IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Warren Patriot                          }
        Petitioner                      }
                                        }      Case No.  xxxxxxx                                                 
        vs.                             }      PETITION TO OVERTURN IRS COLLECTION DUE
             Respondent                 }      PROCESS DETERMINATION ISSUED PURSUANT
  _______________________________       }      TO 26 USC 6330                   
	   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA           }      
                                        }
                                        }
 

1.         Pursuant to IRC sections 6320 and 6330, Petitioner Warren Patriot requested a face-to-face Collection Due Process Hearing for the tax periods ending 12/31/2000, 12/31/2001 and 12/31/2002 within 30 day time period required by statute.  The IRS Tampa Appeals Office issued two Notices Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s), both dated August 9, 2005, which 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 which 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 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

7.         Petitioner disagrees with all of the above Notices of Determination except as admitted.

8.         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, Case No. 04-0196-cv.

9.         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.

10.       Petitioner’s rights were violated; therefore, both Notices of Determination should be overturned and a new, proper CDPH should be scheduled.

Wherefore request relief above.

____________________________                   August 29, 2005

Warren Patriot, Petitioner pro se
17 Cory Lane
Palm Beach, Florida 33111