UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

WARREN T.  PATRIOT                           }

                                  Plaintiff,                     }        

v.                                                                  }       Case No.  XXXX

                                                                     }     MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,          }

                                 Defendant.                 }

Pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Warren T Patriot, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and Decision of Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington dated April 19, 2006, based on the following reasons:

1. In the Order and Decision mentioned above ( copy attached as Exhibit A ), the Court identified Eleventh Circuit’s findings in Peterson v. Kreidich, 139 Fed.Appx. 134 (11^th Cir.2005). These findings were issued on May 13, 2005 and this Court relied on those findings in the decision to grant the Motion to Dismiss offered by the Defendant.
2. In the case of Schultz II, the US Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit issued a definite ruling:    

Independent judicial review is required for all IRS collection enforcement activities.  Now the IRS is like landlords, banks and loan companies.  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.  (Emphasis Added)  Schultz v. IRS, 2^nd Circuit, June 2005, Case Cite:  413 F.3d 297(2d)NY, 95 A.F.T.R.2d 2005-3007, 2005 WL 152090

The Umbrella of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, 5^th and 14^th Amendments

3. Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the IRS tax assessment under the due process clause of    the United States Constitution.  No government agency can take any action against any citizen absent judicial intervention.  Government agents are not allowed into people’s homes or people’s pocketbooks without review by the independent judiciary.

4. Plaintiff argues that Schultz v. IRS supercedes Peterson v. Kreidich  and that judicial review can only be addressed in Article III courts. This case is based and is strongly supported by the Schulz II decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pertaining to judicial review. Everyone agrees that a United States Tax Court Judge is unable to make a ruling of this constitutional magnitude.

5. Therefore, Plaintiff was denied a meaningful hearing and his day in court. Under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff is entitled to an adequate CDP hearing which was denied.   Consequently the decision of the Court should be withdrawn and a new face to face CDP hearing scheduled.

6.  In conclusion, Plaintiff requests that the order in this case be reconsidered for the reasons mentioned above.

Certificate of Service:  I do hereby certify that on this date, I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel by depositing a copy thereof, certified mail postage prepaid, in the United States mail addressed to the following:

Philip Doyle
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 14198
Ben Franklin Station
Washington,D.C. 20044

 

_________________________________                 April 20, 2006
Warren T.  Patriot, Pro Se Party                                   
17 Cory Lane
Palm Beach, Florida33111