+ p.". E!T Febrar) '9? '43+
$o) 8eidinger%P#otoJ !pecial to T#e Ne/sPress&
Or National #ealt#care s)ste" stands apart fro" all t#e ot#er =* indstrial contries in t#at it ist#e #ig#est cost and provides lo/est alit) of service. T#ese t/o aspects are signs t#e indstr)#as eli"inated co"petition and trned itself into an oligopol).
F$' a: "$lla' an" p'nta& p$int in'a/ $f GDP $f :alt:a' In"9/t'% Oli&$p$l%
t:' a/ a at:in& "lin in t: Man9fat9'in& In"9/t'%.
As t#e #ealt#care indstr) gre/ fro" +.5 of DP to 3@.' of DP? a c#ange of 34.@? t#e"anfactring indstr) /ent fro" '*.= to 3'.=? a c#ange of 3'. 8anfactring is #alf of/#at it once /as. Dring t#is ti"efra"e? t#e ot#er indstrial nations percentage or DPre"ained t#e sa"e. T#ese ot#er contries all #ave a single pa)er s)ste".
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
35/39
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
36/39
T#e econo"ic catal)st t#at for"ed t#e "tal billing practices is traced to t#e c#ange of8edicare co"pensation.
In 390'? 8edicare /ent fro" pa)ing an allocation of all "edical costs? based on all patient bills?to a fi2ed a"ont for different diagnosis.
T#e original pa)"ents /ere deter"ined t#rog# cost anal)sis for varios "edical diagnostics.Bt? eac# )ear after/ard? rei"brse"ent rates /ere increased based on privatepa) patient;sincreased billed a"ont.
T#e !ocial !ecrit) la/ states? #ealt#care providers /ere to list t#e actal a"onts collectedfro" t#e privatepa) patients on t#e 8edicare beneficiaries- bills. 8ost of t#e providers in t#e#ealt#care indstr) pt t#e sa"e prices on all 8edicare beneficiaries- invoices? bt not t#e actala"ont t#e) collect fro" t#e privatepa) patients.
T#e largest grop? of privatepa) patients? are t#e privatel) insred patients? /#ic# "a(e p @4
percent of t#e patients. T#e providers list t#e sa"e prices on all insred privatepa) patients- bills? bt forgive a large portion of t#e patients debt o/ed? so t#e actal a"ont collected is "c#lo/er? in so"e states al"ost 94 percent lo/er.
T#is forgiveness of debt is paid to t#e insrance co"panies for steering t#eir insred "e"bers tot#e #ealt#care providers.
T#e financial aditor of t#e #ealt#care indstr) is not t#e Centers for 8edicare8edicaid!ervices? bt t#e Internal $evene !ervice.
T#e I$! "ade a #ge error? it treated bot# t#e pblic and private bsiness t#e sa"e. On t#e
8edicare or pblic side of t#e providers bsiness it is o(a) to /rite off t#e difference bet/eent#e a"ont billed and t#e a"ont collected? as a contract ad
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
37/39
If t#e providers /anted "ore csto"ers t#e) s#old? lo/er t#eir pricesG co"pete on prices andalit) of service.
T#e da"ages done to or nation dring t#e past =4 )ears are staggeringJ
• T#e indstr)? tili1ing its billing practices and (ic(bac(s? #ave stolen '' trillion t#rog#
overc#arges.
• @5?444 "anfactring co"panies #ave been lost? inclding @ "illion
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
38/39
6illar) Clinton /ants to e2pand t#e Affordable Care Act. T#is /old increase t#e nation-s#ealt#care bill. T#e ACA calls for t#e prc#ase of a co""odit)? insrance. T#e "otivation toco"pete? lo/er costs and i"prove alit) is lost /#en t#e csto"ers "st prc#ase t#eco""odit).
Bernie !anders /ants a single pa)"ent s)ste". T#is /old lo/er t#e nation-s #ealt#care
e2penditre to 3= to 3' of /#at t#e) are toda). T#e lo/er and "iddle classes /old not #ave to pa) copa)"ents and dedctibles. T#e pre"i"s allocated b) bsinesses for eac# e"plo)ee/old be paid to t#e e"plo)ee? /#ic# /old be an annal increase of 3'?444 a )earG t#is"one) /old no/ be ta2ed? increasing ta2 revene? /it#ot increasing ta2 rates.
To pa) for t#e single pa)"ent s)ste"J
• C#ange !ocial !ecrit) ta2 to a flat ta2 on all revene.
• Lo/er corporate ta2 rate to 34 percent and eli"inate t#e dedction on stoc( dividend
inco"e.
• Eli"inate 3= of #ealt#care provider-s e2penses? ad"inistrative cost for collecting
pa)"ents.
• Eli"inate state 8edicaid ta2es.
-
8/18/2019 Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)
39/39
• Lo/er e"plo)ee benefit cost allo/s "anfactring co"panies to co"pete /it# ot#er
nations.
As t#e nited !tates "edical costs for e"plo)ee benefits began to increase in earl) 3904s? /ecold not co"pete /it# indstrial contries? /e began to #ave a trade deficit. 7e are no/
rnning a trade deficit of 54 billion dollars a "ont#.
T#e bad side of a single pa)er s)ste"V '54?444 insrance co"pan) sales