ISSUES ON APPEAL
QUALIFICATIONS:

1. My reasons for not listing issues on appeal are:
   1. There was no space on the affidavit form (See copy of original form sent to me.) to list any other issues, thereby making the form itself misleading.
   2. All applications and judgments concerning previous in forma pauperis affidavits have only dealt with the financial issue, confirming my belief that lack of financial resources was the only proof needed for in forma pauperis.
   3. The instructions on the form, in the space where “issues on appeal” were to be listed, only dealt with the financial issue, leading me to understand that the financial issue was the only issue on the application.
2. Therefore, my lack of listing issues on appeal does not show any lack of good faith, but shows a surprising misleading of the form itself.

MY ISSUES ON APPEAL ARE:

1. The independent review of the administrative action and procedure against me by the Internal Revenue Service,
2. The overturning of the IRS’s Determination and Decision Notices against me, including the recognition of my statutory and administrative due process rights, and
3. The scheduling of a new, proper, face-to-face Collection Due Process Hearing.
4. In the case of Schulz II, the Court ruled that:

Independent judicial review is required for 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, 413 F.3d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 2005).