Defense
Strategy In Tax Case
Dr.
Robert B. Clarkson
PO
Box 2368
Anderson, SC 29621
864-225-3061
http://www.patriotnetwork.info/
1.
Extensive
use of FOIA & PA: These important laws can be extremely helpful and we
recommend 50—l00 individual requests as a manner of course, even after
indictment, regardless of Nay Sayers and doomsday artists. Remember: cases drag
on for years and trial reports can be supplemented on appeal when new evidence
is discovered. Occasionally, appellant courts reverse and new trials are
ordered.
The
FOIA-PA can be more useful than a pre-trial motion for production of documents,
which may open to reciprocal discovery in certain instances. Also, more
information is released under the Privacy Act.
You
should request documents from all the IRS agencies and the Department of Justice
both in Washington and locally. You should request documents on both you and the
tax patriot movement as a whole. See Clarkson’s FOIA—PA forms.
2.
Motion’s
Practice:
You should make a number of motions prior to trial, even if not really
pertinent. Protect the record - we cannot predict the future; some appeal court
may later agree in another case and all those who made similar motions will
benefit. However, make your more important ones first then let the others drop
in.
My
favorite
motion is to ask the court not to let the U.S. attorney tamper with the jury.
Regardless of the fervent denials, prior to trial the IRS will gain access of
the names and addresses of all those on the jury panel and run them through
their computer. When they do this, you are entitled:
a. the
copy of any resulting information or
b. an
automatic mistrial in order to pick an untampered jury; or
c. entitled
to question each juror on the first day as to whether this investigation on them
would
influence their decisions.
3.
You should file the following motions. (Included in Clarkson’s Criminal
Defense Packet):
a.
Motion To Suppress Under The Privacy Act:
The
Privacy Act in sub paragraph (e) (7)
specifically provides that a government agency should not maintain, use or
collect records or
information pertaining to how citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.
If
the IRS gathered any information in violation of this statute, the product of
illegal political surveillance activities plus the resulting information, i.e.
the proverbial “fruit of the poisonous tree” is automatically
suppressible as violation of statute per se. See Schiff
Motion in packet.
bank requests, employee records, etc., you can squash them and prohibit their
introduction in
court if they violated the mandatory provision under IRC 7609 or
the Supreme Court dictates
under the LaSalle case.
Cannon Ezine.
understand what is going on. Spend a little time in the law library researching
your own case.
Many transcripts of Patriot cases are around.
6.
The W-4 Charges Transcripts,
tapes, and materials for W-4 cases. We recommend
that you order
these transcripts and study them. Actually, attorneys are winning many of their
persecutions.
defense
fund. Keep your local counselor informed of the progress of any charge
against you so the trust
committee can be helping you.
case (even though not legally required) you need to introduce documents.
Now,
it so happens that the assistant prosecutor in the black robe does not
like you and will not let you introduce
anything in Court, even though law and procedure allow you to make a defense.
If
you have any documentation or evidence you need to get in front of the jury you
need to prepare a 1040 Amended Tax
Return. Attach to it any information, documents,
exhibits, records, statements that might help the jury and mail it to
your regional service center. Of course,
you keep identical copy for yourself, preferably the original. At trial
government will normally introduce your tax return and all your attachments. If
they do not, you do.
The
IRS, DOJ & their buddy in the black robe do not appreciate this tactic nor
anything else we do. They have certain
counter measures, which can not erase what you have done and your documents go
to the jury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSTRUCTIONS
ON USING CLARKSON’ S PRE-TRIAL
DEFENSE MOTIONS IN TAX CASES
You, as Defendant are responsible for your own case. Do this:
1. This packet is designed for a particular purpose and accomplishes that. If you have time and money, retype, redo, etc. Please yourself. However, if you wish to conserve resources and want to cover all the bases, protect the record, use this packet. But, by all means, do have these forms or equivalent ones filed.
2. You are not allowed to copy and lend/give/sell to others. These forms are the intellectual property of the Patriot Network and are all covered by common-law copyright law. This packet is not designed for everybody.
3. By using these, you hereby agree to send Dr. Clarkson a copy of all government responses, to keep Dr. Clarkson updated.
4. File properly and promptly with Clerk of Court’s office. Use cover letters in packet, You keep copy of everything. Send U.S. Attorney copy of all pleadings. Order court forms every time you send pleadings to Clerk’s Office. Order too many, not too few.
5. You keep accurate records of what you send in. Keep one or two folders with copies.
6.
Go pro se at first. Unwise
use of attorney’s time for him to copy, mail, lick stamps. The
Patriot Network
Legal Aid Fund will not pay for attorney doing ministerial work that
member can and
should do. Ask your network
trained local counselor to help. Stay pro se as long as you can
– the
Courts
have higher standards for attorneys on procedural matters. But, as pro se
you can evade minute
procedural requirements and
thereby save a fortune in time and money.
For example, the pro se
defendant can just fill in those ready-to-use motions in handwriting.
A. Problem: When an expensive attorney makes an appearance, the Court purposefully requires extra appearances, details, etc. to drive up your cost!! The DOJ-IRS intentionally throws expensive roadblocks in front of retained lawyers to force the defense to needlessly expend valuable and limited resources,
B. Problem: Attorney when pressed for time, must take short cuts – be forced to not do all that is necessary. Cannot be avoided.
Solution:
Defendant is responsible for own case! And, use Clarkson’s plug-in
motions.
C.
Study: Read Clarkson’s
Law Course on “How To File Pleadings In
Federal Court.: Follow
instructions and see website http://www.PatriotNetwork.info
for forms and instructions.
Member argues motion unless special need.
When attorney comes on board, he can simply
notify the
Court which motion he wants to renew and then he can argue them when he makes an
appearance – and not pay for two trips, etc.
7.
Member to prepare his defense in advance. Last minute rush jobs are
witnesses - then subpoena them.
9.
On plug-in forms, be sure to add your name, address, and phone number.
10.
Get busy with FOIA-PA. Forms enclosed. Use them. See Clarkson’s
strategy in criminal cases.
11.
Read transcripts in other cases.
12.
Prepare a list of all documents that you wish to introduce in court,
attach then to 1040X Amended
13.
Attached is a list of forms. This list is updated, changed frequently:
New forms are added, old ones omitted. However, do use checklist to determine
when all are filed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click
motion to view its contents
I. Discovery Motions (Form Def-Dcy)
A.
Rule 16
B.
The Brady Motion
C.
Memo Brady
D.
Jencks Act
E.
Civil Summons
F.
Brief on Civil Summons
G.
Jury Panel
H. Witnesses
I.
Informants
J.
Wire Tap
K. _______________
L _______________
M.
_______________
II. Motions To Dismiss (Form Def-Ds1)
A. Selective
Prosecution
B. Brief
on Selective Prosecution
C. 7609
D. Privacy
Notice
E. _________________
F. _________________
III. Motions To Suppress (Form Def-Supp)
A.
Def: Suppress:
7609
B. Def:
Supp: 7609 Memo.
C. Supp: LaSalle
D. Supp: LaSalle Memo
E.
Privacy Act – IPS*
F.
Privacy Act - IPS Memo*
G. ________________
H. ________________
IV.
Other Motions:
A. Jury:
gov employer
B. Jury:
Welfare
C. Request
For Preliminary Hearing
D. Notice of Deposition*
F. _________________
G. _________________
A.
Standard FOIA #IPS-6
B. Standard
Privacy Forms PA-6
C. General
FOIA-PA Form #G-1
D. FOIA
to U.S. Attorney #DOJ-L
E. FOIA
to DOJ #DOJ-N
F.
________________
G.
_________________
VI. Other Letters
A. To
Clerk of Court to File
Discovery Motion.
B. Clerk
of Court for filing
C. Cover
sheet
D. _________________
E. _________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_______________DISTRICT OF____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
VS.
CR # ________________________
____________________________ MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 16
DEFENDANT
Defendant moves this Court for an order directing the government to furnish Defendant with any and all evidence required to be furnished pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and as grounds thereof shows the Court that such material (a) is required to prepare a proper defense, and (b) must be available to the Defendant by law; provided reciprocal discovery is not required.
Date:
_________________________
_______________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def: Dis: Rule 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
___________DISTRICT OF____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
vs. CR CASE #________
_________________________
Defendant
MOTION FOR EXAMINATION AND
INSPECTION PURSUANT TO BRADY V.
MARYLAND,
373 U.S
Defendant
moves this Court for the entry of an Order directing the United States Attorney
to disclose information and to produce and permit Defendant to examine the
following documents, pursuant to the holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963):
1.
All evidence and information of any nature, including names and
statements of any witnesses or potential witnesses, the existence of which is
known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorneys
for the government which ~xu1d or may tend to exculpate the Defendant from the
charges in the instant indictment, which may tend to support Defendant’s
position that evidence in this case should be suppressed or which would or may
tend to establish that any failure of the Defendant to comply with any
applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and/or the United States Code
was not willful. This request includes all facts and information of whatever
form, source or nature which the attorneys for the United States, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other agency of
the Federal Government have or know of which is or may be calculated to become
of benefit to the Defendant either on the rents of the case or on the question
of credibility of witnesses. Defendant files this and other discovery motions
subject to his right to decline reciprocal discovery.
2.
All documents and/or a list of such documents in the possession of the
government concerning the case which will not be introduced into evidence by the
Government.
3.
A list of persons known to the Government: who have some knowledge about
the case, but who will not
be
called to testify by the government.
4.
A list of statements in the possession of the Government by persons who
will not be called to testify by the Government.
Date:_________________________
______________________
Defendant
Form:
Def-Dsy-Brady
top
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF____________
_________________________
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
}
vs.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR
EXAMINATION AND
INSPECTION PURSUANT
________________________
Defendant
TO BRADY V. MARYLAND 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Defendant submits the following in support of his Notion for Examination and Inspection Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
The
Defendant has filed a motion requesting production of all the evidence and
information which would or may tend to exculpate the Defendant from the charges
in the indictment, a list of documents not planned to be introduced into
evidence, a list of persons having some knowledge about the case who will not be
called to testify, and a list of statements by persons whom the Government will not
call to testify. The Defendant asserts that suppression of such material and
relevant information will effectively and totally deprive him of his ability to
prepare an adequate defense and failure or refusal by the Government to produce
the requested information constitutes a deprivation of due process of law. Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972).
The nature of the information requested by the Defendant in no fashion
hinders or prejudices the Government, since the Defendant is merely requesting
disclosure of information tending to establish his innocence and of the identity
of persons, statements and documents in the Government’s possession which will
not be introduced into evidence by the Government. Though the Government might
answer in good faith that it has no evidence favorable to the Defendant, this
judgment can only effectively be nude by the Defendant or, at a minimum, by the
Court.
A
fair assumption exists that some of the persons interviewed by the Government
who will not be called as its witnesses would or may offer information useful to
the defense of the Defendant. The large and efficient forces of investigation
available to the Government in locating and interviewing persons are not
available to the Defendant. Therefore, if the Government in its investigation of
this case, has uncovered names of persons who may not be useful to the
prosecution, but may be useful to the defense, it would be only fair and just
that those names be made available to the defense. United States ex rel Meers
v. Wilkins, 326 F. 2d 135 (2nd Cir. 1964). It Ls axiomatic that if the names
of such persons and the list of documents not planned to be used by the
Government are so irrelevant as not to warrant their use by the Government the
Government cannot be prejudiced by disclosure to the Defendant.
While
the Government may arrogate into itself the decision whether it has in its
possession any evidence favorable to the Defendant, “[i]n our adversary system
for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarely justifiable for the prosecution
to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant facts.” Dennis V.
United States,
384 U.S. 855, 873 (1966). “The
determination of what may be useful to the defense can properly and effectively
be made only by an advocate.” Dennis v. United States, i.d. at page
875.
The
Supreme Court has firmly refused to make the executive branch the final arbiter
on questions of producing government records for use in litigation to which the
Government is a party. Alderman v. United States 394
U.S. 165 (1969); Dennis
v. United States, supra Grand Jury transcripts) As the Court stated in Alderman,
in requiring the Government to disclose records of electronic surveillance to
the defense:
This principle was dramatically affirmed
when the Supreme Court compelled the President of the United States to
honor a subpoena duces tecum issued in a criminal case in the face of his
assertion of “executive privilege”. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.
683 (1974).
The
Defendant urges that the documents sought by the motion pursuant to Brady v.
Maryland be turned over to the defense, or at a very minimum, that such
documents and information subsumable within the categories requested be
disclosed to the Court for its in camera determination whether they contain
information useful to the Defendant.
Copy
of this pleading filed on this date to opposing party.
Date:__________________
_________________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def-Dsy-Brady Memo
Top---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
CASE
NUMBER _________________
_________________________
MOTION
AND MEMORANDUM FOR
PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.§3500
(The Jencks Act)
Defendant
moves for an order of this court requiring the U.S. Attorney to produce any and
all statements of any and all witnesses to he called by the Government that are
in its possession and that relate to the subject matter as to which the
witnesses will testify. The Defense requests that said statements he produced at
commencement of trial; or, in the alternative, on the day before each witness
will testify; or, in the alternative, immediately after each Witness testifies..
‘‘Statement’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. §3500.
Defendant:
requests an order of this court requiring the Government to produce for
defendant said statements. Production is to take place before trial, or in the
alternative, one day before the witness testifies, or in the alternative after
the witness testifies.
MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The
Jencks Act, l8 U.S.C. §3500, provides that the court shall, on motion of the
defendant, order the Government to produce said statements after said witness
testifies on direct examination Considering the complexity of a tax trial, the
number of Government witnesses, the right if or effective assistance of counsel,
and the interest of efficient due process, defendant requests production prior
to testimony. United States v. Narcisco, 446 F. Supp. 252
(D.C. Mich, 1972); United States v. Garrison,
348 F. Supp. 1112 (D.C.
In
the alternative, defendant wishes to place the court and Government on notice
that a “Jencks Act” Motion will be made at the close of direct testimony of
the Witness arid that the Government should be prepared to produce any and all
said statements. In such event dc fondant anticipates the need for recess
pursuant to 18 U S.C. §3500 (c) or such time as is reasonably required for
examination and preparation
Copy
of this motion sent properly to the U.S Attorney.
Date:__________________________
________________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def-Dsy-Jencks Act
top-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRICT OF_______________
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
} CASE. NO._______________
vs.
__________________________________
DEFENDANT
MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY AND HEARING REGARDING USE OF CIVIL SUMMONSES
1.
The Government intends to introduce as evidence at trial a number of
documents obtained from various third party record keepers of Defendant arid his
family, as utility payment records, financial affairs, state tax information,
bank transactions, etc.
2.
Defendant presumes that these documents were obtained by means of civil
summonses issued under authority of 26 U.S.C. §
7602 and § 7609, or subpoena
from the grand jury.
3.
That if the records from various financial institutions were obtained by
§7602 summonses, and if the summonses were issued after the IRS recommended
that a criminal prosecution be undertaken, or if the summonses were issued in
bad faith, the fruits of the summonses must be suppressed. United States v.
LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298 98 S. Ct. 2357 (1978); Donaldson v.
United States 400
U.S. 517 91 S. Ct. 534 (1970)
4.
Defendant therefore requests disclosure of whether summonses were used to
obtain any records, the date on which said summonses were issued, the date on
which the IRS recommended a criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice,
and further requests that he be provided with copies of the summonses in
question.
5.
That after this disclosure is provided a hearing should he held in order
to determine whether the summonses were properly used in the instant matter.
6.
Possibly in this case records were obtained by an unusual procedure of
IRS agents serving Grand .Jury subpoenas and picking up documents, by informing
the record holder that by handing confidential records to the agents, they would
be excused from an actual appearance before the grand jury. Now, when do
administrative agencies have authority to excuse witnesses from subpoenas? Or,
serve as messenger boy for the independent Grand Jury.
7.
The Government should be required to disclose its information gathering
procedure for all its documents, prior to trial so the Defense can question and
the court can determine whether legal process was used
8.
Defendant
requests that t his Honorable Court issue an Order granting the requested
discovery and a subsequent hearing to determine whether the summonses and grand
jury subpoena were issued prior to recommending criminal prosecution and/or
whether they were issued in bad faith.
Date:______________________
________________________
Defendant
TOP----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
________DISTRICT OF___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
CASE
#
vs.
BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY AND HEARING REGARDING
USE OF CIVIL SUMMONSES
Defendant
In
United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 318 98 S. Ct. 2357
(1978), the Court held:
Where
these requirements are not met, the fruits of the illegally used summons must be
suppressed. Once an internal revenue summons is challenged, it must be
scrutinized by a court to determine whether it seeks information relevant to a
legitimate investigative purpose and was issued in good faith. United States
v. Sun
First National Bank,
510 F. 2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1975). -
Date:__________________________
_____________________________
Defendant
Form:
Memo/Def-Dcy: Civil Summons
TOP----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA #___________________
vs.
}
MOTION
AND MEMORANDUM FOR
PRODUCTION
OF INFORMATION
REGARDING THE JURY PANEL
_________________________
Defendant
(Oral
Argument Requested)
Defendant moves this court for an order requiring
Government to produce to defense any
and all information obtained or to be obtained by the Internal Revenue Service
regarding the jury panel in this case.
Defendant
requests an order from this court allowing discovery and production of any and
all information obtained or to be obtained by the Government
regarding the jurors selected or to be selected, and the same to be
furnished to defendant prior to jury selection. Provided however, Defendant does
not have to submit to reciprocal discovery.
Defendant
relies upon his Constitutional rights of due process, right to adequate counsel,
and right to jury trial which rights are guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth
.Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Defendant
requests the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the Government has
access by way of computers to tax information of members of the jury panel,
which information can be easily obtained by Social Security numbers of members
of the jury panel. The IRS normally in tax cases runs a Computer scan on all
prospective jurors, furnishes the results to the U.S. Attorney who then uses
this sensitive information during jury selection.
To
allow the IRS by way of its computerized access and cross reference system to
have exclusive knowledge of the tax status of persons on the jury panel is
fundamentally unfair. Such knowledge stems from the Government’ s enormous
capability to acquire and store information about citizens of this country,
information which is otherwise unavailable to Defendant, Such awful practice
on their part, allowed by 26 U.S.C. §6103 (h)(5) is repugnant to the
Anglo-American jury system and should never be allowed anyway.
To
allow the Government by way of taxpayers funds, to acquire and store
information which would assist them in selecting a jury in this case would be
fundamentally unfair unless and until defense counsel has access to the same
information.
I
hereby certify that on or about this date I mailed a copy of this pleading to
opposing party.
Date:__________________
________________________
Defendant
Form
Def-Dcy: Jurors Info
top----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT
OF______________
____________DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
Defendant } NO._______________
MOTION
TO DISCLOSE INDUCEMENTS,
PROMISES
GOVERNMENT
Defendant moves this Court to order the government to disclose to the Defendant
which prospective government witnesses, if any have been permitted, received or
benefited in any way from any immunity or favor or promise of immunity or favor
granted or to be granted by the United States, its attorneys, agencies or
agents, and to further state and describe the substance of said immunity and
favor or promise of immunity or favor, inclining but not limited to, refusal to
prosecute, limited prosecution, release on low bail, release on bail without
security, recommendations to courts for lesser punishment, consideration of any
kind with regard to tax liabilities (including but not limited to, the
settlement of civil tax liabilities and the assertion or non-assertion of civil
tax penalties or deficiencies), rewards of any kind, including financial
assistance payments to wives, sweethearts or families, or for their maintenance,
or any other rewards of any nature.
I
hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed a copy of this pleading to
opposing party.
Date:______________________
Defendant________________________
Form:
Def-Dsy. Gov. Witnesses
TOP-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
CASE #______________________
MOTI0N FOR DISCLOSURE
OF INFORMANTS
Defendant
Defendant moves the Court to order that the Government disclose any
confidential informants whose information has included any references to this
Defendant individually, by association with others, or in
other manner, to the extent Defendant does not have to submit to reciprocal
discovery.
1.
The
names and addresses of any confidential informants who participated in any
investigation and/or surveillance of and/or communication with Defendant and/or
engaged in any
undercover infiltration of any group(s) with which Defendant is or has been
associated.
2.
Dates
of government contact with these informants and the names of government agents
involved.
3.
All documents relating to such contacts, including memoranda of
interviews, notes, day-book or log entries,
etc.
Date:
_____________________
_____________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def-Dsy-Informants
TOP-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
__________DISTRICT OF_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
vs.
________________________________
Defendant
CR #________________
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR DISCOVERY
AND PRODUCTION OF
AFFIDAVIT AND
TRANSCRIPTS FOR WIRE
TAPS
(Oral Argument Requested)
Defendant moves this Court for an order For Discovery
and Production of Affidavits and Transcripts For Wire Taps requiring the
Government to give notice to Defendant and to produce the following:
1.
Affidavits which requested wire taps.
2. Applications,
orders, and letters authorizing surveillance by wire tap or other electronic
surveillance means.
3. Transcripts
of wire tap activities or other electronic surveillance means.
Defendant requests an order of this court requiring the
Government to produce to Defendant notice as to whether or not electronic
surveillance took place in this case and, if same
took place, to produce to Defendant electronic surveillance
applications, affidavits, orders and letters of authorization together with
transcripts of any and all electronic surveillance activities of the Government,
provided Defendant does not submit himself to reciprocal discovery.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
“tax protestors”, defendant believes that this may also be a case which warranted electronic surveillance by the Government. In the event that such surveillance did occur, defendant has a right to review the procedures under which the surveillance occurred and has a right to review any and all transcripts of any and all electronic surveillance.
Copy of this pleading mailed properly to opposing attorney.
Date:__________________________
________________________________
Defendant
Form: Def-Dsy-Wire Taps
top------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________District OF___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
CASE
#_____________________
vs.
MOTION
TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF
SELECTIVE OR DISCRIMINATORY
PROSECUTION
______________________________
Defendant
(EVIDENTIARY
HEARING REQUESTED)
Defendant requests that his Court Dismiss the indictment on grounds of selective or discriminatory prosecution on following grounds:
1. Defendant has been labeled by the IRS not only as a “tax protester” but also a "tax protest leader" and a ‘‘flagrant tax protester’’. See IRS manual Supplement 9G-9G, the official guide on persecution of those Americans classified as ‘‘tax protesters’’.
2. According to official IRS
statistics and published surveys of the General Accounting Office,
approximately 10% of Americans who should file 1040 tax returns, i.e. make
enough income to he
legally required simply do not file.
In
this area, thousands of “tax protestors” do not file personal income tax
form, but are not persecuted. Yet,
Defendant was selected!
3.
The IRS-DOJ have set a taxes-owed threshold on persons to charge, the
“Criminal Prosecution
Guidelines’’, of July 15, 1980 in Sec. 100 of the IRS’ s law Enforcement
Manual IX which
provides that the Service will not prosecute taxpayers unless for three years
the taxes owed
average over $2,500 00. Also, the
service will not prosecute in complicated cases (i.e.
self-employed) unless the taxes owed total $10,000 during a certain period. Now,
Defendant
clearly does not make the threshold amount, yet was selected.
4.
In this immediate area, the IRS has labeled several hundred Americans as “tax
protesters”, but is
only seeking to prosecute Defendant. Why has this Defendant been selected out
from the others?
5.
Defendant has been widely noted in the news media as a leader in a local
political action group, a
Constitutional study group, had extensive media coverage in newspapers, TV,
radio, etc. He has
frequently, openly exercised his God-given, Constitutional-protected Freedom of
Speech. Because
of his publicity and expression of his political ideas, Defendant was labeled a
‘‘protest loader’’ and
‘‘flagrant protester’’ and then selected for criminal action.
6. In this heretofore
filed motion to Dismiss (Privacy
Act), Defendant submitted copies of documents
on IRS political spying operations against him, clearly showing the government
was most interested
in his political activities.
7.
Defendant has sued the IRS many times because of their illegal and
unconstitutional action and
under the Constitution Defendant has a right to bring legal action and
unfettered access to the
Court. Prosecutions based on one’s exercise of Constitutional rights would
burden them and cause
others not to exercise theirs. To allow this political motivated
case to continue could cause us all to
lose those valuable rights.
against him -
due solely to his exercise of his First Amendment rights of free speech,
political
activity, contacting the media and participating in public meetings.
9.
More facts and proof of the root cause behind this case can be
discovered by examining the IRS
files on Defendant and on their “tax protest project” or may be submitted
to this court by
Defendant in his Statement of Facts. This court should require an evidentiary
hearing on this issue.
10.
The decision to prosecute here was solely based on Defendant exercising
his Constitutional rights
and therefore the indictment should be dismissed.
Copies
of this and all motions were sent properly to the Government.
Date:_____________________
__________________________________
Defendant
Form
Def: Dm1-Sp
top-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
___________DISTRICT OF___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
} CASE#____________
vs.
_____________________
BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
ON GROUNDS OF SELECTIVE OR
Defendant
DISCRIMIN
As the criminal law has grown, so too has the ability of the government to find violations of the law. As former Attorney General Robert Jackson said, “a prosecutor stands a fair chance of pinning at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.”’ For the most part, however, the government is free to pick and choose as to who will be prosecuted and who will not. Thus, proof that one is prosecuted and others are not, will not, in and of itself, require dismissal. 2. Where, however, the governments decision to proceed against some but not others is based upon a difference in race, religion, national origin, or political beliefs, or where some are charged but not others, because those charged exercised their constitutional rights , the equal protection guarantees of the due process clause require dismissal.
At an evidentiary hearing the Defendant will establish that he is being prosecuted as a result of his political beliefs, and his exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, while others similarly situated, are not prosecuted.
The Constitution does not permit discrimination that is “purely arbitrary, oppressive or capricious, and made to depend upon differences of color, race, nativity, religious opinions, political affiliations” or like classifications. Such discrimination is “a denial of the equal protection of the laws to the Less favored classes.” American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 8292 (1900).
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US. 356 (1886), a San Francisco ordinance made illegal operations of a laundry made of wood without the consent of the board.
1.New
York Times Magazine, May 5, 1974 at 52 See also Freedman, The Enemies
List and the Prosecutor’s Discretion, New York Low Journal, vol. l2l, at 1 (”There are a few of us against whom a determined prosecutor could not make a ‘plausible’ case once the mighty investigative resources of the government had been brought to beat....”)
2. See 3.g. Oyler v. Boles 368 US 448 (1962) where defendants who had been proceeded against as habitual offenders showed that a high percentage of those subject to the law were not proceeded against: Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged Id. At 456. of supervisors. Although the ordinance was non-discriminatory on its face, in practice, Chinese laundry operators were denied consent while non-Chinese laundry operators obtained consent from the board o f supervisors.
The cases reached the Supreme Court on denials of writs of habeas corpus filed on behalf of two aliens from China who had been jailed for operating their laundries without a license. Noting that “the rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China,” id. at 368, the Supreme Court found that the discrimination was a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and ordered the discharge from custody of both petitioners:
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,
yet, if it is applied and administered with an evil eye and and unequal hand, so
as practically to make unjust and illegal discrimination between persons in
similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is
still within the prohibition of the constitution. Id. At 363-74.
The decision in Yick Wo was based on that part of the fourteenth amendment that prohibits any state from taking action which would “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This admonition is applicable to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law. Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954); Washington v.United States, 401 F. 2d 915, (D.C. Cir. 1968); United States v. Steele, 461 F. 2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F. 2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1973), en banc.
Any effort by the government to justify the instant prosecution because of statements made by the Defendant on his political activities is impermissible. Such statements are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Defendants in United States v. Crowthers, 456 F. 2d 1074 (4th Cir. 1972) were convicted of violating governmental regulations during antiwar “Masses for Peace” in the Pentagon public encores. In holding that the regulations were selectively enforced to inhibit the expression of an unpopular viewpoint in violation of First and Fifth Amendment rights, the Fourth Circuit stated:
What the government has done here is to undertake to suppress a viewpoint it does not wish to hear under the guise of enforcing a general regulation prohibiting disturbance on government property. In choosing whom to prosecute, it is plain that the selection is made not by measuring the amount of obstruction or noise but because of governmental disagreement with ideas expressed by the accused. Id. At 1079
The same conclusion was reached by the court in United States v. Steele, 461 F. 2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1972), where a conviction for refusing to answer questions on a census form was reversed upon a showing that only those who publicly expressed their opposition to the census were prosecuted. See also, United States v. Falk, 479 F.. 2d 616 (7th Cir. 1973), en banc: “And, just as discrimination on the basis of religion or race is forbidden by the Constitution, so is discrimination on the basis of the exercise of protected first amendment activities whether done as an individual or . . . as a member of a group unpopular with the government.” id. at 620.
The government is proceeding with this case as a result of
a constitutionally impermissible factor. As the Second Circuit has stated:
Nothing can corrode the respect for a rule of law more than the knowledge
that the government looks beyond the law itself to arbitrary considerations,
such as race, religion, or control over the defendant’s exercise of his
constitutional rights, as the basis for determining its applicability. Selective
prosecution then can become a weapon used to discipline political foe and the
dissident. The prosecutor’s objective is then diverted from the public
interest to the punishment of those harboring beliefs with which the
administration in power may disagree. United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d
1207, 1209 (2nd Cir. 1974) (citation omitted)
The judiciary “has always borne the basic responsibility for protecting individuals against unconstitutional invasions of their rights by all branches of the government.” United States v Falk 479 F. 2d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 1973), en banc quoting Stamler v., Willis. 415 F. 2d 1365, 1369-70 (7th Cir. 1969). This Court has the authority and the responsibility of protecting the rights of the Defendant here. The indictment should be dismissed.
On this same date, copy was properly sent by the undersigned to the U.S. Attorney’ s office,
Date:____________________
____________________________
Defendant
Form
Def:Del: Sp-Memo
top------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF___________
____________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
vs. CASE #_____________________
__________________________
MOTION AND
MEMORANDUM TO
Defendant
DISMISS, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SUPPRESS
DUE TO ABUSE OF
PROCESS
26 U.S.C. §7609
(Oral Argument Requested)
Defendant moves this court for an order dismissing this indictment with prejudice, or in the alternative, suppressing any and all evidence secured by IRS summonses and the fruits thereof, under 26 U.S.C. §7602 and §7609.
Defendant requests the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, or in the alternative, suppressing any and all evidence secured by the subject summonses, together with suppression of any and all fruits thereof.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Title 26 USC §7602 grants to the I.R.S. authority to summons “any person having possession, custody or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax . . •“ Section 7603 through 7608 deal with service and enforcement of said summonses, while §7609 provides for special procedures for third party summonses. Third’ parties in §7609 are defined so as to include financial institutions such as banks and savings and loans and brokers. Said section requires the IRS to send notice of the summons
to the taxpayer within a certain time period, and a summons has to be either served personally upon the individual taxpayer or mailed by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the taxpayer. The effective date of §7609 is February 28, 1977. See 26 USC §7609.
The facts in this case clearly warrant the same.
In the leading case of United States v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298 (1978), the Supreme Court held that the IRS must use good faith when exercising its congressionally granted powers under 26 USC §7602 et seq. In the case of US v. Dahlstrun CR-80-1807-AAH, (D.C. Cal. 1980), the District Court, on its own Motion, undertook to determine whether or not the IRS had violated the defendant’ s rights in LaSalle, -supra. Defendant Dahlstrum was indicted on three counts of failure to file a tax return, The court dismissed with prejudice, holding that the Governmental conduct had tainted the entire prosecution. IRS agents had used the civil summons to secure third art records regarding defendant, yet, there was no ongoing civil tax investigation as evidenced by the lack of assignment of a revenue agent. The Court relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition in LaSalle, supra at 320, that “other forms of agency abuse of congressional authority and judicial process might arise in future case. (Emphasis added).
And the court relied upon its supervisory powers to remedy
Governmental misconduct, as power fully expressed by Justice Brandeis in his
famous dissenting opinion in Olmstead v, U.S. 277 U.S. 438, 471-485
(1928), the Dahlstrum court holding, at 16:
....in view of the circumstances of this case, this court feels
compelled to dismiss the indictment with prejudice in order to preserve
the interest of the taxpayer defendant and subjected to this type of
governmental misconduct, even though fueled only by ‘institutional bad faith’
and not any personal bad faith.” (Emphasis added)
Defendant submits that in the case at hand the governmental misconduct may be fueled not only by institutional bad faith but by personal bad faith.
Copy of this mailed to U.S. Attorney on below-mentioned date.
Date: _________________________
_____________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def: Dsl: 7609
top--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
__________DISTRICT OF_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
} CR.# _______________________
vs.
MOTION AND
MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS AND, IN
Defendant
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS
FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH
PRIVACY ACT NOTICE
(Oral Argument Requested)
Defendant Moves that the court dismiss with prejudice this prosecution for failure of the IRS to comply with the noti2e requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC 552(a), In the alternative, Defendant moves to suppress any and all documents submitted to the Government by the Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant presumably is charged with allegedly failing to file tax returns.
Section 552a(4) (3) (D) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.
§552a, provides that each agency that maintains a system of records shall:
(3)
Inform each individual whom it asks to supply information on the form which it
uses to collect the
information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual effects
on him, if any, of not
providing all or any part of the requested information . . (Emphasis added).
Because there is no case on point, defendant submits to this court that information from the U.S. Senate Report on The Privacy Act shows that the intent of Congress in passing said Act was as follows:
1. To protect privacy;
2. To protect due process rights of the individual;
3. To disclose to the individual whether the disclosure is “mandatory”or “voluntary”;
4. To prohibit a program of
collection or maintain information as to how people exercise First
Amendment rights, without a strict reviewing process.
5. To disclose the specific
consequences for the individual who does not choose to give the
information;
6.
To warn the individual on the fact of the written inquiry as to the
specific penalties or consequences
of non-disclosure. Senate Report
No. 93-1183, US. Congressional Administrative News, Volume 4, 1974 at 5916.
The said Notice does not contain a true warning as to what could happen to the taxpayer if the I.R.S. does not receive the information it requires of the taxpayer. Said failure to disclose to the taxpayer potential criminal liability for failure to file misleads taxpayers into a state of complacency with regard to filing of returns. Better warnings are given by the Government on cigarette packages and Dr. Pepsi cans.
While Defendant recognizes the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse, he wishes to point out to the court that a charge under 26 U.S.C. 7203, failure to file a tax return, is a specific intent crime where ignorance of the law may be an excuse so long as the Defendant does not specifically intend to commit the crime. The courts have held, for example, that negligence and even gross disregard for the requirements of the law is not enough for a conviction under §7203. The term “willfully” used in the statutes refers to one who willfully fails to make such a return and further means voluntary, purposeful deliberate and intentionally as distinguished from accidental, inadvertent or negligent. United States v. KLee, 494 F. 2d 394 at 395 (9th Cir. 1974): “Mere negligence, even gross negligence is not sufficient to constitute the willfulness under criminal law)’
The purpose of Congress in enacting the Privacy Act was to better protect the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the ‘United States. (See “historical note” to 5 U.S.C. §552 (a) . With little difficulty, the I.R.S. could “warn” a taxpayer that if a return is not filed or not filed on time or payment not made on time, that the taxpayer may be found criminally liable and convicted with a maximum penalty of one year in prison and/or $l0,000 fine. While our Federal Government seems interested in protecting our health; i.e. dangers of smoking, and dangers of drinking diet drinks, agencies of the Federal government have not deemed it proper to properly warn the taxpayer regarding criminal liability, contrary to the apparent purpose of the Privacy Act Notice.
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT
Because of the little or no litigation under the Privacy Act takes place, very little case law exists, regarding the Act, and the majority of cases deal with the right of the individual to secure records from the agency and/or to change said records. Exception is the case of Greater Cleveland Welfare Rights Organization, et al., v. Bauer, 462 F. Supp. 1313(N.D. Ohio 1978) , in which case the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to prospective relief, and that the agency would he required in the future to provide a proper due process notice. In Bauer, the plaintiffs complained that they were not put on not ice that if employment information on a form submitted to the Government was not accurate that the plaintiffs/recipients might be subject to prosecution for fraud. The court agreed and required the agency in the future to provide such a notice. The court, on the other hand, denied any relief for past failure of the agency to comply with the disclosure requirements.
A noteworthy distinction between Bauer and the instant case, however, is that in Bauer no individuals in fact were being prosecuted for any alleged criminal violations whereas in the instant case the individual has been charged. Further, the Bauer case dealt only with §7 of the Act, which section deals with Social Security numbers and does not deal with other requirements of the Privacy Act as enumerated, supra. Compare: Field v. Brown, 610 F. 2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (Adequate notice of penalty)
In December 1980, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the “failure to file” convictions of two defendants, where the Privacy Act was argued on appeal. U.S. v. Rickman, No. 80-1113 (10th Cir. 1980) and U.S. v. Kleinsmith, No. 80-127317 (10th Cir. 1980). To date certiorari has not been denied, and in those cases, the court was of the opinion that the portion of the I.R.S. notice which states that the tax return information may be delivered to the Justice Department satisfies the notice requirement. Perhaps so, if the charge were filing a false return or evasion based on a false return. But delivery of tax return information has nothing whatsoever to do with penalties for non-disclosure. Query: How many taxpayers know that if they file a return one day late, or pay a tax one day late, they face a possible penalty of one year in jail and a $10,000 fine? An individual who is due a refund, yet files late, faces such a possibility. See 26 U.S.C. §7203.
Because apparently no case before the U.. S. Supreme Court or the circuit exists on this point Defendant submits to this court that intent of congress, as indicated by said Senate Report and Congressional record, is to control the meaning and effect of the Privacy Act. While Defendant recognizes the Privacy Act does not expressly provide for remedies with regard to criminal prosecution, the Senate Report on its face indicates that the Senate was concerned with Constitutional rights such as due process and right against’ self-incrimination.
Clearly, the Senate intended that an individual be guaranteed informed consent; i.e., that the individual be put on notice so that he could make an intelligent choice as to whether to supply certain information and what information to supply, or face the specific penalties for failure to supply information or for supplying false information, Because Defendant has been denied the due process of law and has been denied notice of his rights when supplying information to the I.R.S. defendant’s Constitutional rights (Fourth and Fifth Amendment) have been violated and Defendant is entitled to dismissal of this action, with prejudice.
Purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974 include promoting Governmental respect “for the privacy of citizens by requiring all of the departments and agencies of Executive Branch and their employees to observe certain Constitutional rules in the computerization, collection, management, use and disclosure of personal information about individuals.” Page 691 Senate Report, Supra. (emphasis added) At page 6917, the Senate Report indicates that the Senate intends to accomplish purposes of the Act by establishing “certain minimum information-gathering standards for all agencies to protect the privacy and due process rights of the individual and to assure the surrender of personal information is made with informed consent or with some guaranties of the uses and confidentiality of the information.” (emphasis added). To that end, Congress has charged agencies:
To inform people requested or required to reveal information about themselves whether their disclosure is mandatory or voluntary , what uses and penalties are involved, and what confidentiality guaranties surround the data once Government acquires it; and to establish no program for collecting or maintaining information on how people exercise First Amendment rights without a strict reviewing process, (Emphasis added).
Page 6963 of the Senate Report relates to the requirement of “what pena1ties and specific consequences for the individual, which are known to the agency, will result from the non-disclosure”. (Emphasis added).
The Report indicates that the Senate intends to remedy the problem of individuals who are not told and furthermore, were frequently unable to learn, even with legal assistance, whether compliance was voluntary or mandatory, and what penalties attach to non-response. At the bottom of page 6963, the Senate
Report states:
Furthermore, the spirit of Constitutional considerations
of due process and self-incriminations should
pervade the conduct of such inquiries for administrative, regulatory, or
other such governmental data programs.”
(Emphasis added).
Again, at page 6964, the Senate speaks of a particular concern of specific penalties for non-disclosure:
A particular concern to people subjected to governmental inquiries is the general lack of precise information afforded at the time of collection about the penalties for and consequences of non-disclosure, where compliance is mandatory or where untrue response is punishable, with penalties ranging from $100 to $500 to $1,000 and a year in jail, basic due process principles require that the individual be put notice of such penalties...The Committee considers it basic fairness that any agency provide whatever information it has at hand about the immediate consequence of not responding to an inquiry or particular question.” (emphasis added).
As indicated on the Privacy Act notice, and the I.R.S. Form 1040 instruction Booklet for tax returns, the I.R.S. has not complied with the mandates of Congress for the following reasons:
1. I.R.S. speaks generally
of penalties but does not describe whether or not
the penalties are civil or
criminal,
2. I.R.S. does not give precise information or specific Consequences non-disclosure.
3. Constitutional
considerations of due process and self-incrimination do
not pervade conduct of
I.R.S. inquiries,
4. I.R,S. inquiries are fundamentally unfair because they are without
warning of specific consequences
or penalties; i.e, , criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution under
Section 7203 of the
Code resulting in maximum penalty of one year in jail and/or $10,000 fine.
As the Senate Report on its face indicates, the Senate was concerned with fundamental fairness and due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. Violation of due process of law requirements, for example, failure of the government to give Miranda rights to a defendant in custody, are grounds for exclusion of evidence, and violation of Constitutional rights by way of selective and discriminatory prosecution is grounds for dismissal, See, e.g., U.S. v. Steele, 461 F, 2d 1148 (9th Cir, 1972). Therefore, defendant submits that failure of the I.R.S. to comply with the fundamental fairness and due process requirements intended by Congress in passing the Privacy Act of 1974 (more appropriately, The Privacy and Due Process Act of 1974) is grounds for dismissal of the Government’ s action in this case.
That the Senate was concerned with criminal matters, without mentioning specific remedies in criminal cases, is evidenced by their concern for the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth amendment, a right expressly applicable only in criminal cases.
In essence, Defendant submits to this court that by way of the Privacy Act U.S. Congress bestowed upon this Defendant certain Constitutional and specific rights regarding due process of law, which rights have been violated by the I.R.S. and that because of said violation, defendant is entitled to dismissal of this action or, in the alternative, to suppression of any documents submitted by this Defendant, together with suppression includes but is not limited to interviews. See, for example, Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.s. 643 (1961)..
Lastly, the I,R.S. procedural manuals indicate considerable collection and maintaining by the I.R.S. of information as to how Defendant has exercised his First amendment rights, to include his right to petition his Government for redress of grievances. See, e.g., Manual Supplement 9G-93, Department of the Treasury, I.R.S. “Examination and Investigation of Illegal Tax Protest-Type Activities (Jan, 10, 1979) (Automatic criminal review for Fifth Amendment Filers).
Is the Government able to come forth with a showing of “strict reviewing process”?
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for an order of this court dismissing with prejudice the indictment, or, in the alternative, suppressing any and all documents in the hands of the Government, which documents were submitted by Defendant,
Copy of this pleading mailed to opposing party on this date.
Date:______________
_______________________________
Defendant
form:
Def—Dsl-PriNotice
top------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
__________DISTRICT OF___________
___________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA }
CASE NO._________
vs.
MOTION
TO SUPPRESS RECORDS
__________________________
Defendant (26 USC §7609)
Defendant moves this Court to suppress all records and information gathered by the IRS pursuant to administrative summons under IRS §7602 and 7609 to gather information in this case, and Defendant can prove these summons were wrongfully issued, at the time of issuance for the following reasons:
1. The IRS had classified Defendant as a “Tax Protester” and had abandoned in an institutional sense the pursuant of a civil tax determination or collection purpose, had made an institutional commitment to make a referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution as the Service merely wanted to gather evidence to aid the prosecution (U.S. v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 98 S. Ct . 2357 (1978) at the time of the issuance of the summons in this case.
2, The Service, having abandoned the pursuant of Defendant’s civil tax liability, used the summons for the impermissible purpose of gathering evidence solely for a criminal investigation in our society, US v. LaSalle, supra.
3. IRS Manual Supplement 9G-93, the procedural guideline for processing those persons classified by said agency as “tax protesters”, removes any discretion from the individual agents assigned to the case. MS 9G-93, IRM 9383.6 and other IRS procedures on persons similar situated as Defendant set forth a policy whereby the cases are totally criminal abinitio, to the extent that individual agents and the Service itself have no discretion or authority to compromise whatsoever in these cases. This manual is, by itself the institutional commitment to prosecute.
4. The Summons used in this case were not issued in good faith as the purpose of the individual summonses were too broad, too sweeping in detail, and not used by the IRS to prove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or for any collection purpose. Further, some of the items sought by the summons were needed only by the Justice Department to aid in a criminal prosecution, i.e. signature cards.
5.. Prior to issuing the summons, the IRS had made a preliminary investigation into Defendant’s financial condition since it has access to a tremendous amount of financial data on taxpayers and had abandoned any hope of making any collection in this case, hut delayed in submitting a formal recommendation to Justice in order to gather additional evidence, to expand its criminal discovery rights, and to serve as an information gathering agency for the prosecuting attorney
6. The Court, in examining each and every summons used long ago and all parts thereof will discover that not all of the information sought contributed in some way to a civil inquiry. Even if the Court could discover a general civil purpose for the tax investigation, this would not terminate judicial inquiry into whether the summons (or parts thereof) issued during investigation exceeded the Services’ authority. The Court must focus on the purposes of each individual summons (or parts thereof) and not on the purpose of the investigation as a whole. If any one of many summons or parts thereof were issued solely for a criminal investigation, that particular summons should be suppressed, even in the face of an overwhelmingly civil purpose of the investigation as a whole. The IRS simply would lack statutory authority to issue that particular summons. US vs. Genser 595 F 2d 146 (NJ 1979). The Service only has authority granted to it by Congress. The Congress has given the IRS administrative summons powers in IRC §7604 to be used in civil cases only and has not yet given this administrative agency mandatory criminal investigatory powers. Therefore, the IRS simply did not have the authority to summons those third party records which it seeks to use now in this criminal prosecution.
7. The government alleges that one opposing the enforcement of a summons bears the burden to disprove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or collection purpose of the service. Yet, government has fought Defendant’s discovery, subpoenas, etc. Defendant, given adequate discovery, can prove as of the time of this issuance of the summons:
A. No actual existence of a continuing civil purpose.
B. A pre-existing institutional commitment to prosecute.
C. The failure of the summons to advance a civil purpose.
8.. In his affidavits and Summary of Authorities, to be filed henceforth, Defendant will enumerate actions of the government which will indicate, assuming actions speak louder than words the true nature of the investigation, and to circumnavigate the two agencies of the traditional role of the grand jury and the other Constitutional Protections of the Defendant as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
9. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the provisions therein codified under 26 USC § 7609 provide taxpayers with the right to intervene in third party summons enforcement proceedings against their banks and financial institutions. The Congress intended the taxpayers’ intervention to be meaningful, obviously meant for adequate pretrial discovery plus an evidentiary hearing with government witnesses testifying under oath, which was denied in this case.
10. In innumerable press releases and published statements, IRS and Department of Justice have thoroughly, clearly announced that the two agencies consider Defendant’s tax status to he illegal and they will attempt to jail all those in the same situation as him.
Yet, at summons time, the IRS agents take the fake position that the summons enforcement was not necessarily a solely criminal case. The court is reminded that the IRC Section 7214 (8) provides that revenue agents “having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or frauds, committed by any persons against United States under any revenue law, (and) fail to report in writing such knowledge or information to his secretary or his delegate” can be dismissed from office, convicted and jailed for such
11. At the hearing before, the government failed to abide by the procedural requirements of the Special Procedures for Third Party Summons Act, 26 USC §7609, as well as the intent of Congress by failing to effect proper service on Defendant and/or others.
12. Defendant has received long before the issuance of the summons ,the IRS Form 664 or a similar type notice as mandated by MS 9G-93, which provides that Defendant income tax. form “is not acceptable as an income tax return because it does not contain information required by law, and it does not comply with Internal Revenue Code requirements.” Further, “failure to file a required return may subject you to prosecution under IRC §7203”. This clearly spells out the true position of the Government: solely criminal prosecution, at the time the summons was issued.
I hereby certify that on this date, I sent to opposing parties a copy of this pleading.
Date:______________________
_______________________________
Defendant
Form
Def: Supp 7609
top----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________DISTRICT OF__________
___________________________ }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORITIES TO
SUPPORT MOTION TO SUPPRESS
____________________________
(LaSalle Case)
Defendant
Defendant, submits to this Court this Summary of Authorities to support his herewith Motion to Suppress:
1. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 248, 98 S. Ct. 2357 issued a definitive ruling to set standards on the government’s use of its administrative summons authority in tax cases to supplement U.S. v. Donaldson, 400 U.S. 91 S. Ct. 534 (1971). The Court in LaSalle spelled out certain requirements which the lower courts were to examine as to each administrative summons when contested by the Defendants. The LaSalle criteria, as written by Justice Blackmon includes:
A.
Most not “broaden the Justice Department’ s or Attorney General‘s
right of criminal litigation
discovery”. (p. 2365).
B. “To infringe on the rule of the Grand Jury as the principal tool of criminal accusation,” (p. 2365).
C.
“Post-referral use of the Summons Authority after the IRS loses its
ability to compromise both the
criminal and civil aspects of fraud case,” (p. 2365), i.e. continuing use by
Revenuers of civil summons
after referring the case to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
D. “The I.R.S. must use
its summons Authority in good faith” which U.S. v. Powell 379 US
48, 85 S.
Ct. 248 (1969) consists of several elements (p. 2366)
1.) “the service must show that the investigation will be conducted
pursuant to a legitimate
purpose.
2.) “that the inquiry may be relevant to that purpose.
3.) “that information sought is not already within the
Commissioner’s possession”, and “that the administrative steps required by
the code have been followed.”
4.) Not serve an abuse of the Court’s process or summons issued for improper purposes “such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purposes reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation.”
E.
“Another improper purpose...is to gather evidence solely for criminal
investigation” (p. 2366) as
found at Ninth Circuit in LaSalle at 554 F 2d 302.
F. Delaying “in submitting a
recommendation to the Justice Department when there is an
institutional commitment to make a referral ,‘‘ (p. 2367)
G. Using the civil summons
when “the service merely would like to gather additional evidence
for
prosecution.” (p. 2368).
H.
Delaying the recommendation for prosecution to the prosecutors to “permit the
Government to expand
its
criminal discovery rights”. (p. 2368).
I.
Violating the “good-faith standard” by permitting the government to
become an “information gathering
agency for
the other departments, including the Department of Justice.” (p. 2368).
J.
These LaSalle “requirements
are not intending to be exclusive. Future cases may reveal the need to
prevent
other forms of agency abuse of Congressional Authority and judicial
process.” (p. 2368)
(emphasis added).
K. However, the crux of the
majority in LaSalle, as they disagreed with the dissenting opinion is
expressed thusly:
“The
service does not enjoy inherent authority to summon production of the private
papers of citizens. It may exercise only that Authority granted by Congress. In
§7602 Congress has bestowed upon the service the authority to summon production
for four purposes only: for ‘ascertaining the correctness of any return,
making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any
pe5rson for any Internal Revenue Tax....or collecting any such liability’
Congress therefore intended the Summons Authority to be used to aid the
determination and collection of taxes. These purposes do not include the goal of
filing criminal charges against citizens. Consequently, Summons Authority does
not exist to aid criminal investigation solely. We have made that search and
could nothing in the Code or its legislation history to suggest that Congress
intended to permit exclusively Criminal use summons.
As a result, the IRS employs its authority in good faith when it pursues
the four purposes of §7602 which do not include aiding criminal investigations
solely.”
Regardless of first impressions, the court in LaSalle did not reverse or overturn previous cases but simply remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to consider whether the Service in an. institutional, sense had abandoned its pursuit of civil tax liability
The facts in this case clearly point out that the IRS violated almost every requirement of the LaSa1le case. The hearing mandated by 26 USC $76O9 was a mockery and is not entitled to any respect.
The Third Circuit: Court of Appeals on March 2, 1979 brilliantly highlighted some of the criteria set forth in LaSalle in the case off U.S v. Genser 595 F 2d 146, and discussed some aspects omitted from that decision and examined the substantive and procedural implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 US 248, 98 S Ct. 2357 (1978), which described the limits of the IRS’s authority to issue civil summons, (p. 147). The Genser case also focuses on the
“institutional posture of the IRS (which) would
preclude the issuance of a civil summons even before referral to the Department
of Justice... (as) the use of civil summon in such circumstances would expand
impermissibly the Government’s right to criminal discovery. Furthermore, in
some cases, the IRS might become an information gathering agency for other
departments, including the Department of Justice.” (p.150)
Further, the Genser case relied heavily on one requirement of the LaSalle decision: that the Service not abandon in an institutional sense the pursuant of a civil tax determination or collection (p. 150). The Genser Court went on to clear up an area which, due to the facts of the case, the LaSalle Court was unable to consider:
“we
recognize that Justice Blackmon wrote in LaSalle of the necessity for the
taxpayer to prove that the IRS had ‘abandoned’ a civil purpose. We do not
believe, however, that the existence of a general civil purpose for the
investigation terminates judicial inquiry. The government has failed to
recognize under LaSalle, we must focus on the purpose of individual
summons and not on the purpose of the investigation as a whole. In this
case, for example, the IRS issued 116 summons under §7602. If any of these
summons were issued solely for a criminal purpose, the fruit of that summons
would have to be suppressed, even in the face of an overwhelming civil purpose
of the investigation as a whole. The
IRS simply would like statutory authority to issue that particular summons.”
(emphasis added) (p.150).
The Genser case, page 150, pointed out that the lower court could not
limit its inquiry as to whether or not a general civil purpose existed for the
investigation as “the abuses delineated by the LaSalle majority would go
undetected and unremedied,” because I.R.S. might delay official referral to
merely gather additional evidence for the prosecution. The I.R.S. should not be
allowed to claim civil purpose when in fact they have abandoned all civil
aspects of the case and they are only concerned about the future location of
Defendant’s body and by subterfuge claim that some civil aspects still exist.
The existence of a continuing civil purpose for each summons and each part thereto is essential. Our interpretation of LaSalle “recognizes that each and every summons issued under §7602 must contribute in some way to civil inquiry” (p. 151). Yet, a most casual examination of the broad summonses issued to gather information in this case reveals that most of the documents sought thereby have no connection whatsoever with a civil purpose. In this case, the IRS from the beginning considered this to be only a criminal case -- and made no efforts whatsoever to collect a civil tax liability. From the beginning, the tax agents considered Defendant to be a violator of the law -- in which they had to prosecute criminally.
In U.S. v. Lafko, 520 F. 2nd 622 (3rd 1975), the
Court determined that “good faith” would be lacking if the investigative
agent had already formed a firm purpose to recommend criminal prosecution, even
though he had not made a formal recommendation as before, numerous courts have
held that it is proper to deny enforcement of an administrative summons issued
solely for the investigation of criminal charges even though no formal
recommendations to prosecute had been made.
In U.S. v. Genser I 582 F 2d 292, (3rd Cir. 1978), the Court
stated:
“we think that in consistently holding that the I.R.S may not use the
administrative summonses to gather evidence in an exclusively criminal
investigation the Courts from Reifman (357 u.s. 440) and Donaldson (supra)
onward have identified a protect-able interest in the taxpayer not to be the
target of exclusively criminal investigation in which the government’s agents
have acted beyond their statutory authority.. ..An I.R.S. administrative summons
is a process essentially civil in character.... the statutory authority for its
issuance is civil and the evidentiary objective of the time of its issuance must
be civil in nature.”
Finally, the Court in U.S. v. Henry,49l F 2d 702 (1974) called the IRS United States Attorney action for what it was: where information sought by the IRS summons had obvious and strong potential for supplying information needed in pending Federal criminal cases, use of civil summons is an abuse of process.
Defendant is to the government a “tax protester”, or worse “a flagrant tax protester”, so the IRS has only one plan: criminal prosecution. Now, the government which in an institutional-sense long ago abandoned civil action against those so classified was being used by the Attorney General’ s office to circumnavigate the Grand Jury and the Fourth Amendment.
The Courts have established a rule that the administrative summons cannot be used solely for a criminal prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Donaldson v. U.S. 91 5, Ct. 534 (1971) stated conclusively that the summons of a low level administrative officer, shall not be issued in aid of a criminal prosecution and the same shall be issued in good faith. Further, that the chief defense when contesting an enforcement order is said that ‘‘the material is sought for the improper purpose of obtaining evidence for use in a criminal prosecution.’’
The Government, knowing the state of law, may take the position now that this was a civil investigation, even though no reasonable man can deny that this was criminal prosecution from the beginning. The Service has a file on Defendant, which if fully examined by the Court, would support this brief.
In a similar
case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.
2d 297 (Fla. 1977) pretty well laid down the law as to what their circuit
thought about deceit by government officials. In this case, the defendant was
charged with tax evasion and false statements on tax return. The main evidence
against him was documents he gave
to the Internal Revenue agents voluntarily. The conviction was thrown out
because the agent had used deceit, trickery, and misrepresentation to gain
access to defendant’s records. In Tweel, the Revenue agent knew that a
criminal prosecution had actually begun, had been informed by his superiors that
a search had been planned for some time, yet the agent led the defendant to
believe that only civil proceedings existed at that time. The Court hel
“that from the fact that we find, the agent failing to appraise the
defendant of the obvious criminal nature of this investigation was a sneaky
deliberate deception by the agent...and a flagrant disregard for his rights”.
Further, the Court found that a high level IRS officials succeeded “in
making the undeniable criminal nature of this investigation...we cannot condone
the shocking conduct by the IRS. Our Revenue system is based upon the good faith
9of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the
government in its enforcement and collection activities. During oral argument,
counsel for the government stated that these procedures were ‘routine’! If
this is the case, we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not
be tolerated and if this is ‘routine’ it shall be corrected immediately.”
Likewise, in Defendant’s case, the document received by deceiving the Court before should be suppressed because of deceit, trickery, etc. by the IRS and DOJ.
Question: Was the Summons issued in “good faith”?
Defendant asserts that the summons was issued in aid of the criminal prosecution and that it lacks good faith. In his statement of facts to be presented to the Court, Defendant points out that the summons to financial institutions were over broad, requesting everything, more than income. For a civil investigation, the Revenue agents generally request and need only figures to prove money coming and going. However, for a criminal investigation the Special Agents need more. By the IRS actions, letters, and deed, by their fake position now, it is very apparent that this is an impermissible ruse to gather evidence in a criminal investigation.
It is well settled law that summons enforcement will not be had in a criminal investigation. Therefore, Defendant needs a suppression hearing to subpoena witnesses so that the Court can see that a criminal investigation had begun in earnest when summons issued and that civil proceedings position of the government was a sham, a disguise and subterfuge. If a record of civil prosecution has not been made, (difficult to determine without examining all the government records), the test of whether a summons is enforceable in good faith. U.S. v. Friedman, 588 F Supp 971 (1974). Defendant sets forth that he can show this proceeding was not in good faith. A criminal case can he inferred from other acts of the IRS and written records If it is apparent that the focus and determination of a criminal prosecution is made prior to the actual recommendation, it is immaterial.
When the focus and determination is criminal, the fact that a formal recommendation for criminal prosecution has not issued, is irrelevant. In this case the issue is the use, focus, determination, intent, and purpose of the government’s summons. This Court should take judicial notice that at the time of the issuance of the summons, the motive, the ultimate fact, the principle purpose for seeking the information was to prosecute criminally Defendant for exercising his Constitutional rights.
In conclusion, the Court should suppress all the information gathering from the third party record keepers by use of the administrative summons.
Copy sent properly to opposing party.
Date:
____________________
__________________________
Defendant
Form:
Supp LaSalle S/A
top--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________DISTRICT OF__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
vs.
CR#______________
_________________
MOTION
AND MEMORANDUM TO EXCLUDE
JURY PANEL FOR CAUSE
Defendant moves this Court for an order excluding employees of the United States Government from the jury panel for cause, or, in the alternative to permit voir dire by the parties.
Defendant requests an order of this court excluding any and all employees of the United States Government from the jury panel for cause, or in the alternative, to permit voir dire by the parties.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant objects to being forced to use his limited number
of preemptory challenges to attempt to remove all persons from the jury panel
who are employed by the United States Government, the plaintiff in this action.
Defendant believes that all such persons should he removed from the panel on the
basis of bias due to a conflict of interest. “Impartiality requires
independence.” Justice Frankfurter in Dennis v. U.S. 339 U.S. 162 at
182.
It goes against human nature that those who are dependant upon a person,
institution, or government can be entirely impartial in judging those they think
may have gone against it in some way. Obviously, if the prosecution in this
action was confronted by a jury panel composed of one or more of the defendant’s
employees, the Government would
challenge for cause, a challenge likely to be granted by this court. In the
interest of fairness, can the court provide any less a remedy to this defendant?
Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “the court may permit the defendant or his attorney to conduct the examination of prospective jurors . . .“ in Ham v._South Carolina 409 U.S. 524 (1975), the dissenting remarks of Justice Douglas bring to light an interesting point:
In Aldredge v. United States, 283 U.S. 313 (1931 ) this court made it clear that voir dire aimed at disclosing prejudice of a serious character’ must be allowed. And in Aldredge, supra, Justice Marshall, concurring and dissenting in part, Said:
Of course, the right to challenge has little meaning if it is unaccompanied by the right to ask relevant questions on voir dire upon which challenge for cause can be predicated.
Defendant submits that a series of generalized questions asked by a trial judge of a jury panel cannot effectively probe the recesses of a juror’ s mind and determine his or her real attitudes and prejudices as can individual questions put forth by Defendant or his counsel. Defendant, who is fully acquainted with his own case, is in a superior position to pursue the interrogation in special areas.
If voir dire is by the trial court alone, it would effectively stifle development of possible grounds for challenge of grounds. So, if the court will not excuse employees of the prosecution from the jury panel, or in the alternative, allow the defendant to develop challenges for cause through his own voir dire of prospective jurors, then the court will have deprived this Defendant of his/her Constitutionally guaranteed right to trial by fair and impartial jury as expressly guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Copy of this pleading properly mailed on this date to government counsel.
Date:_______________________
_____________________________
Defendant
Form:
Def-Juror-Gov.
top---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT
_________DISTRICT OF__________
___________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA }
CASE #___________________
vs.
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM
TO EXCLUDED
FROM THE JURY PANEL FOR CAUSE
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
______________________________
Defendant
Defendant moves this Court for an order excluding those persons who receive Public Assistance, Welfare or any unearned transfer payment from the jury panel for cause, or, in the alternative, to permit voir dire by the parties.
Defendant requests an order of this court excluding any and all welfare recipients from the jury Panel for cause, or in the alternative, to permit voir dire by the parties. That any person who benefits from the massive federal subsidies, as food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, free school lunches, C.E.T.A., B.E.O.G., AFDC, S.S.I., Y.E.T.P., W.I.C., W..I.N., E.I.C., F.H.A., F.M.A., farm subsidy program, or any of the host of others, should he excluded from the jury panel or at least identified to the defense.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant objects to being forced to use his limited number
of preemptory challenges to attempt to remove all persons from the jury panel
who are benefactors of the largeness of the United States Government, the
Plaintiff in this action. Defendant believes that all such persons should be
removed from the panel on the basis of bias due to a conflict of interest. “Impartiality
requires independence.” Justice Frankfurter in Dennis v. U.S. 339 U.S.
162 at 182.
It goes against human nature that those who are Dependent upon a
welfare Institution or government can be entirely impartial in judging those
they think may oppose it or refuse to contribute to it. Obviously, if the
prosecution in this action were confronted by a jury panel composed of one or
more of the dependents, the Government would challenge for cause, a challenge
likely to be granted by this Court. In the interest of fairness, can the court
provide any less a remedy to this defendant?
The U.S. Attorney will frequently press upon the jury in this case that Defendant refuses to pay his income taxes for political reasons. No one can deny that- any welfare recipient would not view this as an attack on his livelihood and be strongly prejudiced against Defendant.
Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “the court may permit the defendant or his attorney to conduct the examination of prospective jurors “. In Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1975), the dissenting remarks of Justice Douglas bring to light an interesting point:
In Aldredge v. United States, 283 U.S. 313, (1931), this court made it clear that voir dire aimed at disclosing ‘prejudice of a serious character must he allowed. And in Aldredge, supra, Justice Marshall concurring and dissenting in part, said:
Of course, the right to challenge has little meaning if it is unaccompanied by the right to ask relevant questions on voir dire upon which challenge for cause can be predicated.
Defendant submits that a series of generalized questions asked by a Trial judge of a jury panel cannot effectively probe the recesses of a juror’s mind and determine his or her real attitudes and prejudices as can individual questions put forth by Defendant or his counsel.
Defendant, who is fully acquainted with his own case, is in a superior position to pursue the interrogation in special areas. If voir dire is by the trial court alone, it would effectively stifle development of possible grounds for challenge of grounds. So, if the court will not excuse those who may perceive a threat to their daily bread from the jury panel, or in the alternative, allow the defendant to develop challenges for cause through his own voir dire of prospective jurors, then the court will have deprived this defendant of his constitutionally guaranteed right to trial by fair and impartial jury as expressly guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Copy of this pleading properly mailed on this date to government counsel.
Date:___________________________
_____________________________
Defendant
Form:
Juror: Welfare
top-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________
________________________
U. S. Clerk of Court
Federal Courthouse
Re: USA vs. ________________ Cr.#_________________
Dear Clerk of Court:
Please find enclosed two copies of the motions checked below. By copy of this letter, we are sending a copy of these motions to the U.S. Attorney, properly addressed, postage prepaid, etc.
The motions as checked include:
____A. Discovery Pursuant to Rule 16.
____B. The Brady Motion.
____C. Memorandum for the Brady Motion.
____D. Motion and Memorandum for Production Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3500 (Jencks Act).
____E. Discovery of Civil Summons.
____F. Brief on Discovery of Civil Summons.
____G. Motion and Memorandum for Discovery and Production of Information
Obtained the Government Regarding the Jury Panel.
____H. Notion to Disclose Information, Premises, and Payments to Prospective
Government Witnesses,
____I. Motion for Disclosure of Informants.
____J. Motion and Memorandum for Discovery and Production of Affidavits which
requested wire tap authorization and for transcripts of wire tap or
other surveillance activities.
_____K. _______________________________
_____L. _________________________________
Further, please rush me the following forms (number needed in parenthesis):
(1) Marshall Service Form, U.S.N. (10 copies); (2) Criminal Subpoena for Persons (10);
(3) Criminal Subpoena for Documents (1S); (4) Forms for en forma pauperis status.
Sincerely,
CC: U.S. Attorney
Federal Courthouse
__________________________
Defendant
Form:
Clerk: Discovery Motions
top-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM:____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
U.S. District Court
Federal Courthouse
_______________
________________
Re:_____________________ CR#_______________________
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed two copies of the motions listed below to be filed in this case. By carbon copy of this letter, we are sending a copy of this to the United States Attorney properly addressed, postage prepaid.
The motions include:
1. _____________________________________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________________________________________
4. _____________________________________________________________________________
5. _____________________________________________________________________________
6. _____________________________________________________________________________
Also, please send me the following forms:
1. ___________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
________ I am retaining an attorney in this case who will be making his appearance soon
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Form:
Clerk’s Letter
top------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: CLERK OF COURT
From: _______________________
US
COURTHOUSE
_____________________________________
Case of
_____________ vs. _______________
______________________________________
Type of Pleading: _________________________
Date of Pleading: ________________ Docket No.____________________
Dear Clerk of Court:
Please find enclosed the original of the enclosed pleadings for your files and a copy for the judge. Since this case is already begun, I do not have to pay any fees.
The FOIA (a) (4) (D) provides: “Except as to cases the court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the district court, as authorized by this subsection, and appeals there from, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.”
I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has been delivered to opposing parties on or about the date of this letter or mailed to the correct address, postage prepaid.
Incidentally, while I am writing you, I need some more forms. Would you please send me (10) of the following forms: _________________________________________________
_____Civil Subpoena to Produce Documents, DC#48 _____Civil Summons, Civ la
_____ Marshall Service Return, USM—285 _____Deposition Subpoena, DC#9
Date: ________________________
Yours,
__________________________________
Form:
Cover Letter B-1---------------------------(cut along dotted
line)-----------------
top
To: CLERK OF COURT From: ________________________
US COURTHOUSE
Re: _______________________________
Pleading: ___________________________
Date of Pleading: _________________ Docket No. _______________________
Please find enclosed the original and one copy of the enclosed pleadings. Also enclosed is an additional copy with the yellow sheet attached to it, which is for my opponents attorney, who is the US Attorney. Would you please put this copy in his box so he will receive it.
I hereby
certify that a copy of this pleading has been sent to opposing parties on or
about the date of this letter at the correct address, postage prepaid.
Incidentally, while I am writing you, I need some more forms. Would you
please send me (10) of the following forms:
___________________________________________________
_____Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis _______Civil Subpoena, DC#9
Date: _____________
Yours, _____________________
Form: Cover
Letter B-2
top----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------