4. On January 23^rd, the CIR filed his Motion to Show Cause (Doc#12; rec 9). The Trial Judge (the Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge USTC) issued his Order for Show Cause on January 25^th (Doc# 13; rec 17). On January 29^th, Patriot mailed to the Clerk’s office his Opposition to Show Cause (rec 18) which the Clerk as usual refused to file without explanation.

5. On March 7, 2008 Judge Wells made the Show Cause Order Absolute which made all the Stipulations Absolute (doc# 15; rec 20). On March 13, 2008, Patriot filed his Opposition to the Show Cause Absolute Order which made the Stipulations Absolute (rec 21). This was also Patriot’s request that the said Order be rescinded. As usual, this was not filed by the Clerk’s Office.

6. Trial was held in Columba, South Carolina on March 17, 2008. Transcript filed on March 28, 2008. (doc# 18, 19 and 20; rec 22, 23 and 24) Bench Decision was dated April 4, 2008 (doc #21; rec 25). Decision was entered on April 16, 2008 (doc# 22; rec 26).

7. Patriot filed on May 19, 2008 his Motion to Vacate (labeled Motion for Reconsideration) (doc# 23; rec 27). This was denied by Judge Wells on May 21, 2008.(doc# 23; rec 27).

8. Notice of Appeal was filed on June 23, 2008.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. State of the Courts

1. The US Tax Court has a reputation of being partial to the IRS and no more than a lackey to the Commissioner. This is untrue and unfair to the fine judges of said administrative law court, with a few exceptions. Appellant has no information other than that the administrative law judges are fair, honest, and equitable to the greatest extent possible for the last decade or so, with few minor exceptions.

2. Appellant -Petitioner proceeded in this case as a pro-se litigant as many Patriots are active in many courts and inevitably represent themselves. Some of them trash the court system, are highly disrespectful to the judges, and make no effort to follow the rules.

3. The patriot community in court includes three groups:

A. Those classified as “paper terrorists”, who file voluminous pleadings which have nothing to do with the issues at hand and violate every rule of the court, even decency. The courts have penalties and other mechanisms to punish them for their wrongdoing, and encourage them to follow procedure. In general, the Tax Court is lenient.

B. Respectful patriot pro se litigants are those politically minded individuals who end up in the court system but learn and follow the rules. Their pleadings are filed timely, are relevant to the issues, etc. These individuals attend classes, do their homework and consult with paralegals who advise them of the court processes. The Tax Court judges return their respect, accommodate them in many ways, and tolerate their mistakes.

C. Mistaken troublemakers are the self-represented who follow the rules, but are mistaken classified by the judges as “paper terrorists”, and are treated more harshly than necessary. This happens quite frequent in US District Court especially when a gentleman pro-se follows a paper terrorist who disrespected the judge.

4. The Tax Court and all of the Federal Courts of Appeal are generally even-handed to pro-se litigants, even those classified as right-wing extremists, evidence no bias and are no more favorable to the government than normal. However, US District Courts have judges, in particular the older ones, who clearly favor the tax collectors.

B. State of the Appellant

5. Appellant carefully followed the rules before the Tax Court as he had done in an earlier case years ago (Patriot vs. CIR docket #6025-04).

6. Taxpayer is not an attorney or a CPA and has no legal or tax education or training. The IRC is so complex and confusing that nobody, including taxpayer, can understand it. Patriot from self study decided that he was a person not required to file income tax returns. When the audit began, Patriot studied the writings of various tax advisors who had various approaches to combat the tyranny and the viciousness of the revenue agents. The taxpayer wrote letters which were not acceptable to the tax service. Therefore, he was not able to resolve the tax dispute at the administrative level.

7. Patriot started learning the correct procedures and Petitioner filed his Amended Petition in the Tax Court on December 11, 2006. (Docket Entry No. 3; Record Excerpt page 3)

8. The Commissioner filed his Requests for Admissions on December 14, 2006 (Docket Entry No. 10; Record excerpt page 4). On January 15, 2008, Patriot fully complied with his Response to government’s Request for Admissions (Doc# 11; rec 6). The government did not find any fault to Patriot’s response to this.

9. In 2007, District Counsel sent to Patriot the IRS Stipulations (rec 7). Patriot filed his Answer to Stipulations on January 30, 2008. (rec 14) where he attempted to comply as best he could. The Clerk did not file Patriot’s Answer.

10. District Council used his stipulations to bludgeon and beat up the pro se litigant, not to resolve factual disputes. These stipulations were identical to the admissions which Patriot answered fully. Therefore they were not needed. USTC Judge Mary Ann Cohen ruled in the Clark vs. CIR, Docket #11384-06 that the stipulations were unnecessary and burdensome to pro se petitioners and could be ignored.

11. Stipulations are to be used after the parties had agreed on the facts, to memorialize the agreements already made. These are used to record the resolution of factual disputes prior to trial. However, most of the District Counsels use these as weapons against taxpayers self represented.

12. Stipulations are to be used when the parties confer and agree. However, in this case and so many others, District Counsel sent taxpayer a list of stipulations that he did not agree to. The form used had no place for taxpayer to record his dispute.

Therefore taxpayer used his own format to file his response. His format was objected to by District Counsel and ruled upon by Judge Wells.

13. Incidentally, due to the objection of Patriot and others, this dirty trick by the well-educated tax lawyers is no longer used nationwide by the District Counsel’s Office. However, this is the reason that Patriot was ordered to pay taxes he does not owe.

14. The Stipulation of Facts used by the highly-paid attorney for the tax collectors was in a format which was impossible for Patriot to use to record his dispute. So he filed his response to stipulations using the normal and standard format for pleadings. As usual, the Clerk’s Office refused to file Patriot’s pleading. Since his homemade answer was not filed by the Clerk, the Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge USTC, ruled against taxpayers.(Order to Show Cause dated January 25, 2009; doc #13; rec 17)

15. Patriot objected strenuously, filing:

A. On January 29^th, Patriot mailed to the Clerk’s office his Opposition to Show Cause (rec 18) which the Clerk as usual refused to file and furnished no explanation.

B. On March 13, 2008, Patriot filed his Opposition to the Show Cause Absolute Order which had made the stipulations absolute. This was also Patriot’s request that the said Order be rescinded. (rec 21). As usual, this was not filed by the Clerk’s Office.

16. The Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge USTC, has presided in many tax court sessions in the Carolinas and was highly respected by the pro se community for his fairness and court demeanor. However, in this session he was mean and unfair to the taxpayers who could not afford counsel. Apparently he received misleading, untrue and unfavorable information from District Counsel about the large number of pro se litigants at that session.

17. Patriot also sent on January 30th his own Stipulations to the Commissioner (rec 16). The government did not respond and the Clerk did not file them.

18. On January 23^rd , the CIR filed his Motion to Show Cause (Doc#12; rec). The trial Judge issued his Order for Show Cause on January 25^th (Doc# 13; rec 17). On January 29^th, Patriot mailed to the Clerk’s office his Opposition to Show Cause (rec 18) which the Clerk as usual refused to file without giving any explanation.

19. Patriot’s pleas, opposition, disputes were all ignored. Patriot had a good argument that the format used by the powerful government lawyers was unworkable. And that he had fully complied but used a format that was workable. In spite of Judge Wells’ ruling, the Counsel’s Office discontinued this harassment method. Anybody can look at Patriot’s answer to stipulation and see he complied fully with the rules.

20. The Judge ruled on the IRS Motion two days after it was filed and before Patriot received it in the mail. On March 7, 2008, the stipulations were made absolute as “No response had been received” from Patriot. Order dated March 7, 2008. Doc #15; rec 20.

21. However on January 29^th, Patriot mailed to the Clerk’s office his Opposition to Show Cause (rec 18) which the Clerk as usual refused to file without explanation. This was very unfair for the Judge to rule so quickly without giving Patriot a chance to file his objections. Patriot’s Motion was well organized, well thought out, concise and on point. Anybody could read this opposition and see that Patriot had taken the time to file good pleadings, especially this one.

22. On March 7, 2008 Judge Wells made the Show Cause Order Absolute which made all the Stipulations Absolute (doc# 15; rec 20). On March 13, 2008, Patriot filed his Opposition to the Show Cause Absolute Order which had made the stipulations absolute. This was also Patriot’s request that the said Order be rescinded. (rec 21). As usual, this was not filed by the Clerk’s Office.

23. Now the government stipulations are classified by the court as true because Patriot’s format was unpopular with the Clerk’s Office and the trial court.

24. At trial on March 17, 2008, the District Counsel did not introduce one single bit of information, one single document or one single witness. Respondent failed to enter into the record any income, figures, taxes and penalties against taxpayer.

25. Therefore taxpayer needed not present any information or documentation pertaining to his un-reimbursed business expenses, deductions, credits, etc., as the commissioner had not made any offer of proof.

26. However, taxpayer had a great deal of information to introduce and witnesses to call. Unfortunately, taxpayer was a fully disabled, handicapped American citizen. The record below had shown his physical and mental medical problems. Taxpayer was under heavy medication and was unable to tend to his affairs.

C. Clerical Assistant

27. Therefore he had with him at his table a clerical assistant who was experienced, trained and ready to hand Petitioner his documents. Clerical assistant was ready to assist with calling in the witnesses.

28. However, Judge Wells asked what the helper was doing at the table and Patriot clearly identified him as clerical assistant whose presence was vital. The trial court removed the clerical assistant from Patriot’s side leaving Patriot stranded and unable to proceed.

29. Two years earlier in his first tax court case in Atlanta (doc # 6025-04), Patriot was allowed to have clerical assistance sitting at the table with him. Judge Foley, USTC, presided, merely asked clerical assistant to identify himself, which is the normal procedure. At that trial, District Counsel’s verbal motion to remove the assistant was denied.

30. Before all courts, in particular administrative law courts, the self-represented are allowed to have an assistant sitting at the table with them. The assistant must identify himself and not be disruptive, of course.

31. No disturbance took place by Patriot or his helper before Judge Wells sui sponte removed the helper. Petitioner had good grounds to anticipate the assistance of a trained and experienced taxpayer. He did not have advance notice that he would not be allowed an assistant to help him.

32. Patriot protested but Judge Wells repeated his decision. Patriot was shocked and unable to proceed. He stated that his figures had already been submitted as stipulations.

33. On the other side of the aisle, District Counsel had sitting at a table with him another lawyer, presumably his supervisor, with whom he conferred. Within arms reach, he had a dozen other tax lawyers and a whole crew of IRS agents and accountants.

34. This was fundamentally unfair and prejudiced to the taxpayer.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The taxpayer’s response to stipulations was adequate.

On March 13, 2008, Patriot filed his Opposition to the Show Cause Absolute Order which made the Stipulations Absolute. This was also Patriot’s request that the said Order be rescinded. (rec 21). As usual, this was not filed by the Clerk’s Office.

Petitioner mailed for filing his Opposition To Motion to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts in Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established, dated January 22, 2008, but the Tax Court Clerk did not record it or explain what the problem was. This Opposition certainly looked fine to everybody else.

The major points in this Opposition included:

A. District Counsel made a major mistake in his paragraph # 5 of his Motion to Show Cause dated January 23, 2008 (doc# 12; rec 9). He claimed to actually attach a copy of Petitioner’s Response to Stipulation of Facts. But District Counsel attached as exhibit “C” Petitioner’s Response to Admissions from Respondent, dated January 15, 2008.

Since Petitioner does not have a correct copy of exhibit “C”, he is unable to properly respond to this motion. Therefore, taxpayer requested that the lower court order District Counsel to file a new Motion to Show Cause and allow taxpayer 30 days to respond. On January 15, 2008, Petitioner filed his Response to Admissions of CIR (doc# 11; rec 6). The Commissioner’s Request for Admission has the same verbiage as his Stipulation of Facts and these two pleadings appear the same. The responses to both of these pleadings are the same. The two responses appear to be the same document.

Understandably, District Counsel attached an incorrect exhibit because in essence these two discovery motions are the same. In the case of Richard L. Clark vs. CIR, docket # 11384-06, Tax Court Judge Mary Ann Cohen ruled that the stipulations were unnecessary burden on a pro se litigant.

These two discovery motions cover the same subjects, appear to be the same and elicit the same response. They are duplicates and only one is needed.

C. Taxpayer requested that the Judge order the District Counsel’s office to quit sending both of these almost identical pleadings to the taxpayers, or at least the pro se litigants.

The duplication of effort is a burden on pro se litigants with limited resources and no training /experience. The highly educated District Counsel with unlimited resources is using the stipulation of the facts to browbeat and harasses taxpayers who are struggling with this court procedure in the first place.

D. District Counsel is using the stipulations incorrectly and turning this procedure into a harassment tool against a pro se litigant who has no legal training or experience.

Stipulations are designed to be used when the parties have already communicated and reached an agreement on the items to be stipulated. In this case and others similar, District Counsel did not communicate with Petitioner at all and no agreement had been reached.

Yet the skilled tax attorney for the tax service uses a format that is unsuitable for pro se litigants and impossible to be used when the tax victim is expected to exercise his Constitutional right to remain silent.

Therefore, this entire procedure or format would be abolished except in cases where the taxpayer has retained a tax professional and this process is used in a way as it is intended.

E. Petitioner did file his Response to Stipulations.

Taxpayer had already notified the District Counsel’s office and IRS that he is a disabled person and entitled to protections under ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act. Opposing party and this court were required by law to accommodate Petitioner due to his disabilities.

F. Once his response to stipulations was filed; this motions or issue was moot. Therefore, this motion should have been denied. Petitioner is entitled to use the form or format of his response as he wants to, as long as it is proper.

Petitioner is unable to use the carbon copies sent to him by District Counsel because it has no place for him to deny and also to claim his privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner in his response to stipulation used a format standard for motions.

Apparently the District Counsel office did not appreciate petitioner’s format. Well, the DC is using an unworkable format which needs to be altered by the court.

G. Prior to January, 2008, taxpayer had not filed a response to the said proposed stipulations. However, in paragraph 3 of said motion, District Counsel falsely accuses tax victim of asserting the Fifth Amendment.

In his Motion to Show Cause, District Counsel found in Patriot’s response to Stipulations dated January 20, 2008, a Fifth Amendment objection that did not exist. However Petitioner did take the Fifth in his Admissions of Facts which are in most respects identical to his belated response to stipulations.

H. In paragraph five of said Motion, Respondent repeatedly accused Petitioner claiming the Fifth Amendment on his response to stipulations. Again, Petitioner has not responded to the stipulations in that manner. Therefore District Counsel made another serious error.

Therefore, the CIR’s powerful attorney should have been required to withdraw this motion and submit a new one without any mistakes.

I. In conclusion, Petitioner had not filed his response to stipulations at the time of the filing of the Commissioner’s Motion to Show Cause Order (doc# 12; rec 9) and therefore the entire motion of well-experience tax attorney is factually incorrect and should have been denied.

In the case of Conley v. Gibson 355 US 41, 78 S Ct 99 (1957), the Supreme’s ruled:

^“ Following the simple guide of Rule 8(f) that ‘all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,’ we have no doubt that petitioners' complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.”

In the case of Maty v. Grisselli Chemical Company 300 US 197, 58 S Ct 507 (1938), the Supreme Court held:

“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.”

B. Pro Se petitioner needed assistance.

On May 19, 2008, the Clerk filed Patriot’s Motion for Reconsideration which the Clerk re-titled “Motion to Vacate” (doc 23 rec 27). The major points include:

A. Petitioner being a pro se litigant and unschooled in law and taxes, did not understand the IRS Code and tax court, therefore he needed his clerical assistant.

B. However, the Judge removed the assistant and the petitioner was unable to proceed properly,

C. The opposing counsel was almost able lawyer with years of experience. He had an even more experienced lawyer at the table with him, and had other colleagues from the Distinct Counsel office and IRS agents to assist him.

D. This was an unfair advantage with the taxpayer having no help and the government legal staff very experienced.

E. The opposing attorney did not offer any evidence of liability nor income.

Further, regular attorneys are allowed to have an assistant with them. A pro se attorney should have the same privilege or right. The legal assistant can be required to identify himself and of course cannot be allowed to disrupt the proceedings.

District Counsel had been informed in writing that the taxpayer was mentally and physically challenged.

IRC 7452 provides: “No qualified person shall be denied admission to practice before the Tax Court because of his failure to be a member of any profession or calling.”

For the above reasons, a new trial or reconsideration should have been

granted.

C. The Clerk’s Office should be required to file pleadings.

In this case and many others, the Clerk’s Office of the Tax Court refuses to file pleadings of pro se litigants and attorneys. No reason or cause exists or is explained.

The filings of Patriot were in good order, well written, proper format, concise and directly on point. Therefore, they should have been filed. Appellant does not suggest that improper pleadings should be filed.

In order to make fair and adequate decisions, the trial judge needs information in front of him.

Appellant’s Due Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the clerk did not file perfectly good Motions and Discovery.

The court held in Platsky v. CIA 953 F. 2^nd 26 (2^nd Cir. 1991:

“District court, instead of simply dismissing plaintiff's pro se actions for injunctive relief and damages against Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Defense Intelligence Agency on grounds that he failed to name responsible federal government officials, should have explained correct form to plaintiff so that he could have amended his pleadings accordingly.”

IV. Conclusion

Unknown to the populace, the bench of the Tax Court is right fair to taxpayers, even those who represent themselves. However, a small number of judges are unable to different between those who trash their courtroom and those who make a great effort to follow the rules. Then, the judges are unfair and make poor, unsubstantiated decisions, as here.

Appellant is entitled to a reversal of the judgment below and a remand, so attorney for Appellee can provide at least one piece of evidence to substantiate his case.

V. Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this brief to opposing counsel listed below:

Curtis C. Pett, Appellate Section, Tax Division, D.O.J.

P.O.Box 502, Washington, DC 20044

___________________________________ Date: ___________

John R. Patriot, Pro Se

1776 Patriot Way, Hogansville, GA 30230