Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Conti v. Commissioner

( | ) _ Supreme Court, U

ele 2 ee

90-452 | ue x

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1990

EMMA M. L. CONTI, Petitioner

We

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, et al.,

Respondents

U.S. TAX COURT No. 21375-85

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

THIRD CIRCUIT

EMMA M.L. CONTI,Pro Se

107 East Moreland Avenue

Philadelphia, Pa. 19118

(215) 247-4235

Counsel for Petitioner-

Pro Se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Violation of taxpeyers constitutional

rights to due process by willfully end

maliciously assessing them for taxes they

do not owe and harrassing them into paying

those taxes.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment designed to

prevent abuses by state government or any

government, to individuals. Nor shall any

state or government deprive any person of

life, liberty or property without due process

of law, nor deny to any person the equel

protection of the laws.

How is one protected by the law? Whet is the

purpose of law,if there is no one to enforce

it ?

3. The Right to Counsel- the right to be

represented by Counsel of integrity affects

ones ability to assert other rights. Your

Petitioner is requesting the Court to assign

counsel to represent me. It is not only the

poor who need protection. Acorrupt Counsel

is worse then no counsel .

5. Legal ethics- the lack of them and the

failure of the Legal Profession ( Bar Asso-

ciation) to go after them end protect the

public 2nd honest lawyers,who would be pun-

ished if they expose unethical practices,

6. Whether government egencies should

be permitted to use counsel to protect un-

ethical and criminal activities of their

employees,instead of punishing them for

crimes.

7. Whether it is the Judge using the fifth

amendment , when he fails to support his

decision (Judgement ) with an opinion and

determination; reasons that appeal to the

intellect or law. For to give 'no reason at

all, avoids all responsibility and is un-

fair to the appellant.

8. Why are agencies that are supposed to be

investigating and punishing terrorism and

wrong doings, are instead protecting them-

as IRS, Regional Inspector-

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner, Emma M.L. Conti, daughter of

Marion J. Conti , deceased January 12,1981

Decedent had a self-proved Will- neming

Emma M.L. Conti end son Elmer J. Conti, .

co-Executors. Petitioners ere seeking a

review of account and protection of Counsel.

Respondent=- Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

et al U.S. Tax CourtNo, 21375-85 Counsel a

for respondents ere

Ms. Doris D. Coles, Esq.

Ms. Ann 8. Durney, Esq.

Mr. Gary R. Allen, Esq.

Chief, Appellate Section

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div.

P.O. Box 502

Washington, D.C. 20044

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. .....cccee0- 1-1i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEZDINGS...... i111

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............ v-vi

CRUEL A WR caccks ttcce sticks, 3 2

SURTROTORION cs Carats « C820 B02: 3

PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND

‘ STATUTORY PROVISIONS....... bas

STATEMENT OF THE CASE........... 6-7-8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT,, 9710-11

NOC TMET Sot hr t oa hice e eer 11

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

D. R. Rutherford end L.D. Rutherford

V. U.S. of A., District Birector of the

Internal Revenue °ervice - No. 81-1548,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-

cuit- 702 F.2d 580 -April 11, 1983....9

As, Petitioner is Pro Se, she did not have

opportunity to investigate additional cases.

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article VI,2nd & 3rd Para.,U.S.Constitution

Amendment 1 ; U.S. Constitution......... 4

Amendment V : U.S. Constitution......... 4

Amendment VI : U.S.Constitution......... 4

Amendment XIV : U.S.Constitution........ 5

Civil Rights-Protection provision -U.S.

Constitution-"Equal protection of the law."

Federel Tort Claims Act- 1946 .....-eeee-

Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt

Organization Act-1970 ....eeeeeereveecces

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-(Continued)

DEPARTMENT of the Treasury Pege

Internel Revenue Service- Instructions

for Form 706-U.S.Estete Tax Return.....+

I.R.S. Income fax Appeal Procedure 11

U.S. Gov. Printing Off.1986-491-482....

Internal Revenue Service-"Your Rights }}

as a Taxpeyer-Pub. 1(8-88).........0068-

vil

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTCBER TERM, 1990

NO.

MARION J.CONTI, DECEASED

C.A. NO. 89-1770

Emma WM. L. Conti, pro se

Petitioner-Appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,ET AL

Respondent-Apellees

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT CF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

The petitioner Emme M.L. Conti, respect-

fully preys that a writ of certiorari tssue

to review the judgement of the United Stetes

Court of Appeels for the Third Circuit

entered on May 31, 1990 affirming the order

end order of dismissal of the U.S. Tex Court

entered in the above matter on June l, 1989.

1

OPIN:(ONS BELOW

The Court of Appeals entered its

Judgement Order effirming the denial of

Petitioner's motion on 31 May 1990. A copy

of the order is attached as Appendix A.

The vourt denied petitioner's petit-

ion for reheering end suggestion for re-

hearing en benc on 26 June 1990. A copy

of Petition end order is attached es Appendix

BandC.

The Court of Appeels granted Appellants

request for 2 Stay of Mandete, to file a

Petition to the Supreme Vourt for a Writ

of Certiorari. Order of vourt approved Stay

of Mandate until August 2,1990 was issued

July 12,1999. A copy is attached 2s Appendix D.

The Court of Appeals granted Appellants

request for Extension of Stey of Mandate.

The Order of the Courts motion to further

stay Mandate until August 28,1990 was issued

August 17,1990. A copy of Order is attached

as Appendix E.

o

“

ee Te

JURISDICTION

On August 28,1989, Petitioners

filed a notice of Appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit, from the "Order and Order of

Dismissal" by Judge Thomas B. Wells, U.S.

Tax Court, on June 11,1989. On May 31,990

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit issued a Judgement Order, of

May 24,1990, affirming the decision of the

Tex Court."Costs taxed against appellants,

under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).

On June 14,1990, Appellsnts filed 2

Petition to the Court for 2 reheering, to

both the panel and rehearing in banc, as pro-

vided by FRAB 40. The U.S. Court of Appeals

jenied Petition for rehearing.

No reeson, opinion or determination was

given by the Court for the Judgement order

of May 24,1990 or refuse2l for rehearing

dated June 26,1990.

Oe

PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS

Article VI,2nd and 3rd Pare., U.S.Constitution

This Constitution shall be the supreme

Law of the Land; and the Judges in every

State shell be bound thereby.

The Senators and Representatives, and

811 executive and judicial Officers, both of

tha United States and of the several States

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmetion, to

Support this Constitution.

Amendment 1 ; U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no lew prohibiting

freedom of speech; or the right of the people

to petition the Government for a redress of

gprievences.

Amendment V: U.S. Constitution

No person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process

of law.

Amendment VI: U.S. Constitution

The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy

and public trial, and to have the Assistence

4,

of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment XLV; U.S. Constitution

No State shall meke or enforce any lew

which shall abridge the privileges or immun-

itiesof citizens of the United States: nor

shell eny State deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor deny to any person within its juris-

diction the equal protection of the laws.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MARION J CONTI, DECEASED January, 12,1981

#3008 of 1982

Self-proven Will- March 17,1979, First

Codicil-April 17,1980 end Second Codicil

of December 12,1980- Letters Testamentary

issued Februery 1990.

John B. Conti, deceesed October 26, 1980-

#464 Of 1982

Proven Will- February 6,1960 end Codicil-

February 16, 1982- Fraudulant Executorship

given Februery 16, 1982, after 16 months

of Kangsroo hearings, telking 2bout every-

thing , but the issue.

On April 8,1982, although will of Merion

wes not probated

J. Contif Petitioner Emma ii. L. Conti filed

Estete form 706 and paid a total of

$178, 896.55, which was an overpayment as I

informed them there would be other deductions.

An Amended return was filed on August 24,1983.

there wes an overpayment in the account.

Petitioner did not pay taxes on the Merital

share of the John B. VYonti, Estate as that

money has been illegelly held in the Trust

account. Marion J. Sonti wants the money

distributed. Although, John B. Yonti's Will

states the Court has"no say!’ Judge Edmund S.

Pawelec hes put himself and a most corrupt

Lawyer in control, Frank R. Donahue, JR.

There is severel hundred thousand dollars

Over-payment in income taxes in this trust

account. The beneficieries are never given

an eccounting of the taxes, etc. It took

nine years to get our first payment, which

was to be distributed every three months.

Now, they did not send 2 payment due June 29,

without ins explenation.

All ,deductions, taken on the 706 Estate

tax form were proper and backup was given

to substantiate the deductions, taken on

Marion J. Conti Internal Revenue Form.

Your Petitioner always responded immediately

to any notice She received from I.R.S. The

7.

eee

ae a ec a ee ee

task was futile. You could never talk to

the person responsible. If, you went to the

I.R.S. office they taiked in circles and you

accomplished nothing.

Thus , when the 90 day letter was received,

We filed an appeal to the U.S. tax Court.

Although, the Law of IRS states that

all collection stops, when 2 case is in U.S.

Tax Court and Council for IRS had received

proof of all deductions. Judge Thomas Wells

and Council for IRS James Clancy, Paul Sude,

and Stephen Kesselman went in hiding. They

told Collection Dept. To harass Emma Conti

and placed a levy on Estate Account of Marion

J. Conti and stole an amount of $15,425.62,

which was not due, ( November 23, 1987 )

from Mellon Bank.

Appellant filed a timely Claim, form 843,

for refund of this money. We have not received

areply .

When Judge Wells ceme out of hiding,

Counsel for IRS was changed and Petitioner

was harassed again toproduce checks and bitlLing’s

y=

ot wecppaeeliiiei aici.

which IRS Counsel had previously received

They mede no mention thet monies hed been

taken from the Estate Bank eccount.

Appellant, was aware thet the U.S. Tax

Court and i.R.S. were harassing Ms. Conti

Even after IRS Counsel Mr. Baker seid he was

satisfied to allow deductions, except for

Robert Bast Esq. ,Who said he was going to

be administrator and when he 2nd IRS are

finished there would be nothing left.

After , several yeers of requesting copies

of cancelled checks, they decided that I hed to

bring in the original checks. They had all

the Lawyers come in as witnesses and Judge Wells

is aware that two Lawyers committed pur jury,

All the nonsence, waste of Peoples time and

money Petitioner realized Judge Thomas Wells

Was playing games, and was in conspiracy with

the Register of Wills, Judge Edmund S. Pawelec

and Internal Revenue to extort property.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The decision of the panel of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is

contrary to decisions of the United States

Court of Appeals in other Circuit Appeals

Court,end it is necessary to secure and main-

tein uniformity of decisions in the various

Avpeel Courts. On April 11,1983,The U.S.Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit-c2se.702 £,2d

No. 81-1548- Daniel R. Rutherford and lg D.

Rutherford, Plaintiffs-Appellents v. U.S. of

Americea,District Director of the Internal

Revenue Service. They ruled, that the IRS

Agent as 2 Federal Official, violated

texpayers'" constitutionel rights to due

process by willfully end maliciously assess-

| ood

ng them for taxes they did not owe 2nd her-

assing them into peying those taxes. Assess-

ed twice on the ssme income and mede repeat-

ed demands fcr uselessdocumentation. This

is some of the herassment we have experienced.

The Court allowed suit for compense2tory

9.

EEE EEE Oe

ee eT a ee

dameges, for mental @enguish and for legal

fees incurred in resisting the zovernments

claim es well as punitive dameges in retrib-

ution for the agent's abuse of authority.

The need for competent counsel is

great. This collusion of harassment end

taking of property has been endured for

over ten years. We hired many lawyers, it

was apparent, they were not representing

you. Hence, the only wey to get truth on the

record was to represent yourself, for an hone

est lawyer could not expose the crime. For

this reason, I need the U. S. Supreme Court

to essign Counsel,and the words of the United

States Constitution will heave meaning.

The Judgement Order of the U. S. Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is not

Supported by rules of Law or opinion. For the

Judzement Order to afirm the Tex Court

decision is egainst the Rules end Instuctions

of Internal Revenue Publication -instruction

for Form 706-U.S. Estate Tax Return ,I.R.S.

10.

I.R.S. Income tax Appeal Procedure U.S,

Gov Printing Off-1986-49i-482 and Instructions

For The U.S. Tax Court and Internal Revenue

Service- Your Rights es a Taxpayer- Pub.

1(8-88) Also, Justice delayed is Justice

denied. For no reason, it took nine years

to have 2 self-proven Will of Marion J. Conti

Probated and Letters. testamentary issued by

Register of Wills, Ronald R. Bonatucci, an

Agent for the Secretary of Revenue in the

collection of Inheritance Taxes.

For these reesons, end others throughout

the Petition , this Court should essign

Counsel and grant the Writ of Certiorari

Respectfully submitted,

Emma M.L. Conti, pro se

107 East Moreland Avenue

Philadelphia Pa. 19118

Tele (215 247=- 4235

ll.

A > t Y rT

PPENDIX

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 89-1770

Estate of Marion J. Conti, Deceased,

Elmer vonti, Executor and Emma M.L. Conti,

Executor

Vv.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Emma M.L. Conti and Elmer Conti,Appellants

On Appeal From a Decision of the United

States Tax Court (T.C. No. 21375-85)

Tax Court Judge: Hon. Thomas B. Wells

Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)

May 24, 1990

Before: SLOVITER, HUTCHINSON and NYGAARD,

CIRCUIT Judges

JUDGEMENT ORDER

After consideration of all contentions

raised by appellants, it is

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the decision

of the Tax Court be and is hereby affirmed.

Costs t2xed against appellants.

A-A

By the Court

D. K. Sloviter ( signature)

Circuit Judge

ly Mrvos (signature)

y Mrvos, Clerk

Dated: May 31,1990

he nee —

(no reason, opinion or determinatin)

A- Bl

EMMA M.L. CONTI AND ELMER J. CONTI ,

PRO SE

107 East Moreland Avenue

Philadelphia, Pa. 19118

Telephone

(215) 247-4235

June 14,1990

Ms. Sally Mrvos, Esquire

Clerk, Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Yircuit

21400 United States Courthouse

601 Market Street

Philadelphia Pa. 19106-1790

Re: Estate of Merion J. Conti

Deceased

Conti v. Commissioner-IRS

C.A. No. 89-1770

Dear Ms. Mrvos;

Enclosed are the original and 14 copies

of the PETITION FOR REHEARING of the above

case, as provided by FRAS 40, from the

Judgement issued May 31,1990 by Circuit

Judge Sloviter- U.S. Court of Appeals.

As indicated in the certificate of

service, appellee has been served by mail

with a copy of the petition for rehearing.

Please submit our Petition for Rehearing,

lo eeaeenreestaenenneeetil

A- B2

to both panel and rehearing in banc.

Sincerely yours,

EMMA M. L. CONTI ( signature)

EMMA M.L. CONTI, PRO SE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

ESTATE OF MARION J. CONTI, DEC.:

EMMA M. L. CONTI, EXECUTOR, AND:

ELMER J. CONTI, EXECUTOR,PRO SE: No. 89-1770

;

Appellant :

Ve ;

:

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE:

:

Appellee :

:

PETITION FOR REHEARING (FRAP 40)

OF THE ABOVE CASE, FROM ORDER DATED MAY 31,

1990-

Comes now, your petitioners, Emma M.L.

Conti and Elmer J. Conti, respectfully re-

quests a rehearing of the above case. The

/ A- 33

Judicial Order of May 31, 1990, by the Panel

denies Appellants their Constitutional Rights

and the Laws of the I.R.S., and the Rights of

a Taxpayer.

1. The Panel did not make a statement of the

Law. Proof that there is no law that could

Substantiate this Order, for it protects un-

lawful and unethical practice of Lawyers,

Register of Wills ( an agent for the U. S.

Treasury), the Orphans Court Administrator,

end Agents of Appellee ( Internal Revenue ).

2. The Panel did not back their order with en

Opinion and determination. An Order or Decree

without an opinion or reason for the decision

isn't fair. A judge has a reason for making

a decision, if He can’t put it in writing, it

must be wrong. When the Judge does not back

his order with an opinion it isn't fair, be-

cause the petitioner is without the specific

reasoning that he must disprove. Also, for a

Judge not to give 2n opinion, is the same as

the witness who tekes the Fifth Amendment.

i

A- B4

3. The decision of the Tax Court cannot be

affirmed correct. The taxpayer is entitled

to deductions. These are allowable deductions

end proper proof was given. Judge Wells con-

Sspired that the Collection Department of the

IRS, (under orders from IRS Council ),

illegally confiscated monies from the Estate

account of Marion J. Conti, while the case was

in the U.S. Tax Court, Judge Wells presiding.

The Lew states, if it is in the tax Court it

is out of collection. Also, this money was not

due. Copy of Amended form #706, was timely

filed and backup for deductions were given to

IRS.

4%. Although, Marion J. Conti's Will was self-

proven and witnesses testified that she had

Signed of her own free will, 2nd was of sound

mind, it took nine years to have her Will and

Codicils probated. A conspiracy of fraud and

corruption with the Register of Wills, corrupt

Lawyers end Agents of Internal Revenue to

steal property, terrorize and harass.

aia aeinaatiianae alas |

A- B5

" A Judge is not free, like a loose cannon,

to inflict indiscriminate d=mege whenever he

acts in his judicielcapacity"- Supreme Court

Justice Potter Stewart. The purpose of the

court is to punish crime, not to praise it.

5. Also, since "Letters Testamentary" were

not received until February 1990, there are

many deductions to be teken from the Estate

tex form #706, for closing expenses.

6. I.R.S. “Rights of the taxpayer" states

thet you have 6 right to plan your business

so thet the least tex is due under the law.

YOU ARE LIABLE ONLY FOR THE CORRECT AMOUNT

OF TAX.

7. I have been denied my right to be repre-

sented by Counsel. An honest lewyer is not

permitted to expose corruption of the Judges,

Register of Wills. He has to earn a living.

I don't need any more corrupt ones, who ere

not representing you. " Of all the rights that

a person has, the right to be represented by

Counselis by far the most pervasive, for it

A- B6

effects his ability to assert any other

rights he mey have.", spoken by Judge Walter

V. Scheefer, of the Supreme Court of Ill....

8. Also,panels order , states that- "Costs

taxed against appellants". The Court rules

say that appellants will pay costs if the case

is frivolous : This is NOT FRIVOLOUS. This

is an organized ongoing RACKETEERING MOB

Is it possible the panel did not review all

the writings in the original Appendix ? The

illegal activities, planned extortion of

property for ten yeers.

9. The most dastardly crimes of corrupt

Lawyers and Register of Wills ( Agent for the

freasury) are protected by Estate Tax Speciel-

ist Dept. When Janis Brodie (Attorney IRS )

was told that Alda Conti Girardi's lawyer

Stephen Sheller had told her (Alda) that he

was a friend of Register of Wills Ronald

Donatucci and that if she gave him $100,009.00,

he would divide it with the Register 2nd She

would be assured to become executor. Ms. Brodie

|

A- B7

wes not shocked et this criminal activity,

She left the room. A short time later, I

turned around to face two Federal Police

Officers. They were called to escort me out

of the building. They did not know why.

Ms. Brodie protects crime.

10. Marion J. Conti died two and 2 half

months after her husband, John B. Conti. This

case 2l1so concerns texes due on the Merital

‘share, which has been illegally held in the

trust account, as Marion J. Conti wanted the

marital share to be taken out of the trust

and given outright to the heirs. The Jonn B.

Conti Trust is still illegally controlled by

Judge Edmund S. Pawelec, against the law, end

in opposition to the Trust set up by John B.

Conti. There is an-overpayment of c.$200,000.00

paid to Internal Revenue in this account.

Stock is illegally sold, churning the account,

deceptive accounting practices. All done eat

a great loss to the Trust, and greater pey-

ments to the IRS and other taxes, the Meridian

A- B8

Bank and dishonest Lawyer ( unlawfully).

ll. I express a belief, based on a studied

judgement, that the panel decision is con-

trary to decisions of the United States

Court of Appeals in other Circuit Appeals

Court, and that consideration by the full

court is necessary to secure and main*%ain

uniformity of decisions in the various

Appeel Courts. The Panel's decision is con-

trary to the decision, of April 1l, 1983,

of The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit. They ruled, that an IRS agent as

a Federal Official, acting under color of

federal law when he violeted taxpayers'

constitutional rights to due process by will-

fully and ine@liciously assessing them for

taxes they did not owe end harrassing them

into peying those taxes. The Court allowed

Suit for compensatory déemages for mental

anguish and for the legal fees incurred in

resisting the government's claim as well as

punitive damages in retribution for the

A- B9

agent's abuse of authority.

12. From the first hearing at the U.S. Tax

Court hearing, before Judge Wells, which was

continued in the Judges Chambers at the re-

quest of IRS Counsel and no consideration of

Appellant, Judge Wells was willing to become

part of this collusion to herass and extort

property, as "He was to be Judge for the

next fifteen years and wants to know what

heppens to this money ". ( Speaking to IRS

Counsel Paul Sude. )

13. For these reasons, and the many others

discribed in Appellants brief and reply brief,

end spreed through-out the Original and

Supplemental Appendix, we the Petitioners

orey this Honorable Court will grant this

Petition for 2 Rehearing.

Respectfully submitted,

EMMA M. L. CONTI, PRO SE

ELMER J. CONTI, PRO SE

107 East Moreland Avenue

Philadelphia, Pa. 19118

(215) 247 4235

Pe Ee

A- Cl

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nc. 89-1770

ESTATE OF MARION J. CONTI, DECEASED

Vv.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Emma M.L. Conti and Elmer Conti,

Appellants

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present: HIGGINBOTHAM, Chief Judge,

SLOVITER, BECKER,STAPLETON, MANSMANN,

GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN

AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

The petition for rehearing filed by

Appellants Emma M.L. Conti and Elmer Conti

in the above- entitled case having been

Submitted to the judges who participated

in the decision of this court and to all

the other availeble circuit judges of the

circuit in regular active service, end no

judge who concurred in the decision having

esked for rehearing, and a majority of the

circuit judges of thecircuit in regular

A-

C2

active service not having voted for re-

hearing by the court in banc, the

petition for rehearing is denied.

By the Court,

Dolores K. Slovi

ter

Circuit Judge

T) + ) TTYYW! yy |

Dated: JUN 26 1990

UNITED STATES

FOR THE THIRD

No. 89-1770

Emma M.L. Conti and Elme

A

Commissioner

Pursuant

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

is ORDERED that

certified

mandate in the above cause

hereby stayed until August

IGNED DOLORES

Circuit

Dated: JUL 12 1990

to Rule 41(b)

judgement in lieu of

A

A= Dil

COURT OF APPEALS

CIRCUIT

IRS

Conti,

ellents

of the

it

issuence of the

formel

be, and it is

2, 1990

K. SLOVITER

Judge

A- D2

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

21400 United States Courthouse

INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST

601 Market treet

Philadelphia 19106

Sally Mrvos Direct Dial

Clerk 597-8465

July 12, 1990

Ms. Emma M. L. Conti

Mr. Elmer J. Conti

107 East Moreland Avenue

Phila., Pa 19118

Re: Conti vs. Commissioner Internal

Revenue No. 89-1770

Deer Ms. and Mr. Conti:

Enclosed herewith is a conformed copy

of order filed today staying the issuance

of the mandate to August 2, 1999, in the

above-entitled case.

If during the period of the stay we

receive notification from the Clerk of the

Supreme Court that a petition for writ of

certiorari has been filed, the stay shall

continue until final disposition by the

Supreme Court.

A- D3

Very truly yours,

By:_M. Elizabeth Ferguson /, _

Chief Deputy clerk Ls,

bj /

enc P

/

cc: (A.B.Durney, Esq. \ /

(D.D.Coles Esq.

(G.A.Allen, Esq.

Pim Me

a

A- El

Appellent, Emma M.L. Conti mailed a request

for Extension of Stay of the Mandate on

August 1,1990.- Reply dated August 17,1990

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 89-1770

Res EMMA M.L. CONTI and ELMER CONTI, Appell-

ANT vs. COMMISSIONER IRS

Present: SLOVITER, Circuit Judge

1. Appellant*s Request For Extension of Stay

of the Mandate, which the Court may wish to

treat as a Motion to Recall the Mandate and

Stay the Mandate.

No Answer has been received.

Deputy Clerk- Direct Vial 597-8465

ORDER

The foregoing Motion to recall the Mandate

is Granted, and the Mandate is futher STAYED

until August 28, 1990.

Dated:

August 17,

By the Court

D. K. SLOVITER ( signature)

Circuit Judge

1990