UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION
LARRY FREEMAN )
Plaintiff )
) Case No. MC5xxx
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES AND )
FIRST MERIT BANK )
Respondents )
Pro se Plaintiff, Larry Freeman hereby files this response to US Attorney’s (Respondent) reply.
1. Petitioner received Respondent’s reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, dated 2-26-2009. Caption on Respondent’s Reply is noted to be in error. Larry Deems (Petitioner) V. United States and First Merit Bank (Respondents) is the correct filing.
2. Respondent (US Attorney Edmund Booth Jr.) makes his Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He states that third party (First Merit Bank) should not be forced to litigate at great expense and distances since they have no vested interest in the outcome of this case. Because the bank is a nominal defendant it is unlikely they will file any pleadings in this case. Also IRS Agent James Farley has made it clear on the Summons that the bank could mail the documents in lieu of personal appearance. These documents could be mailed at minimal time and expense anywhere in the country. The real issue is not subject matter jurisdiction, but to create an impossible situation for pro se Petitioner to file these litigations. By requiring Petitioner to take large amounts of time from work and at great costs to file in a remote courthouse has the effect of denying him access to the courts, denying him Due Process of the Law, and interfering with an Act of Congress.
3. To file a petition or complaint with District Court a pro se Petitioner must do so in person. The Clerk of Courts in the federal courthouses routinely reject initial filings requiring changes for one reason or another. At distances of over 1000 miles it would be impossible to meet these demands and still file in a timely manner.
4. Because Plaintiff is not an attorney and is representing himself, he has tried to make his objections and statements as clear as possible. Respondent has misinterpreted Plaintiff’s non-objection to transfer this case to District Court in Akron, Ohio. Plaintiff only meant that, now that this case has been filed, he has no objection to the Court transferring this case to District Court in Akron, Ohio. This court has this authority to do so.
5. Since the Plaintiff is the real party at interest, he should be given the opportunity in the interest of justice, to defend his petition in the Southern District.
Wherefore, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granting Petitioner the protection of his rights and grant his Petition to Quash.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March 2009.
Larry Freeman, Petitioner, pro se Blackshear, GA 31516
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that a copy of this foregoing Motion was served on Respondent by US Mail in a postage paid wrapper on or about this 3rd day of March 2009.
James L. Coursey, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney
Post Office Box 8970
Savannah, GA. 31412
March 3,2009
Larry Freeman, Petitioner, pro se
Blackshear, GA 31516