UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Harry Patriot                  } 
Petitioner                     }         Case No. _________________ 
                               }   
vs.                            }
                               }         PETITION TO OVERTURN IRS
United States Of America       }         COLLECTION DUE
Respondent                     }         PROCESS DETERMINATION
                               }         (6320 & 6330) 

1.         Pursuant to IRC section s 6320 and 6330, Petitioner Harry Patriot requested a face-to-face Collection Due Process Hearing for the tax periods 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999 within the 30-day time period required by statute.

The IRS Memphis Appeals Office issued a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under IRC 6320 for a tax lien and a Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing under IRC 6330 for a levy , both dated September 20, 2006. These denied Petitioner's lawful request and are hereby appealed.

2.         Congress has set forth three pre-conditions for a CDPH:

A.        Petitioner must make request.

B.        Petitioner must make request in a timely manner (30 days).

C.        Petitioner must state the purpose of the hearing that includes collection alternatives, procedure irregularities, spousal relief and tax liability in some cases.

3          Petitioner complied with all of these three above.  Further the IRS has an extra pre-condition for  taxpayer not to raise political, Constitutional and religious concerns.  Petitioner complied with this extra requirement .

4.         IRS has other irregular and interesting preconditions such as filling out forms and submitting a payment schedule.  These requirements are impossible since Petitioner does not know what the IRS wants until he meets with them.

            Petitioner is not required to do these and did not.  The elected representatives of the people did not vote these mandatory actions.

5.         The IRS illegally and wrongfully did not allow an in-person hearing and violated Petitioner's statutory and administrative due process rights.  Petitioner's rights under the administrative procedure code include an opportunity to appear before the fact-finding tribunal.

6. The US Tax Court has held many times that the law requires an in-person hearing. Marett v CIR Docket # 4048-061 decided 7 Jul 06; Shell v CIR # 20188-05L decided 31 May 06; Nelson v CIR # 13212-05L, decided 7 Nov 05.

7.         The definition of a hearing found in:

A. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996:

A proceeding of relative formality at which evidence and arguments may be presented on the matter at issue to be decided by a person or body having decision-making authority (compare trial).  Note: The purpose of a hearing is to provide the opportunity for each side of a dispute, and esp. a person who may be deprived of his or her rights, to present its position. A hearing, along with notice, is a fundamental part of procedural due process. Hearings are also held, as for example by a legislature or an administrative agency, for the purpose of gathering information and hearing the testimony of witnesses. 

B. Blacks Law Dictionary 6 th Edition:

            A proceeding of relative formality (though generally less formal than a trial), generally public, with a definite issues of fact or law to be tried, in which witnesses are heard and evidence presented.  It is a proceeding where evidence is taken to determine issue all fact and rendered decision on basis of that evidence .  People v. Ivenditti , 276 C.A.2d 178, 80 Cal.Rptr .  761, 762.   The parties proceeded against or otherwise involved have right to be heard, in much the same manner as a trial and such proceedings may terminate in final order.  See e.g. 5 U.S.C.A.   § 556

8.         Petitioner disagrees with the above Notice of Determination and Decision Letter except as admitted.

9.         In the case of Schultz II , the US Court of Appeals for the 2 nd Circuit issued a definitive ruling:

Independent judicial review is required for all IRS collection enforcement activities.

Now the IRS is like landlords, banks and loan companies, who need a court hearing before state action. The Debtor is entitled to an independent judge to scrutinize the enforcement activities of all collection agencies. 

Harsh actions are no longer allowed without the acquiescence or intervention from a judge.  A judge is defined as holding a lifetime appointment with no diminishment in salary. Schulz v. IRS, 2 nd Circuit, June  2005 , 413 F.3d 297(2d)NY), 95 A.F.T.R.2d 2005-3007, 2005 WL 152090.

10.         Petitioner herby requests independent review of the administrative action.  Please send the appropriate and necessary forms for Petitioner to comply with the mandate of the 2 nd Circuit. See Schultz II ,  supra .

WHEREFORE , Petitioner request that both Notices of Determination be overturned and that a new, proper CDPH be scheduled.

____________________________                   October 3, 2006

Harry Patriot, Petitioner pro se