UNITED STATES TAX COURT

John R. Patriot,                                  )           
Petitioner                                        )           Docket # __________
                                                  )
v.                                                )           Opposition to Show Cause Motion
                                                  )
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,                 )
Respondent                                        )
 

1. 1. District Counsel made a major mistake in his paragraph # 5. He claims to attach a copy of Petitioner’s Response to Stipulation of Facts. He attached as Exhibit C is Petitioner’s Response to Admissions from Respondent, dated January 4, 2008.
   Since Petitioner does not have a correct copy of exhibit c, he is unable to properly respond to this motion. Therefore, taxpayer requests that this court order District Counsel to file a new Motion to Show Cause and allow taxpayer 30 days to respond.
2.
2. On January 4, 2008, Petitioner filed his response to admissions of CIR. The Commissioner’s Request for Admission has the same wordage as the 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.
3.
3. These two discovery motions cover the same subjects appear to be the same and elicit the same response. They are duplicates and both are not needed.
   Taxpayer requests that this 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.
4.
4. 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 has not communicated with Petitioner at all and no agreement has 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.
5.
5. On or about this day petitioner will file his response to stipulations. True, the stipulations of the respondent were sent to him on November 27, 2007, but taxpayer is disabled and simply lost in the maze of paperwork.
   Taxpayers has 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 are required by law to accommodated petitioner due to his disabilities.
6.
6. Once his response to stipulations is filed, this motions or issue is moot. Therefore, this motion should be 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 priviledge against self-incrimination. Petitioner in his response to stipulation uses a format standard for motions.
   Apparently the District Counsel office does not appreciate petitioner’s format. Well, the DC is using an unworkable format which needs to be altered by the court.
7.
7. Prior to now, taxpayer has not filed a response to the said proposed stipulations. However, in paragraph 3 of said motion district council falsely accuses tax victim of asserting the fifth amendment.
   District Counsel found a fifth amendment objection in responses 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.
8.
8. In paragraph five, the respondent repeatedly accused Petitioner claiming the fifth amendment on his response to stipulations. Again, Petitioner has not responded to the stips. Therefore District Counsel made another serious error.
   Therefore, the CIR’s powerful should be required to withdraw this motion and submit a new one without any mistakes.
9.
9. In conclusion Petitioner did not earlier file his response to stips and therefore the entire motion of well-experience tax attorney is factually incorrect and should be denied.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that I sent on this date a copy to opposing counsel.

________________________ January 30, 2008 John R. Patriot
1776 Patriot Way,
Hogansville, GA