April 30, 2005
Honorable Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
United States District Court
Richard Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: U.S. v. Patriot
Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-1xxx-LTW
Gross violation of Patriot's rights.
Dear Honorable Judge Thrash:
You signed a Court Order on March 31, 2005 for me to appear at an IRS Summons Meeting on April 27, 2005. I filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment on April 1, 2005 but since the meeting time arrived before I received your response I attended the meeting so as to comply with your Order.
This letter gives a step by step accounting of what occurred at the meeting. It will show how my rights as an American Citizen were grossly violated and point out some very "uncalled for acts":
a. IRS Agent Crosby scheduled the meeting at the Richard Russell Building instead of at the IRS offices where I met with the IRS once before.
b. I arrived at 9:30 a.m. The meeting was scheduled for 10:00 a.m.
c. Security prevented me from entering the building with my tape recorder stating I would need to get a separate Court Order to get it in. I informed Agent Crosby of the problem and waited near Security for her to resolve it.
d. Shortly thereafter, I was surprisingly confronted by IRS agent Crosby, 2 other IRS agents, Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) Neeli Ben-David, and a Federal Deputy Marshall named Shell. It became immediately obvious the AUSA was in control of my meeting.
i. The AUSA said she would make no attempt to get the recorder cleared through Security.
ii. The AUSA said the Court Order did not state I could record the meeting.
iii. The AUSA said I would be held in "Contempt of Court" if I did not come into the meeting within 10 minutes.
iv. It was obvious to me the AUSA was disguising my request of "my due process right to have my tape recorder in the meeting" as a violation of the Court's Order. I am confused how a request of a right can be classified as a violation.
e. I stated there were Federal laws that permitted an audio recording of the meeting. I said I met my requirements by sending a letter to Agent Crosby well in advance of the 10 day "prior to meeting notice". I also suggested 3 easy options available to resolve the situation:
i. Obtain a court order permitting the recorder into the Building. This might take an hour or two. The AUSA refused.
ii. Immediately change the meeting to the IRS Summit Building. This would take minutes. Agent Crosby refused.
iii. Postpone the meeting. Agent Crosby refused.
f. The aforementioned forceful and intimidating group walked off leaving me and my 2 witnesses in the hallway. Since we were only 75 yards from the Security point I returned back there to discover the AUSA could have easily gone to security, showed her badge, and cleared the tape recorder through security.
(I have the name of the security personnel who furnished me this information should the Court need it and I fully trust the Court with that information. I prefer to respect that person's privacy until the Court request that information in order that none of that person rights are unnecessarily violated by anyone outside of the court.)
g. I went to the meeting room to inform the AUSA that she could clear the tape recorder through Security in a few minutes time. She said she was not going to allow a recorder in the meeting because I was posting information on my website. She was dead wrong. I do not have a website. I am also not aware of a law prohibiting anyone writing or publishing information on a website even if I was.
h. For a number of reasons I was justified in requesting a recorder be present:
i. IRS Publication 1 and IRC 7521(a) (1) forbid IRS personnel from interfering with examinee's recording of an interview.
ii. In United States v. Black, 804 F.2d 1416 (8th cir. 1986) The
Blacks and the IRS agree the Blacks are entitled to memorialize their audit proceedings. The District Court has permitted them to make an audio or stenographic recording of their meeting and because of that, the Blacks' due process rights were not violated.
iii. The Court's Order doesn't specifically state that I may record the meeting, but it also does not specifically bar me from doing so. The Court's Order also does not specifically state that I may have counsel representing me, but it would be unreasonable to dispute that I may have counsel represent me, should I so chose.
iv. I considered a recorder necessary for this meeting for the purpose of creating a verbatim account of the summons hearing in the event all parties concerned deemed necessary further judicial review of the summons.
v. So, in the interest of having a complete and unassailable record of the meeting and all respective positions of the parties, the audio recording of the meeting should have been allowed even though the court order was silent as to whether I may do so.
vi. I should have been allowed the recorder into the meeting because my stated purpose is reasonable. The IRS's reputation of being vindictive and dishonest warrants a recorder at all of their meeting.
i. The Court Order stated three times that "Respondent is to appear before Agent Crosby". It did not state that I was required to appear before anyone other than her nor did it state that other people could force themselves upon me and my witnesses. The Court Order makes no mention of a requirement to appear before an AUSA, or before 2 additional IRS agents, or before a Federal Deputy Marshall. Yet all of these people held together at all times, including in the meeting room, and forced themselves upon me.
j. I am not sure an intimidating and forceful group of this nature would customarily be utilized in a different situation where maybe a high-risk criminal is involved. I am certainly not one to be classified as a criminal of any type and the facts will show:
i. I am not even a tax protestor. I have offered more than once to file tax returns and pay any lawful taxes I am "liable for" or "subject to". All the IRS needs to do is satisfy me and my tax counsel and/or CPA as to the lawfulness of the tax, produce 23 (c.)/ Lawful assessment, and show the properly promulgated forms published in the Federal Register with valid OMB numbers that I am required to file.
ii. I have also informed the IRS that even if the aforementioned criteria are satisfied, there would probably be no liability. Since there are net operating losses (NOL's) for some of the periods in question and those losses, through NOL carryback/carryforward rules, would more than offset all other years involved, there is little likelihood liability would exist.
k. On several occasions the AUSA and/or Agent Crosby accused me of not complying with the Summons. This was certainly a false accusation. I did timely appear. I met with Agent Crosby. Agent Crosby asked a couple questions and I answered those questions. The questions and answers, as evidenced by me and my 2 witnesses, were as follows:
Question 1: Agent Crosby: Are you here to comply with the Summons?
Patriot: Yes. Once we get the recorder cleared through Security we can commence with the meeting but I find it necessary we have a recorder in the meeting room. After it became obvious the meeting might not go forward because the AUSA was not going to allow a recorder, Agent Crosby asked the following question of me while in the hallway:
Question 2: Agent Crosby: Do you want to just turn your records over? The two Witnesses recall her saying: If you turn your records over, we don't even need a meeting.
Patriot: In response to your request for the records, Carla, I object to the question, I decline to answer this question. I am invoking the 5th Amendment on the grounds that such information or documents, should they exist, could possibly be used against me in a criminal prosecution.
The AUSA attacked me with the statement that it was not the proper place to plead the 5th amendment. I thought it was strange that that particular place was proper for the IRS agent to ask questions, but it was not a proper place for me to plead the 5th Amendment in response to the question.
L. As I briefly stepped aside to make a phone call the opposing group took the opportunity to tamper with my witnesses. My 2 witnesses were interrogated, badgered, and threatened as follows:
i. The AUSA asked them for their names. One witness sensed it may not be proper for the AUSA to ask questions outside of a courtroom environment nor the proper time. Since they were outside of my presence and not in a courtroom, she decided not to state her last name. She was advised she could not enter the meeting room without giving her name. I am not aware of any law requiring all witnesses give their full names. I am confused why the AUSA was questioning my witnesses.
ii. The AUSA asked my witnesses if they were part of some particular organization. The witnesses are not under investigation.
iii. At the same time, the AUSA made this statement to the witnesses: "I hope you are filing your tax returns or you will end up in the same situation as Mr. Patriot". She did not explain what she meant by "same situation".
iv. Agent Crosby said to one of the witnesses: "you can set down that box over here (near the agent in the hallway)". The witness did not trust her and continued to hold the box.
m. The Court's Order states "It is hereby ordered that the Respondent is required to appear before Revenue Agent Carla Crosby on April 27, 2005 at 10:00a.m., at a location in Atlanta, Georgia to be determined by Agent Crosby, and that the Respondent is required to comply in full with the Summons at that time". The AUSA falsely accused me of not obeying the Court's Order. She also stated I would be held in contempt of court. The AUSA's accusation is false because:
i. I appeared for the meeting on April 27, 2005.
ii. I was timely for the Meeting.
iii. I went to the location selected by Agent Crosby.
iv. I made many concerted efforts to get the recorder permitted into the meeting room (one of my due process rights). I clearly demonstrated my willingness for the meeting and my determination to obey the Court's Order by complying in full with the Summons.
n. The unjustified treatment and violation of my rights continued:
i. When I went back to the meeting room to inform the AUSA it was an easy and timeless task for her to authorize the recorder through security, another IRS agent (Neal) informed me an oral Motion for Contempt of Court was in process and I could enter the meeting room but my witnesses could not.
ii. I did enter the meeting room alone to be only bombarded by the Revenue Agents and the AUSA. Agent Crosby asked me why I needed a recorder in this meeting when I was not allowed a recorder in the Courtroom on March 24, 2005 at the Show Cause hearing. The AUSA did correct her on that comment by making reference to the fact a court recorder was present at that hearing. Another IRS agent did ask a question or made a comment but I did not understand what he was saying.
iii. The AUSA did attempt to put some additional pressures on me by saying she had just talked to the Judge and he asked her to please get her motion filed to find me in contempt of court. I took it that she was implying they (the AUSA and the Judge) had a united effort going to find me in "contempt of court".
iv. My interpretation of this last insinuating or manipulative gesture by the AUSA was that she was trying to imply "We are all out to get you but you will be o.k. if you now let the meeting begin without your tape recorder". It scares me to think what consequences I may have experienced later should I have been manipulatively influenced to move forward into a meeting with this group without a recorder.
v. The Federal Deputy Marshall and one IRS agent escorted us to the elevator.
o. It becomes more and more obvious the Internal Revenue Service and the AUSA have violated the LaSalle Criteria through circumnavigation by gathering information for criminal prosecution purposes:
i. This is true just by the mere fact the AUSA was present and in control at the IRS Summons Meeting. The "information gathering process" by the Internal Revenue Service has definitely gone beyond "normal audit procedure requirements" under Civil Proceedings. Extraordinary attempts to gather information for possible criminal prosecution purposes are being made although the IRS has denied it. This glaringly illustrates circumnavigation is at play.
ii. It is customary that meetings to gather information for "Civil Proceeding" purposes are conducted at IRS offices. The mere fact that the meeting location selected was at a United States Attorneys' office location further proves normal motives are not at play here. This further illustrates circumnavigation. It also substantiates my belief that the Court and American People are often deceived and defaulted because the true objectives of the IRS are most often hidden.
iii. The mere fact Agent Crosby, assigned to "An Abusive Tax Avoidance Transaction Group", comes to Atlanta from Nashville, Tennessee, four hours away by car, demonstrates the IRS, and more specifically Agent Crosby, is not telling the truth about the true nature of my examination. Agent Crosby and the AUSA are lying and deceiving and they know it. This is undisputable circumnavigation at work.
iv. This is a perfect time to quote some case law that only further supports the LaSalle Case Criteria:
In Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 the revenue agents commanded the production of just one invoice from E.A. Boyd & Sons and the Supreme Court considered the following issue: "The seizure of compulsory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, and, in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture, is equally within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment." The court agreed with the above and in the lead opinion Justice Bradley wrote:
"And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books ad papers, to convict him of crime or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom." 116 U.S. at 631-632
Lead opinion of Bradley continued:
And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that (116 U.S. 634) proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal."
In US V. Genser 595 F 2d 146 (NJ 1979) states the Court, in examining each and every summons and all parts thereof, will discover that not all of the information sought contributes 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) violates the LaSalle criteria, 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 overwhelming civil purpose of the investigation as a whole. The IRS would simply lack statutory authority to issue these particular summonses.
p. I spent a considerable amount of time preparing for this meeting and was very disappointed that it did not occur. I had evidence with me I wanted to present. I used every concerted effort possible to get the meeting underway, while trying to preserve my due process rights, but total resistance from the IRS and the AUSA prevented it.
Your Honor, if you have read this letter to this point, I can not thank you enough for your time and consideration. As you recall, I am a Pro Se Attorney and may not be following correct procedures to preserve my rights. I am calling for your help and/or suggestions on what procedures I should follow in order that my rights can be protected under the circumstances. I need your help in order that Justice is properly served and my rights are not trampled. Anything you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
Respectively submitted,
The Slammer!
Respondent Pro Se
XYZ Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30324
404-xxx-yyyy
cc: Assistant United States Attorney Neeli Ben-David
Office of Professional Responsibilities/ Department of Justice
Bar Association/Disciplinary Commission
Office of the Commissioner/ Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C.
Internal Revenue Service/Operations Manager, Nashville, Tn
Internal Revenue Agent Carla Crosby