In the first paragraph of Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Quash Petitioner says that the Respondent’s central argument is that the Service issued the Summons for the impermissible purpose of seeking evidence solely for a criminal investigation. In the LaSalle case, the Supreme Court made no distinction as to whether the Summons was solely for the purpose of gathering information for a criminal case or rather it was as a side benefit. The fact is, if there is ANY criminal investigation currently on going or if the Service is merely laying the groundwork for a criminal investigation the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Respondent’s 5th Amendment rights of freedom from self incrimination is to be protected. >

In the second paragraph the Petitioner makes the statement, “…there is no authority to support Respondent’s argument” which is preposterous to say the least. In the same paragraph the Petitioner mentions the LaSalle case and then says, “However, the Congress enacted 26 U.S.C.§7602 (b) which permits the use of the summons to gather information in aid of a criminal investigation.” It would appear that the Petitioner is of the opinion that the Congress has the authority to supersede the Constitution. The Court does not need to discover the opinion of the United States Supreme Court on this issue; it HAS the opinion in the LaSalle case. The United States Supreme Court’s opinion is that the Service CANNOT use a civil summons to gather information for a criminal case. The question that needs to be answered is; is there CID involvement in this case?

The IRS is a huge department with well documented cases of mismanagement, illegal activity and abuse of power. The size of the IRS has not diminished and there is a high likelihood that information transfer can easily be lost or misplaced to the disadvantage of the Respondent.

The Respondent filed discovery Interrogatories, admissions and request for documents on __________ in order to gather necessary evidence to support the belief that the Service is indeed using a Civil Summons in preparation for a CID investigation. As of this date Respondent has not received any response from the Petitioner as to the discovery. Ms. Mixner’s states in #5 of her Declaration, “Based upon my review of the IRS’s case history and knowledge about this case, there has been no Justice Department referral, within the meaning of I.R.C. §7602(d). The questions naturally arises:

1. Is Ms. Mixner’s knowledge concerning this case complete?
2. How much knowledge does Ms. Mixner have concerning this case?
3. Has a Justice Department Referral been issued that Ms. Mixner is not aware of?
4. Has Ms. Mixner overlooked information concerning this case that would indicate CID involvement?
5. Is there additional evidence that could be gathered by discovery that would prove that indeed there is CID involvement in this case the Ms. Mixner is not aware of?
6. Is there a possible breakdown of communication between CID and Ms. Mixner that would prevent her from having a clear understanding of the CID’s involvement in this case?

Only through an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery can any of the above questions be answered. At the very least the Court should delay its decision regarding this matter until all discoveries have been completed. The Respondent objects to the Petitioner’s Response and requests that the Court order an opportunity for discovery.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing council.

Date: _________________

 ___________________________

John R.H. Patriot
Respondent Pro Se