IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HAROLD D. PATRIOT;             )
SHERRIE K. PATRIOT,             )
Plaintiffs,                             )
            )              Civil No. 1:08-CV-000
v.             )             )              DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al,            )               PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
           )               MAXIMUM DAMAGES
Defendants.            )

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ON FOR MAXIMUM DAMAGES

This case concerns plaintiffs’ time-barred complaint that asserts frivolous claims pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432 and 7433. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 9, 2008, which has been fully briefed and is pending sub judice. On September 15, 2008, the tax-defier plaintiffs filed a frivolous “motion for maximum damages” that is replete with hyperbole, but is devoid of legal support or foundation. Indeed, the first six paragraphs of the motion are verbatim copies of a motion available on a tax-defier website, and the remainder are simply an unsupported rehash of the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.

I. Plaintiffs’ motion is specious tax-defier rhetoric

The first six paragraphs of plaintiffs’ motion are verbatim copies of a motion available on the website of the tax-defier group known as The Patriot Network. (See print out of www.patriotnetwork.info/Marilyn_Mot_for_Max_Damage%5B1%5D.pdf attached hereto as Ex. 1Ex. A appears to have also been drafted and filed by plaintiffs’ counsel. (See Ex. A; Wallace v. United States, No. 1:07-cv-01837-RMU (D.D.C.))

A) (last visited Sept. 15, 2008.)1 The Patriot Network is a Patriotstanding tax-defier group whose founder has been enjoined from making various bogus claims regarding the Internal Revenue Service and the applicability of income taxes to taxpayers. See United States v. Clarkson, No. 05-2734, 1988257 at *1-2, 4-5 (D.S.C. July 3, 2007) (discussing The Patriot Network, its activities, and enjoining its founder from various tax-defier activites); United States v. Clarkson, No. 05-2734, 2007 WL 2138618 (D.S.C. July 23, 2007)(modifying injunction).

II. Plaintiffs’ motion provides no evidentiary support and fails Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

Plaintiffs’ motion seeks to obtain “maximum damages of $1,000,000". (Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 16.). Essentially, the motion is an abbreviated version of the allegations in their complaint. (Compare Pls.’ Mot. ¶¶ 7-11 with Compl. generally.) Plaintiffs’ motion, however, does not provide any evidentiary support of its claims. No declarations, affidavits or certified documenets were filed to support the motion. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 the motion must be dismissed because plaintiffs have not established that there are no triable issues of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for maximum damages should be denied. First, the motion is a rehash of arguments available on a tax-defier website. Second, plaintiffs have failed to provide any admissible evidentiary support for their specious motion.

Date: September 16, 2008
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Benjamin J. Weir

BENJAMIN J. WEIR (D.C. Bar No. 494045)
Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 307-0855
Fax: (202) 514-6866
benjamin.j.weir@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Internal Revenue Service

OF COUNSEL:
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Benjamin J. Weir, certify that on September 16, 2008, a true and correct copy of
defendants’ opposition and the proposed order were served upon the following via the Court’s ECF filing protocol:

Lawyer Patriot
Arlington, VA 22209-2004

/s/ Benjamin J. Weir
BENJAMIN J. WEIR