Post under Sue the Banks New name Jim Mac Supplement to Informal Brief VI E

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 								    FOURTH CIRCUIT
  
Jim Mac	                                )             DOCKET # CA4:06
                                          )
APPELLANT- PETITIONER,                    )         
                                          )            SUPPLEMENT TO INFORMAL BRIEF
vs.                                       )
                                          )
THE UNITED STATES AND                     )        
CENTRAL CAROLINA BANK                     )
 (SUNTRUST)                               )
                                          )
APPELLEE -RESPONDENTS,                    )

color:black'>Appellant- Petitioner, Jim Mac hereby files his Supplement to Informal Brief which is to supplement his informal brief to which this is attached and dated the same as this:

I. STATEMENT OF CASE

1. On December 19, 2005 appellant Mac filed his Petition to Quash Summons under IRC 7609 to halt the delivery of his personal financial records to the IRS from Respondant bank. On December 1, 2005, IRS agents in Asheville, NC had issued a third-party record- keeper Administrative Summons on Mac's bank pursuant to 26 USC 7609. On January 20, 2000, Appellant filed his four Return of Serice Forms.

2. This case was assigned to the Honorable Lacy H. Thornburg, USDJ-WDNC. On January 6, 2006 Judge Thornburg sua-sponte dismissed Mac's Petition to Quash(Exhibit A). On January 18, 2006 Mac timely filed his motion for New Trial and to Alter Judgement. (Exhibit B) On

January 23, 2006 Judge Thornburg denied said motion. (Exhibit C)

3. On February 10, 2006 Mac timely filed his Notice to Appeal and this appeal follows. Note: Mac has an almost identitial case now before Judge Thornburg which is likey to be on appeal soon. This second case is Mac vs. First Citizens Bank CA#1:06MC11.

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. The IRS on December 1, 2005 sought Mac's personal and confidential bank records from a local bank with a 7609 summons. Appellant Petitioner filed timely his Petition to Quash the third party summons in the District Court.

2. On January 6, 2006 Judge Thornburg signed his order sua sponte dismissing the Petition to Quash IRS third-party Summons.(Exhibit A) Judge Thornburg clearly stated beyond doubt that the grounds for his dismissal was that Mac failed to file his return for service and his return receipt to the parties under Rule 4.

3. The Judge is correct that Petitioner should file his proof of mailing to the necessary parties under Rule 4, which is the return receipt (the green postcard) from the post office. However, under Rule 4(m) "Time Limit For Service", Mac has 120 days to file his Proof of Service with copies of the green card.

4. The Judge did not contest service of process and no one disputs that MacAlpine served timely the summons and petition.

5. Mac filed his Return of Service forms with copies of the green card within the 120-day time period. Also Rule 4(l) " Proof of Service" provides that the failure to make the proof of service or file service form cannot be grounds for dismissal.

6. On January 23, 2006 Judge Thornburg denied Petitioner's motion for a new trial (Exhibit C) falsely stating that said motion was frivolous.

III. ISSUES

A. Does Appellant have 120 days under Rule 4 (m) to file his Return of Service Form?

B. Does Rule 4 (l) state that "Failure to make proof of service does not affect the validity of the service"?

IV. ARGUMENTS

7. Judge Thornburg errored in dismissing the petition on the ground that the Return of Service Form had not been filed at the same time the Petition was filed. This is impossible because the Return of Service Form must have attached to it the Return Receipt Form (the green card) from the US Post Office. The taxpayer must effect service of process under IRC 7609 by mailing copy of the petition to respondants via registered mail.

The taxpayers have no control over the post office and must wait until the return cerificate is returned to the taxpayer. Mac had just received the return receipts from the post office and did not have time to file the return of service form with the clerk's office. Besides under Rule 4, he had 120-days to do this.

8. Judge Thornburg was just wrong in dismissing the petition without giving MacAlpine time to file the proof of service forms. He also denied Mac his 120-days to file proof of service.

9. Judge Thornburg errored in dismissing the petiton as Rule 4(l) "Proof of Service" clearly states that the court cannot dismiss for failure to file the proof of service form.

V. CONCULSION

In conculsion, this case should be remanded to the lower court for the above reasons.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this date, I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to opposing parties.

__________________________ DATE: ____________________________

Jim Mac
600 Wood Court
Asheville, NC 28806