United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Harry Patriot               )
             Plaintiff      )
                            ) CA# 2:06-mi-118-xxx 
   v.                       )
                            )
The United States,          ) MOTION TO QUASH-ATTEST
BB&T,                   )
Lumpkin County Bank,        ) (7609)
Regions Bank, and           )
United Community Bank       )
            Respondents     )

Petitioner moves this court to quash the 7609 summons served by the IRS upon the third party record keepers of Petitioner.

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 taxpayers 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 shown 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: July 19, 2006

________________________________________
Petitioner, pro se
Address: 1776 Patriot Way,
Dahlonega, USA