962 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio Mun. 2010), 2010 CVI 19759, Muhammad v. United States Dept. of Treasury, Internal Revenue Serv.

Docket Nº:2010 CVI 19759.
Citation:962 N.E.2d 393, 167 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2010-Ohio-6722
Opinion Judge:KEOUGH, KATHLEEN ANN, Judge.
Party Name:MUHAMMAD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
Attorney:Nate Muhammad, pro se.
Case Date:December 20, 2010
Court:Municipal Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 393

962 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio Mun. 2010)

167 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2010-Ohio-6722

MUHAMMAD

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

No. 2010 CVI 19759.

Cleveland Municipal Court, Ohio.

December 20, 2010

Nate Muhammad, pro se.

KEOUGH, KATHLEEN ANN, Judge.

[167 Ohio Misc.2d 2] {¶ 1} Magistrate's decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, is hereby approved and confirmed.

{¶ 2} Judgment is for defendant on the complaint at plaintiff's costs.

Findings of Fact

{¶ 3} In a letter dated July 16, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (" IRS" ) told plaintiff that his 2005 Federal income tax return was " frivolous * * * [with] no basis in the law [and] reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws."

{¶ 4} Plaintiff is now suing the IRS, a bureau of the United States Department of

Page 394

the Treasury, in the Small Claims division of this court. According to his complaint, he seeks $123.03 for the " cost of fees expended in exhausting administrative remedies to wit, mail postage and notary presentments," and alleges that " defendant has defaulted in this matter."

Conclusions of Law

{¶ 5} At trial, a court must determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence. In re Lieberman (1955), 163 Ohio St. 35, 125 N.E.2d 328; Bowlin v. Black & White Cab Co. (1966), 7 Ohio App.2d 133, 219 N.E.2d 221. The quality of evidence is more important than its quantity. If trial testimony or other evidence is in conflict, the court must decide which to believe. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212. Plaintiff was generally not a credible witness; defendant did not appear.

[167 Ohio Misc.2d 3] {¶ 6} As this court noted in a similar case, " [i]t is hard to know how to approach the virtually impenetrable wall of legalistic gibberish which [plaintiff] has erected." State v. Bob Manashian Painting, 121 Ohio Misc.2d 99, 2002-Ohio-7444, 782 N.E.2d 701. In his pleadings and in past correspondence with the IRS, attached to his complaint, plaintiff refers to himself as an " authorized representative" of himself, makes a " request for notarial protest," invokes the jurisdiction of an " international tribunal" under the Universal Postal Union, and has written several nonsensical documents including a " notice of dishonor," a " notice of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP