Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)

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


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………………………………………………………'*


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


4/39

6arold Brce LONDON? C#ristine !anders London?

PlaintiffsAppellants?v.FIELDALE FA$8!

CO$PO$ATION? DefendantsAppellees? No. 4*344*4…. 34

ii


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


6/39

iv


7/39

C'tifiat $f Int'/t" P$pl

No C#ange

v


8/39

C$'p$'at Di/l$/9' Statnt

No C#ange

vi


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**


10/39

vii


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


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


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


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.>


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


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;


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)?


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


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+ ;(+*


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


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%';/


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


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


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"


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


26/39

/#en agencies acts li(e corts becase being strict gives corts final sa)?

preventing agencies fro" sing too "c#


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


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


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


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


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? *'.


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


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


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".


35/39


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


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


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.


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

Documents

Meidinger Response to Appellee's Reply Brief Case 16-10071 (2)