UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Petitioner, ) Case No. 6:08-mc-00-Orl-00ZZZ
vs. )
Dr. Tom, ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION
Respondent ) TO ENFORCE SUMMONS
I have complied with the court ordered presentation of documents twice. On May 28, 2008, I presented these documents to a party at my house. I could do so due to an unclear improper court order issued by a magistrate judge. Again, on July 25, 2008, I presented myself and two witnesses at the Melbourne office. I was rudely denied access past the lobby area. Is there no end to the mistakes that the Internal Revenue Service can make and still persist in this case? This case should have been over.
A. There have been procedural indiscretions 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 a meeting May 22, 2007 which is not twenty-one days). The apparent lack of interest shown by the agent because the next correspondence was February 26, 2008. An improper court order issued by a magistrate judge (magistrate judges can not issue court orders, just recommendations).
B. A court order was issued one day after a petition from the U.S. Attorney was filed. I was not given enough time to respond to this petition. Each side is allowed fifteen to twenty-one days to answer which I was not given. I was harmed and prejudiced with because of this judgment. This court order was done on June 27, 2008. The court has now issued a new court order that was dated September 15, 2008. The petition that this order concerning is dated September 11, 2008. This is only four days, not the usual fifteen to twenty-one days that is suppose to be allowed for the other side to respond. Again, I was harmed and prejudiced.
C. Finally, on July 25, 2008, the defendant with two witnesses arrived at the Melbourne office of the Internal Revenue Service with ample to start the court ordered meeting at the appointed time. When registering, the defendant was denied entrance of one of his allowed two witnesses. After making one witness leave the building, the guards proceeded to instruct the defendant and remaining witness that tape recorders and cell phones were not permitted to enter the facility. There is a letter and two affidavits attached to clarify the scene.
D. During this time, an assistant went down a short hall to confer with an agent (we assumed that it was Daniel Haber). She brought back the word that a tape recorder would not be permitted. According to my records, Daniel Haber has been an agent for the Internal Revenue Service for thirty years. During this time, he should have learned at a tape recorder is permitted at a court ordered face to face meeting.
E. Title 26, Section F, Chapter 27, Section 7521 (a) (1) states a tape recorder is to be allowed by the party when sufficient time has been given. A copy of the letter that I sent to Daniel Haber on May 9, 2007 is attached. A copy of this letter was attached to April 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008 documents sent to the court and the opposing attorney. All of these dates are beyond the ten day requirement.
F. 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 meet his responsibility.
G. As an anesthetist, I am required to know about current events, standards, and updates in my field. I am not allowed the luxury of repeated mistakes. These court cases are two years old and greater. The United States Attorney has demonstrated knowledge of these laws and cases. An agent of thirty years’ experience has no excuse.
H. I am a sixty-nine-year-old male in poor health. I am two years post open heart surgery with less than one third cardiac function. I am an insulin dependent diabetic. Between my ex-wife with the aid of the Tennessee judicial system robbing me of all my assets and the Internal Revenue stealing most of my Social Security checks, it is a hardship both physically and monetary to be going to Melbourne for meetings and denied access. I have to pay the expenses of both myself and my witnesses.
I. I have no assurance of a scheduled court ordered meeting taking place. If the agent can disregard one meeting without penalty, he can continue to do so. He has shown no respect for the court. I have.
J. There is no assurance of my safety. You are greeted with two armed guards with a mean looking police dog. Are the individuals that dangerous? All this is enough to frighten a person in good health, but more so an old man in poor health. The founding fathers stated that the government should fear the people, not the other way around.
K. Finally, I have complied twice with the court orders. The last meeting was not held due to the wishes of the Internal Revenue Service. I should not be tortured by Internal Revenue Service to schedule another meeting.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on or about the date listed below, a copy of this document was mailed to the opposing party with the proper postage to insure delivery.
Date: September 18, 2008
_____________________________________
Respondent, pro se
Address: 1776 Patriot Way
St. Cloud, Florida