# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Conti v. Commissioner

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2819%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 498 U.S. 921

## Text

( | ) _ 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2819%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.