THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,         	) 	Case No. 6:08-mc-21-Orl-xxxxx
              Petitioner,               			) 	DANIEL I. HABER                                                                            
                                        			)
                                       			) 	Affidavit in Support  
                                        			) 	of Petitions to Quash
      DR. TOM PATRIOT,                 		)
              Respondent.              			)						
 

1. In September, 2000, I stopped sending in my monthly remittance to the Internal Revenue Service. In the year of 2001, I did not file my report to the Internal Revenue Service. I did this after many years of study to research why we are paying that tax. I am a good citizen and wish to pay whatever taxes are just and fair. In my research I came across things like the “bill of rights”, amendment to do away with involuntary servitude, and the historical passage of the sixteenth amendment that was illegal in many aspects. I consulted certified public accountants, lawyers, the Internal Revenue Service, and lastly my father. None of these respected persons could satisfy my studies.

2. As a dedicated member of society, a son, a husband, and later a father, I felled into the overworked segment of society. As I often worked sixty or more hours weekly, I could see the lazy loafers living off the taxes and probably my contributions. I learn later that all my taxes were going to pay interest on the “national debt”.

3. About this time, I learned that I am not a “taxpayer”. I fall into none of the areas that the government has jurisdiction over my property. There are cases in court that prove this. I am not a lawyer, but even I can reason and compare. I have records of letters that I have written to Daniel Haber which he has ignored my questioning how the Internal Revenue Service has any jurisdiction over me. Since this file has records dating March, 2007 and his no response to these, they must stand as facts for silence is consent in any court of law.

4. The IRS has classified, labeled and identified me as a "Tax Protestor"(since the 1998 reform act “Non-Filer”) or some similar description. Consequently, I have been selected for special handling, special procedures, and speeded-up investigations.

5. As a result of my not filing the yearly reports,, the IRS has initiated a institutional commitment to pursue a criminal investigation against me, in accordance with their procedure required by MS9G-93 and its subsequent and regional manuals. In spite of the assertions in the affidavit of Agent Daniel I. Haber attached to the government’s Motion to Show Cause, the IRS is totally committed only to bring a criminal charge against me. The affidavit and petition to enforce the summons issued in this case are incorrect, misleading, and/or false, for the following reasons:

a. Almost every word therein is either false or grossly misleading.
b. The statement as to this being a civil investigation is false because the revenue agent is requesting information beyond tax assessment information.
c. The IRS has abandoned its pursuit of civil tax determination, which the agent knows and has expressed in his actions and requests.
d. The purpose is not to determine whether Affiant has a tax liability because the IRS assumes that every breathing human being adult is a “Taxpayer” which is contrary to every Supreme Court case in the history of Tax cases.
e. The IRS, with records and documents that have been forced to be given them by third parties , has already determined for themselves and not by the law that he is a "person required to file,” and does not need any more information.

6. The IRS through Summons actions almost always lead to criminal recommendation by their own information sources. MS 9G-93 is the institutional commitment to prosecute.

7. This attempt is therefore being used solely to waste this Courts time, circumnavigate the traditional grand jury process and try to intimidate Affiant into surrendering Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights without offering use immunity grant under 18 U.S.C. sec. 6001.

8. Affiant has not asserted any “blanket Fifth Amendment” protection, but rather has not been granted use immunity by DOJ so any testimony could be used as a link for prosecution against me.

9. The broad and encompassing request in the summons sought to be enforced in this case is highly indicative of the true direction of case. Many of the documents and material requested have no use whatsoever in a civil case. Bad-faith was part of summons under Lasalle because 2-3 of the items on the summons attachment pages out of 30-plus items were the only items required in a civil collection.

10. The request of information in this case exceeds the documents needed in civil aspects of a case as to circumnavigate the role of the grand jury. See Lasalle case.

Further, Affiant sayeth Not.
_______________________________
Dr. Tom Patriot
Osceola County

I, ________________________________, a Notary Public for said County and State, do hereby certify that
_________________________________ personally appeared before me and signed the foregoing.  Witness 
 my hand and seal this _______ day of ____________________, 2008        
 
I certify that on this date, copy of this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel properly.
 
Date: _________________                          

___________________________ 
Dr. Tom Patriot
Respondent pro se