IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ____________________

_____________________            )
 Petitioner(s)                   )           CIVIL ACTION # ______________
                                 )
Vs.                              ) PETITION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL (7609)
                                 )
US and Evil Bank, et al,         )          
 Respondents                     )

Petitioner, above-named petitions this court pursuant to Rule 62(d), FRCivP, for a stay of proceeding pending appeal, for the following reasons:

1.  Heretofore, the Petitioners filed an action to stay an IRS administrative summons issued and directed to third party record keepers, pursuant to 26 USC § 7609; the banks took a neutral stance and withdrew from active participation; Petitioner came into the court, raised substantial grounds in his pleadings, argument, and evidence presented to the Court as to why the summons should not be enforced.

The Court has now ordered the result requested by the government. Petitioner has filed his Notice of Appeal or is in the process of the same and requests from this court a stay of the execution of the judgment until his appeal could be heard and decided.

Under 62(a), FRCivP, Petitioner is automatically entitled to a ten day stay but Petitioner requests more time than that to perfect and file his appeal.

2.  Petitioner’s appeal would be rendered ineffective without a stay and he would suffer irreparable harm in that:

    1. His privacy would be destroyed; the information held by respondents is personal, confidential; the type that should not be copied, distributed to and examined by scores of government agents.
    1. The government agents will have access to a tremendous amount of personal information, the vast majority of which has no bearing whatsoever to a legitimate use of the IRS, but would embarrass and humiliate Petitioner.
    1. The Constitutional Rights of Petitioner would be permanently destroyed.
    1. The information and knowledge of Petitioners activities cannot be erased from the minds of agents, who would have immediate access to the records, nor could the records be removed from the agency. The facts are inescapable: once the bureaucracy gained access to Petitioners’ records, the damage could not be undone, even by “all the king’s men”.

3.  A temporary stay would benefit the government and the courts should Petitioner prevail on appeal at some later date. The full legal proceeding in this matter is not complete until the appeal court has had an opportunity to examine the record. Until then, the government should not be allowed to destroy a citizen’s privacy.

4. The government would not be harmed or prejudiced in any way by a temporary stay as the records in possession of the Respondents will not be destroyed or altered.

Further, under the Special Procedures for Third-Party Summons Act, 26 USC § 7609, the statute of limitations for both civil and criminal actions by the IRS is stayed. Petitioner hereby acknowledges that he is aware of the stay provisions of said statute, and voluntarily waives his rights under the statute of limitations during the time of this appeal.

5. Petitioner has raised legitimate and substantial issues in this case; he has made a strong showing; he is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal, which will be filed on the following grounds:

a.       The IRS is using the civil summons to evade the traditional duty of the Grand Jury, and has abandoned any civil tax pursuant, US v. LaSalle, 98 S. Ct 2257 (1978) and plans to use these materials for a criminal prosecution, US v. Gardiner 531 F 2d 952.

b.       The IRS in connection with the Justice Department is attempting to mislead the court and gain access to Petitioner’s records by trickery, deceit, and deception. US v Tweel, 550 F 2d 927.

c.       IRS Special Agents from the Criminal Investigation Division have control of the case and were the sole investigators for a long period of time US v Dahlstrum USDC Calif  7-11-80.

d.       The trial court denied Petitioner his entitled discovery. US v. Genser, 595 F 2d 146 (1979).

e.       The US Constitution limits the scope of the summons. US v. Holmes 614 F2d 985 (1980) and US vs. Life Science Church, No. 80-1499 (8th Cir., 15 Dec. 80).

6. Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights depend on this court granting a stay. If not, the IRS will grab Petitioner’s records from the neutral third-party record-keeper. Then when the Petitioner files his appeal brief, the US Attorney will file a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of mootness, alleging that the government already has the records -- therefore, Petitioner’s privacy is moot!

The US Court of Appeals for this district and for the other circuits have ruled in numerous cases that if the lower court does not grant the stay and the IRS gains access the records, Petitioner’s Constitutional rights are moot and no appeal will be allowed!

7. Consequently, the Court needs to (a) stay the execution of the mandate, or (b) enter into the record the Court determination that lack of such should not deny Petitioner his due process right to appeal.

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

__________________________                                                           Date____________________
Petitioner

Address:
__________________________
__________________________
________________________