UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                            MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
                                                    ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
_________________________
                Petitioner                }   CIVIL NO: 6:08-mc-21-Orl-31DAB
                       
                      VS.      

DR. JOHN T. PATRIOT
              Respondent                          MOTION TO DISMISS 
                                                                         

The Respondent respectfully request the court to dismiss on the following grounds:

1. There have been procedural discretions in this case. It started with a pocket summons that did not allow sufficient time for the individual to prepare (delivered May 9, 2007 for meeting May 22, 2007 which is not twenty-one days). Next came an improper court order issued by a judge magistrate (magistrates can not issue court orders, just recommendations) on May 7, 2008. A court order issued by the judge on June 27, 2008 was based on a petition by the opposing party that was filed on June 26, 2008 before the defendant had received the petition and had time to respond the counselor’s petition.

2. Finally, on July 25, 2008, the defendant arrived at the offices of the Internal Revenue Service at the appointed time to comply with the court ordered meeting. Upon registering for the court ordered meeting, the defendant was denied the entrance of one of his witnesses. After making the witness leave, the guards proceeded in instructing the defendant and the remaining witness that a tape recorder would not be allowed. There is a letter attached that tells more of the meeting.

3. The defendant in his court order from the judge was warned that if he did not attend the ordered meeting that he would be subjected to be jailed. If the defendant can be jailed, the same should apply to the other party. The defendant was inside the building only a few feet from the party whom the meeting should take place and denied access after an assistant had told him that the defendant was available with a tape recorder and the guards were not letting him enter the building.

4. By his actions, the Internal Revenue agent has shown that he does not want to meet, but to harass the defendant.

5. Title 26, Section F, Chapter 27, Section7521 (a) (1) states a tape recorder is to allowed by the party to be interviewed when sufficient time has been given. A of copy the letter that I sent to Daniel Haber on May 9, 2007 stating that I would bring a tape recorder is attached. Also, a copy of this letter was sent to the court and his attorney on April 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008. These three instances are greater than the ten day period that is demanded.

6. Section 7521 (a) (1) was cited in Keene v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 121 T.C.8 (2003) and Calafati v.Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 127 T.C.16(2006) showing that a tape recorder has to be allowed when used by the individual as long as the individual is responsible for the cost and operation of same in a face to face meeting. The defendant came to the meeting prepared to fulfill his responsibility according to the law.

7. Attached there are copies of two letters written by the Assistant United States Attorney. These letters are dated August 11, 2008 and August 19, 2008. In each letter it is stated that the defendant has the right to a tape recorder to record the sessions when complying with a court ordered meeting. Since the attorney knew of this statute and had two copies of the May 9, 2008 letter, this knowledge should have been re-enforced to make sure that Mr. Haber was aware of it.

8. I am sixty-nine years old in poor health. I am two years post open heart surgery (the surgeon told me that I was the worst physical specimen that he had ever operated upon) and an insulin dependent diabetic. Between my ex-wife with the aid of the Tennessee judicial system taking all my assets in divorce proceedings and the Internal Revenue Service stealing most of my Social Security checks, it is a hardship for me physically and monetary to be tripping over to Melbourne and being denied access. I have to pay expenses of both myself and my witnesses.

9. In his letters, the attorney has not assured me that a meeting would take place. The agent has shown no respect for the court ordered meeting. He is the one that is wrong and I should not have to suffer any more insults from him.

10. Also, there has been no assurance of my safety in meeting with the agent. There are two armed guards as gatekeepers. If that is not enough, there is a mean looking dog present. This is enough to frighten a person in good health, but more so an old man in poor health. One of the founding fathers stated the government should fear the people. This means that the people should not fear the government.

11. Lastly, I have already complied with the court order. I appeared and was denied entrance for my meeting. I should not have to schedule another meeting.

I hereby certify that on or about date, a copy of this Motion to Dismiss was mailed to the opposing with the proper postage to insure delivery.

Date: August  21 , 2008             __________________________________
                                    DR. JOHN T. PATRIOT, Respondent, pro se
                                     St. Cloud, Florida 344712