UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FOURTH CIRCUIT

00-0000 Coy E. Patriot v. US

0:00-xx-00000-XXX

SUPPLEMENT TO THE INFORMAL BRIEF

Appellant-Petitioner Coy E. Patriot, hereby files a Supplement to his Informal Brief to which this is attached. The exhibits and exhibit numbers of the informal brief are used in this supplement.

  1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Patriot filed his petition to quash the IRS summons on 20 July 2005 and a hearing was held on 18 October 2005. The proposed order was sent to Patriot on 20 October 2005. The Honorable Ross Anderson, US District Judge granted judgment to the IRS on 24 October 2005. Patriot filed his objections to the proposed order on 25 October 2005. On 12 November 2005 Patriot filed his Motion for Reconsideration. The Reconsideration Motion was denied on 5 December 2005. Notice of Appeal was filed on 27 December 2005.

  1. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. Patriot filed on 20 July 2005 his Petition to Quash the IRS bank summons under 26 USC 7609. Patriot used the special procedures Third Party Summons Act to halt the delivery of the personal financial records to the IRS (See petition attached as exhibit #1) to quash the summons dated 20 July 2005.

    1. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on 20 Sept 05. Patriot filed his objections 3 Oct 05.

    2. The hearing was held before the Honorable Judge Anderson on 18 October 2005 in Anderson, South Carolina. Transcript is Appendix pages one (1) through thirty-three (33).

    3. At the hearing Patriot objected to the IRS using these records in a criminal case (transcript pg 16 line 13). The Assistant US Attorney George Conits assured the court very clearly that it “is strictly a civil matter” tr pg 16, ln 21. The judge agreed.

    4. The court asked AUSA Conits to prepare an order for him to sign, tr pg 32,33. The judge also ordered Conits to submit a copy of the proposed order to Patriot, tr pg 33 ln 5. The judge also granted Patriot ten (10) days to file an objection to the proposed order, tr pg 33 ln 15.

Furthermore, the Judge specifically ordered that the time would begin when the US Government the order to Patriot, tr pg 33 ln 18.

    1. Assistant U.S. Attorney Conits violated two out of three of the Judge’s specific and clear commandments.

    2. On 20 October 2005, Conits sent Patriot a copy of the proposed order with his cover letter, exhibit A. On 25 October 2005, Patriot sent Conits and the Judge his objections to the proposed order, exhibit B. This was within the ten-day window the Court ordered. Copy of proposed order is attached as exhibit 2 which is identical to what the Judge signed.

    3. The judge ruled on 24 October 2005 because Conits sent his proposed order one the week early to the Judge without mention of Patriot’s objection.

    4. On November 12, 2005 Patriot first filed his Motion for Reconsideration [exhibit 3]; Patriot then re-filed it on 18 November 2005 with exhibits A and B. This provided the Court again with Patriot’ objections to proposed order.

    5. The Judge ruled against the Motion for Reconsideration on 05 December 2005 and a Notice for Appeal was timely filed on 27 Dec 2005.

III. ISSUES

1. The Department of Justice (hereinafter “DOJ”) did not allow Patriot the ten days to notify the court of any objections to the proposed order, even though the judge ordered the DOJ to allow 10 days.

2. The DOJ sent the proposed order to the judge 10 days early and did not allow adequate time for Patriot to file his objections, even though the judge had ordered that 10 days be allowed for Patriot to object.

  1. The DOJ and the judge said that Patriot’ records would be used only in a civil case, not in a criminal case, which should be included in the judge’s order.

  2. Patriot has in the past and present tried to comply with the orders of the court, but as a pro se litigant it is sometimes confusing. However, it is disturbing in the least when an Assistant United States Attorney fails to obey the orders of the court.

  3. In the past Patriot has requested that he be provided with legal assistance to better represent his case. However, the court has failed to provide such legal counsel. As a pro se litigant it appears that the court does not take seriously the need for discovery or interrogatories requested by appellants or petitioners.

  4. It is also of concern to Patriot when the Government misrepresents itself with regard to the intended use of Patriot’ financial and personal records.

IV. COURT CASE REFERENCE

Under the LaSalle case, US v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 US 248, SCt 2357 (1978), a civil summons cannot be used in a criminal case.

V. CONCLUSION

It is a shame that the AUSA did not obey the order of the court, since he sent in the order to the Judge weeks early, and the Judge signed the Order nine days early. If the AUSA had followed the courts Order this case may have already been resolved, without the expense and time now required.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date I properly sent a copy of this brief to opposing counsel.

_____________________________ Dated this ____ of ____________, 2006
Coy E. Patriot, Petitioner, Pro Se
1500 West Freedom Street
Freetown, SC 00100
(555) 555-5555