United States District Court
Eastern District of California

George Patriot Petitioner Civil No. Misc. S-04-03 OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES’ v. MOTION TO DISMISS The United States Bank of America, et al Defendant

Petitioner George Patriot hereby files his opposition to the IRS Motion to Dismiss dated 1 November 2004, based upon the following grounds.

  1. Petitioner requests this case to be heard on its merits with oral argument. For the Court to grand Defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS without oral argument from Petitioner would be a denial of Petitioner’s Due Process Rights. Furthermore, such a denial would give an unwarranted advantage to the Department of Justice and the Defendant. The Court does not know Petitioner, but it deals with Department of Justice personnel every day.

  2. Defendant failed to certify that the “summons” was properly attested as required by IRC Section 7603. See US Exhibit A, page 1. On the “Service of Summons, Notice and Record keeper Certificates,” she did admit that she “sent a copy of the summons, which contained the attestation required by Section7603.” This is an admission that she is required to attest that the “summons” is correct, yet she failed to do so on the “summons” itself. See US Exhibit A, page 3, box 3. This is a notable failure on her part and renders the “summons” itself void for lack of regularity.

  3. Defendant’s “Service of Summons, Notice and Record keeper Certificates” also contains at box 4 of the same Exhibit a statement that “This certificate is made to show compliance with IRC Section 7609. This certificate does not apply to summonses served on my officer or employee of the person to whose liability the summons relates nor to summonses in aid of collection, to determine the identity of a person having a numbered account, or to determine whether or not records of the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept.” This is an attempt by Defendant to circumvent a statutory law: there is notice requirement at Section 7602© and 7609(a). For Defendant to claim that there is no notice requirement files in the face of the cited statutes.

  4. Petitioner filed his Petition to Quash in order to call to the Court’s attention to such lack of due process. On the other hand, Plaintiff has adhered to due process by mailing a copy of his Petition to Quash to Defendants on a timely basis.

  5. Petitioner also filed his Petition to Quash in order to contest the motion that the IRS third party “summons” was issued for a legitimate purpose as specified in the Powell case. U.S. v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 1964. The IRS Agent has not stated in her Declaration that IRS has not issued a letter to the Department of Justice, which recommends prosecution of Petitioner. This is a crime of omission on the part of Defendant. Despite any claim by Defendant on the “summons” to the contrary, no document sought on said third party “summons” has any bearing on the attempt of IRS to collect taxes which it claims are past due. The IRS simply wants to gather information to use in a criminal prosecution; thus, the “summons” was issued in violation of IRC Section 7609 and the criteria specified in the La Salle case. UNITED STATES V. LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK, 98S. Ct. 2357, 1978.

Petitioner is a tax practitioner and has 25 years experience in this field of endeavor. According to IRS, he is also a “tax protester,” by which IRS means someone who holds certain beliefs about the Internal Revenue Code that IRS finds objectionable. Examples include (1) a belief that IRS personnel are bound by the same rules as other citizens; (2) a belief that citizens are entitled to claim all due process rights under the common law, various statutes and Constitutional amendments, despite what IRS personnel think; and (3) a belief that sections of the Internal Revenue Code mean what they say, and that they must be construed as broadly as possible to afford maximum protection to ordinary citizens.

IRS has a policy of prosecution persons who hold such beliefs on trumped-up charges. Petitioner has been placed in the IRS’ “problem practitioner program” because he holds to the above beliefs, among others. This means IRS supposedly has another reason to prosecute Petitioner.

CONCLUSION

The Agent’s statement in her Declaration that she served an attested copy of the third party “summons” on Defendant Bank of America is completely untrue, as described above. Agent’s statement in her Declaration that she is not required to serve a copy of the same third party “summons” on Petitioner is also not true.

Despite her claim in her Declaration that taxes have been assessed against Petitioner for each year involved, Petitioner has seen no evidence that such a statement is true. Thus, Defendant is not entitled to claim that the specified exception at Section 7609(c)(2)(D) applies in the instant case. Indeed, Petitioner hereby states that the specified exception at Section 7609(c)(2)(D) cannot apply. The “summons” was issued under color of law, and for that reason alone should be declared null and void by the Court.

However, the most important reasons the Court should grant Petitioner’s Petition to Quash is that said third party “summons” violates the criterion in Powell, supra, that it was issued for a legitimate purpose. In addition, issuance of the IRS third party “summons” in the instant case, violated the criteria specified in the La Salle case, supra. Any claim to the contra by Defendant has no basis in fact.

Agent has been less than honest about the instant case for many months. Her most recent action in the instant case deliberately circumvented the grand jury process, which is reserved to grand jury in the Judicial Branch of the government to inquire after improper behavior in a criminal case where Federal jurisdiction can be properly asserted.

________________________________ Date: _______________________________
George Patriot, pro se litigant

_________________________________
Address, City and Zip

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

George Patriot
Petitioner pro se

Civil No. Misc-S-04-03

v.

ORDER PREPOUNDED BY PETITIONER


The United States,
Bank of America, et al
Defendants

______________

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition to Quash. Having considered the motion, the submissions and applicable law, the Court

ORDERS that the Petition to Quash is granted and that the government’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

It is further

ORDERED that each side is to bear it’s own costs.

___________________________________________________________________________

Judge, USDC- EDCA Date