Stephanie's Opposition to Motion to Compel

                                                                   
                                                                  UNITED STATES TAX COURT 
                                                                  WASHINGTON , D.C. 20017 



STEPHANIE PATRIOT,                      )
                                        )
    Petitioner,                         )
                                        )
v.                                      )             Docket No.  28xxx-07 
                                        )
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,       )
                                        )
    Respondent.                         )
________________________________________)

OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT’S INTERROGATORIES

Petitioner hereby files her opposition to Respondent’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT’S INTERROGATORIES.

PETITIONER FURTHER OPPOSSES respondent’s motion to preclude a challenge by petitioner of receipts reported by 3rd party payors to respondent if petitioner does not completely comply with any order to compel issued by the court.

IN SUPPORT THEREOF, petitioner respectfully states:

1. The petition in this case was filed on December 6, 2007. Respondent’s answer was filed on January 28, 2008. A reply was filed on February 22, 2008.

2. In the subsequent time period, respondent and petitioner have exchanged courteous written correspondence. Petitioner was unaware that respondent wanted information on expenses, etc. Petitioner is a pro se person and does not understand legal jargon, plain English is very helpful.

3. Petitioner received Respondent’s Request’s for Admissions, dated August 8, 2008, simultaneously receiving the Respondent’s Interrogatories.

4. While working on the admissions and interrogatories, Petitioner was made aware that her witness was unable to come to Nevada for the trial and so filed a Motion to change the location of the trial. On August 20, 2008, the court ordered a supplement be filed to the change of location for the trial.

5. Petitioner served her responses to both the Respondent’s Admissions and Interrogatories simultaneously.

6. Petitioner received a letter dated September 16, 2008 from Respondent stating petitioner is not under any form of investigation and thus the need for use of Fifth Amendment protection was correct. Respondent asked for a different response to admissions be filed.

7. Petitioner’s correspondence dated September 25, 2008 indicated that she believed the potential for prosecution exited and her responses were the correct ones to make.

8. Petitioner was unaware that she was expected to respond to and state a position about a possible future event, and was only aware that Respondent would do something.

9. Petitioner is a pro se person with limited financial means. She has intermittent access to computers and the internet, primarily through the public library. Plain ordinary English rather than legal jargon would be more helpful.

Petitioner hereby files her opposition to the Respondent’s Motion to Review:

1. Petitioner timely filed her responses to the court. This inspite of not receiving mailed correspondence due to Saturday deliveries requiring a signature and Petitioner not being home to sign. Petitioner has had to wait an additional 3-4 days to get delivery.

2. Therein petitioner correctly asserted her constitutional right against self incrimination.

3. The IRS claims they will prosecute non filers. IRS has classified petitioner as a non-filer, thus petitioner has a well founded fear of prosecution.

4. The Commissioner through the Department of Justice can grant petitioner immunity. If granted immunity petitioner will file a more detailed response to admissions.

5. In conclusion, for the above reasons Respondent’s motion should not be granted.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this motion not be granted.

Stephanie Patriot
North Las Vegas , Nevada
89081

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Opposition to Review Sufficiency of Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Request for Admissions was served on Petitioner by mailing the same on October 18, 2008 via regular mail in a postage paid envelope addressed as follows:

Mr. W. Wong
Las Vegas , Nevada 89106