Contents of Clarkson's New
7609 Packet
Instructions for Clarkson’s 7609 Packet
So, the stinking IRS is attempting to violate your privacy and harass you by seeking copies of
records from your third-party record keepers. Well, the tax collectors can be beat, but you have to
work hard.
This packet, Clarkson’s New 7609 Packet, can help you
put the Instant Robbery Squad in their
place. However, you must follow these instructions carefully. Feel free to call
Dr. Clarkson as needed.
1. The Summons and Petition. Read the back of the Third Party Summons
forms and attachments
they issued you. There is much good information there.
By law, you must file suit, i.e. do a Civil Summons and
Petition, within 20 days to halt the violation
of your privacy. This, however, is very simple. Fill out the Petition form in
the packet. Attach to it a
Civil Summons form and file. See “How to File Pleadings in Federal Court, Clarkson’s
Law Course
#8.
The Civil Summons forms are available free from the
clerk of court’s office in the federal
courthouse. Phone them and they will mail them to you, or pick them up the day
you go file your
papers. Fill it out then, attach, and file. The ladies at the clerk’s office
can and will help you. Do ask them.
2. The Petition form in this packet is ready to use as it is. Just plug in the
names and sign. the top of
page 1 with the blank spaces is the ‘caption.” Fill in the caption with the
name of the court, your name
and then the names of the banks that you are suing. The ladies at the clerk’s
office will enter the docket
number.
3. Use the forms in the packet. Do not attempt to change them without checking
with Dr. Clarkson.
Do not waste resources in time and money retyping the forms; do not worry, you
have plenty of typing
ahead of you. Just use the plug-in pleadings in the packet as they are designed.
You mail order the
forms on computer disk or computer-generated forms from us. You still just fill
in your name, sign,
and file.
4. Read carefully the instructions on the bank summons. Follow the required
steps. Do meet the
mandatory deadlines.
5. After you have filled out the Petition form, sign and date it. Then make your
copies. You need:
two copies for clerk; 1 copy for the U.S. Attorney; one copy for the U.S.
Attorney General; one copy
for IRS agent on your case; 1 copy for each bank or record holder; and copies
for yourself.
6. When you file your Petition, you can have you copies stamped and certified.
7. Service. You must carefully serve process on all the opposing parties.
You must follow the law
carefully here. Mail or hand carry copies to clerk of court at federal
courthouse nearest you. Then
serve the following people thusly:
a. Your local U.S. Attorney. Go by his office in the federal
courthouse and drop one off. Or you can
mail by certified mail, return receipt requested.
b. The IRS agent who issued the summons. Go by any IRS office and leave for your
agent a copy of
the Petition which is addressed to him. Or mail by certified (cheaper) or
registered mail, return receipt
requested.
c the U.S. Attorney General. Mail by certified or registered mail to the U.S.
Attorney General, Tax
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044 (explained on the IRS
Summons form)
d. Each and every third-party record keeper named in the bank summons, i.e. the
banks and finance
companies, must be mailed or served a copy. You can drive by their offices and
drop off a copy.
8. Filing fees. You can pay the fee of $120 or whatever, or proceed en forma
pauperis. The clerk
can give you an indigence affidavit and help you complete it. If you have no
job, no real estate, and no
valuable assets, you can be a pauper and escape the filing fee. You may be able
to file for $20. Tell the
clerk this is a petition and you want it filed as miscellaneous.
While at the clerks office, pick up other forms.
9. Order and watch carefully Clarkson Legal Research videotapes. Order
LR I and LR II at S30
each from the Patriot bookstore, PO Box 2368, Anderson, SC 29622.
Also. order FOIA forms and FOIA tape ($10). Get busy with FOIA- Privacy Act.
10. File other forms, motions, and discovery in packet. Use plug- in pleading
and do not retype.
keep in regular touch with Dr. Clarkson. Do the Affidavit personally, i.e. use
the Affidavit in packet as
a guide. Write and type your own.
11. Get out of banking! You can now see how important the IRS considers your
private
information in the hands of third-party record keepers. You can stop this awful
information drain by
closing your bank account.
12. The words complaint and petition are about the same and are used
interchangeably.
Lawyers and judges will call one the other and vice versa.
13. After you file your Civil Summons and complaint/petition, you need to use
the rest of the
packet. File the discovery, i.e. the Interrogatories, Admission etc. When you
file these, you can just
mail -- no need for anything more than first class mail. Also, you must send the
ones due to the
government to its attorney, the local U.S. Attorney, and you only need to send
him one copy.
You send the original and one copy to the Clerk of Court and you should send one
to each party.
i.e. the banks. Use the cover letter’ to the clerk that is in the packet. You
can order the carbonless
paper cover letters from Dr. Clarkson for $1 and SASE.
14. This fight over your bank records is very important. Your financial records
are very important
INFORMATION, and information leads to power, and power leads to control. This is
the object of
the enemy.
________________________________
CLARKSON’S 7609 PACKET
List Of Pleadings 
1. Instructions and contents for Clarkson’s new 7609 Packet.
2. Petition to Quash Summons-
the lawsuit -- the first papers to start the suit. File this first and “serve
personally” -- see Clarkson Law Course on “How to File Pleadings in Federal
Court”
3. The Civil Summons. Attach to Petition/Complaint and file with it. Also needs
“personal service.” Free form available from Federal clerk of court.
4. Interrogatories -- first set. A list of
questions the opposing party must answer. First part of Discovery; file pronto.
All discovery motions in packet
should he filed quickly.
5. Interrogatories -- second set. File soon.
6. Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatories.
If the government does not answer to interrogatories in about 30-40 days, file
this.
7. Request for Production of Documents.
8. Request for Admissions of Fact.
9. Motion to Dismiss -- Attestment. File with exhibits,
quickly.
10. Motion for Enlargement of Time. Use
this it you need more time for a hearing or to file papers. Change as necessary.
12. Notice of Appeal. File at end if judge rules
against you.
13. Petition and Order for Stay. File after Notice of
Appeal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition To Quash Summons
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
________________________DISTRICT OF _______________________
_______________________________ }
Petitionor }
} CA#______________________
V. }
} PETITION TO QUASH SUMMONS
The United States }
and }
Respondent(s) }
1. This is an action under the Special Procedures for Third Party Summons Act, 26 USC §7609, to halt the above-named third-party record keeper from revealing Petitioner’s private records to the Internal Revenue Service, and to quash the summons.
2. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 26 USC 7609 (h), 28 USC §1346, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution.
3. Petitioner is a citizen of the United States or the state in which he resides and entitled to the protection of its laws. Respondent third-party record keeper is a resident of or is found in this district.
4.4. According to law, Petitioner, a person entitled to Notice of the Summons under IRC 7609(a), has the right to begin these proceedings to quash such summons not later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given, and should mail within 20 days from the date of Notice at the address shown on the summons by registered or certified mail a copy of this petition to (A) the third-party record keeper who received the summons, and (B) to the IRS Officer before whom the summoned person is to appear at the address shown on the summons.
The records sought by the summons relate to the Petitioner and are his personal records.
This Court should quash said summons, for the following reasons:
A. The IRS has classified Petitioner as a “Tax Protester,” has abandoned in an institutional sense the pursuit a civil tax determination or collections purpose and has made an institutional commitment to make a referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution as it would merely like to gather evidence to aid a prosecution. US v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 437 US 46 248, 98 S Ct 2357 (1978).
B. The Service, having abandoned the pursuit of Petitioner’s civil tax liability, is attempting to use the summons for the impermissible purpose of gathering evidence solely for a criminal investigation, and is attempting to circumnavigate the traditional role of the grand jury as the principal tool of criminal investigation in our society, US v. LaSalle, supra.
C. The IRS has made a formal recommendation to the Department of Justice for prosecution of Petitioner or has made an informal determination and withheld the formal recommendation in order to use this civil process to circumnavigate the decision of the Federal Courts.
The IRS has made a preliminary investigation into Petitioner’s financial condition since it has access to a tremendous amount of financial data on taxpayer and has thusly abandoned any hope of making any civil collection in this case, but is delaying in submitting a formal recommendation to Justice in order to gather additional evidence, to expand its criminal discovery rights, and to serve as an information gathering agency for the prosecuting attorney.
D. The summons itself indicates that this is a criminal investigation as much of the information sought has no bearing on a civil investigation but is that generally exclusively used for criminal prosecution. The Court should examine each type of document requested for a civil purpose. The Court, in examining each and every summons and all parts thereof, will discover that not all of the information sought contributes in some way to a civil inquiry.
Even if the Court could discover a general civil purpose for the tax investigation, this would not terminate judicial inquiry into whether the summons (or parts thereof) issued during investigation exceeded the services’ authority. The Court must focus on the purposes of each individual summons (or parts thereof) and not on the purpose of the investigation as a whole. If any one of many summons or parts thereof were issued solely for a criminal investigation,
that particular summons should be suppressed, even in the face of an overwhelmingly civil purpose of the investigation as a whole. The IRS simply would lack statutory authority to issue that particular summons. US V. Genser, 595 F 2d 146 (NJ 1979).
The Service only has the authority granted to it by congress. The Congress has given the IRS administrative summons powers in IRC §7603 and §7604 to be used only in civil cases and has not yet given this administrative agency mandatory criminal investigatory powers. Therefore, the IRS simply does not have the authority to summons those particular third-party records that would be used only in criminal prosecutions.
E. The information in the possession of the Respondent third*party is of a private nature and was not intended to be given to parties not authorized by Petitioner. Furnishing such personal and private information about Petitioner to the IRS or any other governmental body without Petitioner’s consent is a violation of his person, his privacy, his Constitutional rights, and his natural rights, which must be protected by the government.
F. The IRS summons are not issued in good faith as the information sought by the individual summons is too broad, too sweeping in detail, to be used by the IRS only to prove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or for a collection purpose. Actually, some of the items sought by the summons are only needed by the Justice Department to aid in a criminal prosecution.
G. The IRS has failed to meet the procedural requirement of the summons authority, including the required provisions of 26 USC §7602, §7603, §7609, etc. The summons is patently defective on its face, filled out incorrectly by an unauthorized person, served incorrectly for an improper purpose, and violated the notice and hearing requirements.
The agents have failed to comply with the mandatory procedures in IRS 7605 (c), have not secured the proper authorization nor given proper notice.
H. The summons was not issued in good faith, not conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, not relevant to any lawful purpose. The information is already within the commissioner’s possession; the required administrative steps have not been followed. The summons is an abuse of the administrative process and issued for the improper purpose of harassing and pressuring the Petitioner. US V. Powell, 379 US 78, 85 S Ct 248 (1964).
I. IRS Manual Supplement 9G-93, the procedural guideline for prosecuting those persons classified by said agency as “tax protesters,” removes any room for discretion on the part of the individual agents assigned to the case. MS 9G-93, IRM 9383.6 and other IRS procedures on persons similarly labeled as Petitioner, set forth a policy whereby the cases are totally criminal ab initio, to the extent that individual agents and the
Service itself have no discretion or authority to compromise whatsoever in these cases. This manual is, by itself, the institutional commitment to prosecute.
5. The government alleges that one refuting the summons bears the burden of disproving the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or collections purpose. To meet said burden, Petitioner needs adequate pre-hearing discovery. Petitioner, given sufficient discovery, can prove:
a. No further existence of a continuing civil purpose;
b. A pre-existing institutional commitment to prosecute;
c. The failure of the summons to advance a civil purpose;
d. Improper purpose, political harassment, etc.
6. In his affidavit and Summary of Authorities, to be filed henceforth, Petitioner will enumerate actions of the government which will indicate, assuming actions speak louder than words, the true nature of this investigation, and the attempt of the two agencies to circumnavigate the traditional role of the grand jury and the other Constitutional protections of the Petitioner as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which contains the provision under which this Act was passed, provided taxpayers the right to petition to quash the summons. Obviously, the Congress meant for the suit to be meaningful, with adequate pre-hearing discovery, plus a real evidentiary hearing with government witnesses testifying under oath.
7. IRC §7603 provides that the summons be “attested,” and this is mandatory. The IRS summons in this case is not attested or not attested properly, because, inter alia, it is not notarized nor worded properly.
8. In the Alternative, should this Court not quash the summons, Petitioner requests that the Court provide in its order that the IRS/DOJ not be allowed to use information gathered by the summons in a criminal case. The Government would not object to this provision in the final order because they have stated all along that this civil summons will be used strictly for a civil tax liability case.
9. The IRS third-party summons are attached or will be provided to this court.
10. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference his affidavit, memorandum of law and supplemental motions to be hereafter filed.
11.
Wherefore, Petitioner requests that the court quash the IRS summons directed to third-party record keepers, and award to the Petitioner his costs, fees and other just relief. Aug05
____________________ _______________________________________
Date: Petitioner, Pro se
______________________________________
Address
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interrogatories(First Set)7609
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________________DISTRICT OF _________________________
____________________
Petitioner
}
CIVIL # _______________
vs.
INTERROGATORIES
}
FIRST SET
The United States
and
(7609)
Respondents
To: Pursuant to Rule 33 of the FRCivP, the following Interrogatories are
propounded to the person above-named. Answer the Interrogatories within thirty
(30) days, separately, fully, in writing, and under oath, and as otherwise
provided by law. As used herein, the term “identify” with reference to an
individual means to furnish his full name, job title, job description, address,
and relation to this action. With reference to a document, “identify” means
to state its title, its date, its author and addressee, its location, its
description, and its custodian.
1. State in detail (a) the identities of all the investigating agents on this
case; (b) the date the investigation began; (C) the date any agents filed any
reports; (d) the date the District Chief of the CID reviewed the recommendation;
(e) the date the Regional Counsel made a referral; (f) the date of all summons
issued.
2. Describe in detail the nature of any contacts relating to this investigation
between the agents and the office of the Department of Justice.
3. Has the IRS accepted Petitioner’s 1040 for the years in question as filed?
Does the IRS consider Petitioner’s tax return to be an invalid return?
4. Identify all documents and records pertaining to this case.
5. State the name, official’s title, and job description of the person or
persons who initiated this investigation and the exact date the investigation
was initiated.
6. Describe in detail the exact nature of the investigation against Petitioner,
the full scope thereto, the principal purpose and the expected results.
7. Give the name, address, title and job description of all persons or parties
who have been associated in this investigation, who may be associated, and who
will see the results of this investigation.
8. Has the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS been involved in the case?
If so, for how long? Is the principal division in this case?
9. Has any recommendation been made to the Justice Department?
10. Has any decision been made as to making a recommendation to the Department
of Justice? If so, when? If so, by whom?
11. State in detail the use, to the fullest extent, which the government will
make of each document or information sought by the IRS in this case.
12. State which of these documents sought by the summons are needed for a civil
investigation, which for criminal investigations and which for both.
13. Can any statement by Petitioner or any document presented by him in this
proceeding be used against Petitioner in a criminal proceeding?
14. Does the IRS have the power to grant an immunity against prosecution or to
recommend immunity to the Department of Justice?
15. Has the government figured or made any study on the assets of Petitioner? If
so, to what extent?
16. List in detail the assets of Petitioner known to the government.
17. Has the IRS classified Petitioner as “judgment proof”?
18. Does the IRS expect to collect any funds or judgments against Petitioner?
19. Give the names, positions and job descriptions of all persons who assisted
in furnishing answers to the Interrogatories.
20. Has a revenue agent been assigned to this case? If so, idettify the agent
and date assigned duties.
21. If both a revenue agent and a special agent are assigned to this case,
explain which one is in charge.
22. Explain for each document or each type of documents requested by the summons
the expected use, the principal purpose or purposes f or which the information
is intended to be used.
23. Explain f or each document or each type of document sought the relevance,
use or need in relation to a civil tax investigation.
24. Are any of the requested documents needed f or only criminal tax
investigations, i.e. have no bearing on a civil tax audit?
25. Has the IRS made any effort to collect the information sought by the summons
in this case to the greatest extent practicable directly from Petitioner?
26. Has Petitioner refused to furnish this information to the IRS? If so, when,
and to whom?
27. Have Respondents ever even requested the documents sought by the summons
from Petitioner? Has not Petitioner suggested or written that he would furnish
the same information?
28. Explain the course of the investigation against Petitioner. How many other
record keepers of Petitioner have been contacted? Identify them.
29. Identify all documents sought and/or provided from other record keepers.
Have any personal contacts been made by the IRS agents to persons who might have
information on Petitioner? If so, identify those persons contacted.
30. Have any IRS agents collected during the investigation on Petitioner any
written or recorded statement or affidavits from any persons? If so, identify
the persons providing statements and affidavits. Identify each
statement/affidavit. Identify all government employees who were given copies of
any such statement to read or examine.
31. Are any of the documents sought by the IRS already in its possession? If so,
which ones?
32. Has the agent who issued the summons contacted any witness or other third
party seeking information on taxpayer? If so, did he explain to that party that
taxpayer is under investigation? If so, what type of investigation?
33. Have any other Federal agencies or agents been involved in this
investigation? If so, identify them.
34. Have any other Federal agencies or agents requested information or documents
concerning Petitioner? If so, explain the nature of the request, identify the
documents sought and the documents furnished. Identify the requestor.
35.
These Interrogatories are continuing in nature and you are to furnish updates
and new information as you receive it.
I hereby certify that on or about this date, a copy of
these Interrogatories were mailed properly to the opposing party.
Date:
______________
_____________________________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address:______________________________
_____________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interrogatories (second set) 7609
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
___________________________DISTRICT OF ___________________________
___________________
}
Petitioner
CIVIL #______________
vs.
INTERROGATORIES -
The United States
and
SECOND SET
(7609)
Respondents
To: __________________________
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the FRC1vP, this second set of Petitioner’s
Interrogatories are propounded to the person(s) above-named. Answer the
Interrogatories within thirty (30) days or five days prior to the hearing in
this matter, whichever comes sooner, in writing, and under oath, and as
otherwise provided by law or directed by this honorable Court.
As used herein, the term “identify” with reference
to an individual means to furnish his full name, job title, job description,
address, and relation to this action. With reference to a document, “identify”
means to state its title, its nature, its date, its author and addressee, its
location, its description, and its custodian.
1. Is the Tax protest Coordinator for the IRS in this district involved with
this case? Explain in detail the nature and scope of his/her involvement.
2. Have you read Manual Supplement 9G—93 or any other procedural guidelines on
“Tax Protest-type Activities”?
3. Explain the criteria or standards used by the IRS in “Protest—type cases”
to recommend criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice. What percentage
of cases classified as “Tax Protest” cases are so recommended?
4. Explain the criteria or standards used by the Department of Justice to decide
to prosecute “tax protest—type” cases. What percentage of cases classified
or identified by IRS as “tax protest” are prosecuted?
5. How many American citizens in this IRS district have been
classified/identified as “Tax protestors”? How many in this region?
Nationwide?
6. Define a) “Flagrant tax protestors,” b) “tax protest leader,”
C) “flagrant noncompliance situation.”
7. Explain the IRS criteria or classification scheme for making such
identifications as “tax protest leader” or “flagrant tax protestors.”
Explain the DOJ’s criteria or identification scheme for such.
8. How many persons classified as “tax protestor” have been also classified
as “flagrant tax protestor” or “tax protestor leader”? What percentage
of “tax protestors” are also identified as “flagrant tax protestors”?
9. Has Respondent been classified/identified as a “flagrant tax protestor”
or “tax protest leader?”
10. What percentage of “tax protest leaders or “flagrant tax protestors”
are recommended by the IRS to the DOJ for prosecution? What percentage of them
are prosecuted?
11. Have any “tax protestors” received routine civil audits by IRS in this
district and region and nationally? What are the percentages?
12. Have any routine civil audits involved summons under IRS §7609?
13. What percentage of “tax protestors” whose investigation involved third—party
summons were later recommended for prosecution?
14. Has the Regional Commissioner for this IRS region been informed of this
investigation or the issuance of the summons in this case? If so, when? In
writing? Did the Regional Commissioner respond? If so, when? In writing?
15. Does the IRS or the Regional Commissioner believe taxpayer’s church is
engaged in an unrelated trade or business? Has anyone notified taxpayer’s
church of any such belief? If so, when? In writing?
16. Has taxpayer been classified as a “tax protestor’? If so, by whom? If
so, why?
17. Was this a blanket classification, or done individually based on a personal
examination of Petitioner?
18. What authorities or manuals define a “tax protestor” or the procedures
pertaining to a “tax protest return”?
19. What officials have authority to classify citizens as a “tax protestor”?
20. Has Petitioner been classified as a “tax protester”? If so, by whom? If
so, why?
21. Was this a blanket classification, or done individually based on a personal
examination of taxpayer?
22. During the course of this investigation of Petitioner, has any IRS agent
read him his “Miranda rights?” If so, is this a normal procedure for a civil
investigation?
23. What caused this investigation to begin? Was Petitioner’s tax return
identified at the Service Center for special handling?
24. Was this case assigned to the investigators in writing? If so, identify the
assignment form.
25. Have any reports or memoranda been made by the IRS on or concerning
Petitioner?
26. Are any of the documents or information sought by the summons already in
possession of the IRS? If so, identify those documents.
27. Explain the relevance or purpose of each document sought to any lawful
purpose of the IRS and explain the purpose.
28. Explain the administrative steps which are required by the Internal Revenue
Code and explain whether they have or have not been met.
29.
These Interrogatories are continuing in nature and additional information should
be furnished when you receive it.
I hereby certify that on or about this date, a copy of
these Interrogatories were mailed properly to the opposing party.
Date:
_______________________
______________________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address:___________________________
__________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Compel Answers To
Interrogatories
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________________________DISTRICT OF __________________________
_______________
}
Petitioner
CIVIL # _______
vs.
MOTION TO COMPEL
The
United States
and
ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES
Respondents
TO: _________________________
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the FRC1vP, Petitioner moves this court for an order
requiring the above-named to answer Interrogatories propounded by Petitioner
pursuant to Rule 33 of said rules:
1. Heretofore, Petitioner filed Interrogatories in this case which were to be
answered by the above-named in days or objected to, as the rules required.
2. The above—named have not answered the Interrogatories, made objections
thereto, nor made any response whatsoever.
3. Petitioner moves this court for an order requiring the above-named to answer
to Interrogatories heretofore filed, to pay Petitioner his expenses and costs in
preparation of this motion, to issue sanctions against Respondents and to
admonish their attorney.
4. The sanctions against Respondents for failure to answer Interrogatories
should include:
a. This Court should order that the questions or
designated facts should be taken to be established for the
purposes of this action;
b. This Court should refuse to allow Respondents to
oppose Petitioner’s designated claim as in the
Interrogatories and prohibit
Respondents from introducing matters in opposition;
c. This Court should strike out these parts of
Respondents’ pleadings pertaining to the questions on the
Interrogatories and/or render
judgment by default;
d. That Respondents should be held in contempt of Court
for failure to obey any orders of this Court.
I certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this
pleading to opposing attorney.
Date:
______________________
_______________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address: _______________________
________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion For Enlargement of Time
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF____________________
_____________________
Petitioner
CIVIL # _______________
vs
}
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME
The United States and
Respondents
Petitioner pursuant to Rule 6B, FRCivP moves this Court for an enlargement of
time and for a postponement of this hearing in this case for thirty days
or_____________days based upon the following grounds:
1. Petitioner, as attorney pro Se, needs additional time to research the law,
gather evidence and prepare an adequate defense against the assertions of the
government both in fact and law. Since taxpayer is not an attorney and also
employed full-time, he is limited in his ability to prepare his case due to the
small time allowed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519, 92 S Ct 594 (1972).
2. Petitioner will be harmed and suffer irreparable damage if not granted
additional time to prepare for the hearing, locate and subpoena witnesses, and
complete his discovery.
3. Petitioner requests this continuance in order for the Government to fulfill
his discovery request. In the event
Government gains protective order to halt discovery, Petitioner needs more time
in order to find and utilize additional methods to gather information. When the
IRS fails to comply with the request for Discovery, Petitioner is entitled to a
separate hearing.
4.
__________ And other grounds as permitted by law and as will be
hereinafter submitted to this Court.
I hereby certify that on or about this date, a copy of this
pleading was mailed properly to the opposing party.
Date:
_______________________
________________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address: ______________________
______________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request For Production of Documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF __________________________
______________________
Petitioner
} CIVIL NO. ______________
vs.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
The United States and
(7609)
Respondents
TO: U.S. ATTORNEY
Pursuant to Rule 34 FRCivP, Petitioner hereby requests that you produce for
inspection and copying at your office at ten o’clock a.m. on the thirtieth day
after service of this upon you the following:
1. All documents, records and materials of the IRS pertaining to Petitioner
especially those forms and reports of the Criminal Investigation Division and
Form 3949, Intelligence Information Sheet, and pertaining to this case.
2. All documents, copies and memoranda pertaining to those persons classified by
the IRS as “Tax Protestors,” the IRS National Office Project 30, or
pertaining to Manual Supplement 9G-93, its subsequent and preceding manuals.
Further, all records, papers and memoranda pertaining to IRM 9383.6 and the IRS
“Tax Protestor” or the Tax Protest Coordinator for the IRS District,
Regional and National Office.
3. All policy guidelines, manuals and documents of the Department of Justice and
of the U.S. Attorney for this District pertaining to the subject “Tax
Protestor” or any of the above categories, all correspondence to and from the
IRS pertaining to Petitioner or the Tax Protest project.
4. All documents, records and papers of the Department of Justice or in their
files, pertaining to Petitioner or his activities and this case.
5.
This request is continuing in nature and applies to documents as described above
that hereafter are obtained by you.
Date:____________________________
_____________________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address:_______________________
_______________________
I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy of this
pleading to all parties at their proper addresses(es), postage pre-paid.
Date:______________
__________________
Petitioner, pro se
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request For Admission
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF__________________________
______________________
Petitioner
}
CIVIL ACTION NO. _______
vs.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
(7609)
The United States and
Respondent
To: _________________________
Petitioner above—named, pursuant to FRCivP 36, requests that above designated
person do make following Admissions within thirty (30) days service of this
request. For the purposes of this action, admit or deny in writing and in good
faith that each of the following statements are true:
1. The IRS has classified Petitioner as a “Tax Protester”, “Flagrant Tax
Protester” and/or a “Tax Protest
Leader.”
2. The IRS has a policy of prosecuting all those so classified.
3. The IRS considers Petitioner’s type of tax return or tax filing status
to be in violation of the law.
4. The Government can prosecute criminally Petitioner.
5. Some of the documents sought by the summons have no use in a civil
investigation and are only useful in a criminal investigation/prosecution.
6. The IRS, in the course of its investigation has determined, or could have
determined that Petitioner has no sizeable assets and any civil judgment would
be worthless.
7. The IRS has not sought to collect the information to the greatest extent
practicable directly from Petitioner.
8. Petitioner has not refused to furnish the information to the IRS.
9. The Tax protest Coordinator for this IRS district is involved with this case.
10. Persons classified as “Tax Protesters” are marked by the IRS for special
handling and the audits are not normal.
11.
I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy of this
pleading to opposing parties.
Date:
__________________________
_______________________________
Petitioner, Pro Se
Address:________________________
_________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Appeal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF _____________________
___________________
Petitioner
CIVIL ACTION NO.______________
vs.
}
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The United States
and
(7609)
____________________
Respondents
Notice is hereby given that Petitioner above-named hereby appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the ____________________Circuit, from the order
dated __________________________________
from the Honorable __________________________________________________
U.S. District Judge for the above District, which required third-party record
keeper to produce certain records to the Internal Revenue Service.
I hereby certify that on this date I have delivered or mailed to the opposing
parties, copies of this pleading, postage prepaid and properly addressed.
Date:
___________________________
________________________________
Petitioner, Pro Se
Address:_________________________
__________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order For Stay Pending
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF___________________
_________________________
Petitioner
}
vs.
The United States
and
CIVIL NO. _______________
________________________
Respondent
ORDER FOR STAY PENDING
APPEAL
This matter comes before me, upon request of Petitioner for a stay pending
appeal of the Order of the District Court which required third-party record
keepers to deliver records and papers to the Internal Revenue Service.
I find that Petitioner’s rights would be violated unless a stay is granted.
Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED, that a stay be, and the same is hereby granted, pending the
hearing and determination of the appeal, or until further order of the Court.
______________________________
United States District Judge
Date:__________________
ORDER PROPOSED BY PETITIONER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Quash-Attest
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ___________________
_____________________
Petitioner(s)
}
vs.
CA# ___________________
United States
and
MOTION TO QUASH-ATTEST
(7609)
______________________
Respondent
Petitioner(s) move this court to quash the 7609 summons served
by the IRS upon the third party record keepers of Petitioner(s).
1. The United States Courts have now ruled that the law requires that the
summons document be “attested”, and this is mandatory. Thusly, a summons not
attested is not proper and cannot be enforced.
IRC 7603 provides: “A summons.. .shall be served by the Secretary, by an
attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed...”
(Emphasis added)
2. The summons document, a copy of which is attached to the petition in the
case, is clearly not attested and thus violates a mandatory procedural
requirement.
3. In the case of Mimick vs. US, USTC 50,050, Page 87,282 (USDC
Neb, Jan. 23, 1991), United States District Judge Cambridge ruled that the IRS
summons was unenforceable because no “attested copy” was served. The Court
ruled:
“This court has not found any reported
decisions or legislative history interpreting the terms ‘attested copy’ as
used in 7603 of the Internal Revenue Code. Black’s Law Dictionary, abridged
5th Ed. P. 66 defines an ‘attested copy’ of a document as ‘one which has
been examined and compared with the original, with a certificate or memorandum
of its correctness, signed by the persons who have examined it.’ Under this
definition, an attested copy of a document must have a signed written notation
that the copy is a correct copy. The court concludes that this definition is the
commonly accepted definition of the terms ‘attested’, and is the
definition which should be applied to interpret the meaning of terms ‘attested
copy’ in section 7603.”
“Since the copies of the summonses served on the tax payers and the
third-party record keepers did not
include signed written notations that the copies were correct copies of the
originals, the court concludes that they were not the originals, the court
concludes that they were not attested copies. Since the copies were not attested
copies, the court also concludes that one of the administrative steps as
required by Section 7603 of the Internal Revenue Code was not complied with and
the summonses served upon the taxpayers and third- party record keepers cannot
be enforced.”
Copy of Mimick is attached or will be filed separately.
4. Further, in Henderson v. US #91 805-20K, the Honorable Henry Herlong,
USDC-SC, ruled on 27 Nov 91 that the third party 7609 summons could not be
enforced because the summons documents were not attested. Copy attached, or to
be filed separately.
The court ruled: “this court finds that
to be an attested copy, the summons must have a written and signed certification
or memorandum that the copy is a true and correct copy of the original.
Therefore, the IRS failed to follow the administrative steps required by the IRS
Code.
“The Henderson's have shows that the IRS failed to establish an element
required under Powell for enforcement of a summons.”
5. Since the required procedural steps were not taken on the summons in instant
case, they cannot be enforced and, thusly, must be dismissed.
6. Even when a summons is attested, the IRS does not do it properly. Attestment
means actual reading and comparison plus a signature by a notary public.
I certify that on this date, copy of this pleading was sent
properly to opposing counsel properly.
Date:____________________
____________________________
Petitioner pro se
Address:______________________
_______________________
top-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to main page
back to home page