Chris Patriot                                                    Ref: AP:FE:RIC:ATM    Letter 3.24.2006                      
  PO Box 1662                                        
  South Springs, VA 25555                                          Collection Due Process Hearing, 3rd request 
                                                                   SS:  123-45-6789 
  Internal Revenue Service                                          Tax periods: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 
  Appeals Office
  Attn:  A.T. Munson   ID 54-02453                                  March 29. 2006  
  Main Street Centre                                                Postal Receipt:  
  600 E. Main Street, Suite 1600 
  Richmond, VA 23219

Mr. Munson:

My letter of Feb.16, 2006 cites the legal grounds for a face to face CDPH in terms that your citation of Treasury Regulations can not overcome. The governing factor is the need to point and explain. A Due Process Hearing Is intended to assure adherence to due process laws.  Due process also means adherence to fundamental fairness. Hampton v. U.S,   96 S.Ct. 1646, 1652 note 6 (1976).  Due process further means absence of untrue information. U.S. v. Conforte 624 F.2d 869, 883 (9th Cir.). Consequently, the matters will have to be discussed from quite a few angles. In practical terms, that means that only a face to face CDPH will provide the desired effects, namely:

Ÿ         A lawful and speedy resolution of issues

Ÿ         Presentation of documents and their point by point discussion

Ÿ         Observation, that Mr. AT Munson exists. Mr Rucker is known to be fiction.

In my CDPH request of Oct.11, 2005 I listed some of the subjects to be discussed. However you picked only one item: “Collection Alternatives”.  While one does not resolve complex situations by correspondence, I still extend you the courtesy of presenting the situation in writing. At the CDPH you will be asked to show me how I can make an OIC in view of the inconsistent positions the IRS has been communicating to me. An OIC requires me to commit to adherence to internal revenue law; a law that the IRS interprets inconsistently and sometimes does not abide by. That was admitted to me by an IRS supervisor at a face to face hearing. Here is an alternate possibility: I will consider an OIC by the IRS that declares: Appellant owes the IRS nothing and the IRS owes the Appellant nothing.

In your letter dated Feb. 3. 2006, you stated that the items listed on my CDPH request are frivolous. At the CDPH, I will ask you to show me your derivation of that conclusion. If any of my correspondence contain frivolous arguments, I withdraw them.

Please schedule a face to face CDPH in Lynchburg. I am on Social Security and therefore always available, but please give me at least two weeks notice.

Sincerely,

Chris Patriot