TABLE OF CITATIONS
Cases:
Katz v. CIR, 115 T.C. 329, 335-336 (2000)..………………………………3
Marett v. CIR, Docket # 4048-061, U.S. Tax Court (2006)………………..4
Parker v. CIR, T.C. Memo 2004-226 (2004)………………………………3
Shell v. CIR, Docket # 20188-05L, U. S. Tax Court (2006)……….…..…..5
Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 D.C.Pa. (1964)…….……………….4
Statutes:
IRC § 6330………………………………………………………………….4
IRC § 7521………………………………………………………………….4
Miscellaneous:
F.R.Cv.P. Rule 44……………………………………………………………2
F.R.E. Rule 901…………….………………………………………………2
ARGUMENT
Appellant Patriot T. replies as follows to the June 29 answer brief:
1. Laurie Snyder and the other Department of Justice attorneys bolstering her involvement in this appeal have demonstrated the utter paucity of the government's case. The clear face of the record shows that nothing that could be remotely construed as evidence under F.R.Cv.P. Rule 44 nor F.R.E. Rule 901 has been proffered by Appellee United States and its agents to refute any of Patriot T.'s claims. Instead, they have elected to simply ignore facts such as the prejudicial conduct of the district court deputy clerks toward Patriot T., the fact that the hearing officer abruptly switched Patriot T.'s clearly stated, timely request for a face-to-face CDPH to a telephone conference over his vigorous protests and then cancelled that. Nor does their answer nullify the certified letters Patriot T. sent CDPH scheduler -- or revenue officer or hearing officer or appeals officer or settlement officer or any of the myriad agency contacts by whatever title designated -- whom Patriot T. has dealt with at every stage reiterating his desire for a face-to-face.
2. When these facts become too glaring to overcome, counsel switches to the tactic of slandering Patriot T., suggesting he is lying (p. 16) when he stated under penalty of perjury he did not receive any correspondence from the District Court prior to its Nov. 22 dismissal of his case, other than the May 16, 2005, recusal order of Magistrate G. Ernest Tidwell.
3. Snyder already has a pattern of misrepresenting facts to this Court, as Patriot T. has documented in his June 5 Statement of Facts, and she has compounded that impression in her answer. It is not true that Patriot T. "…did not contact [settlement officer] before the scheduled hearing time" (p. 7). Patriot T.'s certified mail to the IRS is part of the record in this case. It is the government that has gone to extreme lengths to avoid the CDPH. Once Patriot T. had timely filed his request, the burden was on the government to schedule and hold the hearing. "We conclude that petitioner requested a hearing by filing Form 12153. Respondent was required to provide him with an opportunity for a hearing at the Appeals Office closest to his residence." Parker v. CIR, T.C. Memo 2004-226. See also Katz v. CIR, 115 T.C. 329, 335-336 (2000).
4. IRS agents intentionally misled Patriot T. by repeatedly stating what additional documents he was to bring to the face-to-face hearing, never bothering to disclose that they had already decided to deny him the requested hearing. Nor did they disclose that the reasons they would use for denying said hearing were that his request was "untimely" and that he had failed to raise any "non-frivolous issues", both of which excuses are demonstrably false.
5. In a case strikingly similar to Patriot T.’s, Marett v. CIR (Docket #4048-061, US Tax Court, 2006), where the appeals officer in that case ignored the petitioner’s repeated requests for a face-to-face hearing only to be later overruled, the chief judge stated:
“…we conclude that material issues of fact are in dispute and that…respondent is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law…it appears…that Appeals Officer…acted prematurely in labeling as frivolous and groundless the issues raised in petitioner’s hearing request. To the contrary, petitioner’s hearing request raised valid issues, including alternatives to collection and potential procedural defects.” (emphases added)
6. Further, counsel has not put on the record the testimony of even one competent fact witness with firsthand knowledge of the events contained herein to refute any of Patriot T.'s claims. The smoke-and-mirrors in the government's June 29 answer are just arguments of counsel, which are not facts before the Court. See Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 D.C.Pa. (1964).
7. The Appeals Division of IRS never gave Patriot T. an opportunity to be heard, to present witness testimony and other evidence in his behalf, due to the corrupt character of the CDPH supposedly guaranteed by IRC § 6330. Patriot T. was denied the ability to electronically record the proceedings, even though he gave ample advance notice to agents that he would be recording the CDPH pursuant to IRC § 7521. Patriot T. was denied opportunity to depose and cross-examine his accusers and inspect foundation documents -- if such documents even exist -- in the custody of alleged IRS agents who are actively scheming to deprive and defraud him of property and rights to property without due process of law. All these safeguards were denied Patriot T. at the sole discretion of the hearing or settlement officer and the agent who signed the determination letters, whom counsel querulously refers to as "an IRS Team Manager" (p. 9) and "an IRS employee" (p. 21).
8. Even though the statute and regulations say the so-called "collection due process hearing" will be held when requested, the exact opposite is the reality here, where the railroading of Patriot T. was a foregone conclusion and the proffered CDPH was mere window dressing calculated to give the illusion of impartiality and due process. In the case of Shell v. CIR, Docket # 20188-05L, U. S. Tax Court (decided May 31, 2006), that court stated:
"Viewing the facts most favorably to petitioners, we conclude that petitioners did not raise only frivolous arguments. Petitioners raised issues properly within the scope of a CDP hearing, such as collection alternatives and a spousal defense. Respondent therefore abused his discretion in denying petitioners a face-to-face hearing. We will deny respondent's motions and remand this case for further administrative proceedings." (emphases added)
9. Patriot T. raised NO frivolous issues in his CDPH request, despite counsel's overreach, where she says "[settlement officer] advised…the issues raised in his hearing request were 'considered frivolous or groundless'." (p.7) Patriot T. challenges the government to point to one phrase in his request that could be remotely construed as "frivolous", "groundless" or "meritless". The government's unhinged repetition of these words where they don't even apply is alone proof that the IRS has no intention of living up to the law governing CDPH's and further evidence of its bad faith in dealing with Patriot T. from the start.
10. The District Court never gave Patriot T. an opportunity to be heard, to present witness testimony and other evidence in his behalf, due to the prejudicial conduct of deputy clerks who not only misled Patriot T. in the procedures for effecting proof of service on defendant, but also failed to notice him of directives of the District Court, which omissions proved fatal to his case. Counsel has tried to paint Patriot T. as a recalcitrant and irrational individual instead of an average private citizen invoking his rights under the law. She repeatedly uses the words "willfull" and "willfully" in reference to Patriot T., where the record proves Patriot T. has been anything but willful in the face of continuous harassment, stumbling blocks and threats. Counsel elected to interpret literally (p. 25) Patriot T.'s recounting of his Aug. 31, 2005, visit to the clerk's office, at which he was publicly insulted and ridiculed by the deputy clerk in question as her coworkers looked on in amusement and laughter, and his rhetorical question to the deputy clerk about "doing nothing" on his case. Rhetorically speaking: since the deputy clerk in question is an African-American female and Patriot T. is a Caucasian male, is Patriot T. to conclude that sexual and racial discrimination are condoned by the District Court and the federal government in general? Is this routine and acceptable conduct from so-called "public servants"?
11. This Court should take judicial notice of the fact that other federal districts provide clerks who are designated to assist pro se litigants. Why was Patriot T. denied the same assistance in the Fourth Circuit that pro se litigants are accorded pro forma in other districts, and instead subjected to the verbal abuse he has previously described? As to counsel and the courts holding Patriot T. to the same standards as a bar-licensed attorney, and that Patriot T. should somehow feel he has noone to blame but himself for the outcome, Patriot T. is proceeding pro se because he has yet to find a bar-licensed attorney – even a libertarian-minded lawyer – with any interest in the outcome. Patriot T.'s past experiences with bar-licensed attorneys have led him to the view that, unless his adversary is a Fortune 500 company like Microsoft or a big tobacco firm where there is the prospect of a huge fee, attorneys have no interest in the case. Patriot T. has retained bar-licensed attorneys in the past in connection with various tort and contract actions, but they have generally botched the cases at considerable expense to Patriot T.. Former chief justice Warren Burger, in a much repeated quote in the June 27, 1977 issue of Time Magazine, said 75 to 90 percent of lawyers are incompetent outside their area of expertise. Against this background, Patriot T. made the difficult choice to represent himself. The history of this case -- from the administrative through the judicial phases -- has been one not of due process, but more along the lines of an extremely lopsided massacre.
12. Patriot T., rather than being the movant with the burden of carrying this case forward at his own time and expense, is in fact an aggrieved party. He has been repeatedly victimized by IRS agents in Kansas City, KS, Ogden, UT, Atlanta, GA, and elsewhere who, through deception, impersonation, perjury, forgery and mail fraud, have tried to induce him to surrender his property without due process of law. They have relentlessly bombarded Patriot T. with unverified, unsubstantiated pieces of paper demanding money, making conclusionary statements and terroristic threats totally unsupported by a foundation of evidence anywhere on the record. Patriot T. and his family have been subjected to aggravation, loss of time away from personal activities and inconvenience. Patriot T. has been injured financially, socially and emotionally. He has been deprived of rights and the fruits of his labor, intentionally subjected to emotional anguish and treated as something less than human.
10. The named and unnamed IRS agents, through their evil and deceitful black arts, in abrogation of their oaths of office and codes of conduct for public servants, whose duties and powers are circumscribed by rule, have in fact created an actionable cause for Patriot T. to proceed against them in their personal capacities.
Prepared and submitted by: _______________________________________
Patriot T., Appellant
16 Court Drive
Freedom, Georgia 38338
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation set forth in F.R.A.P. 32(a)(7)(B). This brief contains 1,893 words. It also complies with the requirements of 11th Cir. R. 28-3 Reply Briefs.
Prepared and submitted by: ____________________________________
Patriot T.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date, I had the original plus six copies of this reply shipped to the Clerk to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by courier. I further certify that on this date copies of this reply were sent to opposing counsel via United States mail correctly addressed with sufficient postage pre-paid.
Sent to: Laurie Snyder
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044
Signed: ________________________________ Dated: ______________
Patriot T.