Motion for Rehearing

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHEN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  	               )
							       )
                         Petitioner			       )
						               )      Civil Action No.
v.							       )        
                                                               )             1:05-CV-155				  
							       )
Glenn Patriot,					       	       )
							       )
                         Respondent			       )

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 59e. of the FRCivP, Respondent, Glenn R. Patriot, files his Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgement regarding the order dated March 24, 2005 signed by the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Judge in the USDC for the Northern District of Georgia based upon the following reasons:

1. On March 24, 2005, Revenue Agent Carla Crosby committed perjury and fraud upon this Honorable Court.

a. Under sworn oath, the Court asked Ms. Crosby if she had made any recommendations for prosecution to the Department of Justice or if she had plans for this case to turn criminal in nature. These questions are from Respondent’s recollection of the March 24, 2005 court appearance and will be corrected, if need be, from the actual transcript when received by Respondent which has been ordered.

b. To the aforementioned questions, Revenue Agent Carla Crosby responded with a “no” answer. Agent Crosby lied to the Court.

c. Each time, when confronted, the IRS states their summons requests are for the sole purpose of determining Respondents alleged tax liability and this is a Civil Proceeding. They have stated this several times in their pleadings as well. They are already in possession of Respondent’s bank records and these records are more than adequate to provide the accounting necessary in determining any alleged civil tax liability.

d. As Respondent Patriot told the Court, the IRS has invested an extreme amount of man hours and expense regarding their investigative work regarding Respondent. The IRS has gone through the cumbersome and expensive process of issuing bank summons and other 7609 summonses. These procedures are not custoPatriot Min Civil proceedings. These type of summonses are for purposes of gathering information necessary for criminal prosecution. More specifically, the IRS has a policy whereby the use of 7609 summons are to be used only in criminal cases.

e. The documentation and information requests labeled “attachment to Form 2039” and served with the initial pocket summons (see Exhibit B. to Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons) clearly proves by its very nature, and more characteristically by the specific details within, that the IRS information gathering techniques clearly point to criminal prosecution objectives. The IRS’ detailed list consists of three single spaced pages of documents/information reaching far beyond normal civil audit procedure. Many of the documents requested are exclusively useful in criminal cases and have no purpose or use in civil cases.

f. Respondent resides in Atlanta, Georgia, a city having numerous IRS offices and revenue agents. Revenue Agent Carla Crosby works out of an IRS office in Nashville, Tennessee and has been assigned to what is called an “Abusive Tax Avoidance Transactions Group”. The mere fact Agent Crosby has been assigned to the examination of Respondent, and not an Atlanta revenue agent, clearly demonstrates the IRS, and more specifically Agent Crosby, is not telling the truth about the true nature of the examination of Respondent. Agent Crosby is lying and she knows it. Her perjury is an insult and a dishonorable act on the Court and Respondent.

2. By the very fact the government decided in this case to issue the summons, they have in effect shown that the decision has been made to recommend criminal prosecution. Their own statistics, available to this court, show that in all cases where summons enforcement is initiated the IRS eventually makes a formal recommendation!

3. The Court would not permit Respondent to call witnesses to the stand for questioning. As a normal rule Pro Se Attorneys have been known to cause problems to the Courts. Respondent Pro Se in this case is sympathetic to the Judge on these issues. Respondent does not want to be a burden or hardship on the Court and therefore has been to some classes and is attempting to rigorously follow good procedures in this case. Respondent had 2 witnesses present for questioning and their testimony was relevant, necessary and material regarding this case. Respondent had a list of questions on the LaSalle case that needed answers. The LaSalle case places a heavy burden on Respondent to prove improper purposes of the IRS summons. All of the information to an improper purpose is in the hands of the IRS. Under the LaSalle case, Respondent has a duty to dig out or seek information from the IRS. Respondent wanted to introduce evidence in his defense by questioning IRS agent Carla Crosby who had information pertaining to the LaSalle Case criteria. Patriot M was an expert witness on Innovative Financial Consultants. It was a past investigation of that company that triggered an examination of Respondent and charges against that company have been dropped.

4. Opposing attorney stated the Lasalle case has been superseded by the 1982 amendments to the tax code. Respondent agrees the amendments addressed the recommendation or referral issues relative to the LaSalle case. On the hand, Respondent clearly recognizes those amendments did not address or mention the most important issue in the LaSalle case which is circumnavigation. The Supreme Court has ruled that circumnavigation is the same as a recommendation letter and this has never been overruled. Because the 1982 amendments never made mention of circumnavigation those amendments made an admission by omission that circumnavigation still applies. By not mentioning circumnavigation they, in essence, continued to approve the circumnavigation aspect of the case. Stated another way, if you do not deny it you are admitting or approving it. Silence condones consent.

5. Although many issues relative to the LaSalle case criteria were stated in Respondent’s prior Motions, Respondent feels compelled to emphasis some of those vital points again in order they do not fall short of full consideration in making a full and just determination by the Court.

a. The Service, having recently indicated they have not abandoned the pursuant of Respondent’s civil tax liability, is still attempting to use the summons for the impermissible purpose of gathering evidence for a criminal investigation, and is attempting to circumnavigate the traditional role of the grand jury as the principal tool of criminal investigation in our society. US vs. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 98 S Ct 2357 (1978).

b. The Summons are not issued in good faith as the purposes of the individual summons are too broad, too sweeping in detail, to be used by the IRS only to prove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or for a collection purpose. Further, some of the items sought by the summons are only needed by the Justice Department to aid in a criminal prosecution.

c. The IRS has made a preliminary investigation into Respondent’s financial condition since it has access to a tremendous amount of financial information on taxpayer and has abandoned any hope of making any collection in this case, but is delaying in submitting a formal recommendation to Justice in order to gather additional evidence, to expand its criminal discovery rights, and to serve as an information gathering agency for the prosecuting attorney.

d. 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.

6. Circumnavigation is blatantly obvious under the circumstances. The IRS and the Opposing Attorney are attempting to circumnavigate the facts, circumnavigate the real and proper issues and circumnavigate Respondent’s rights as well as the traditional role of the grand jury as the principal tool of criminal investigation in our society and more particularly in this case. In line with the aforementioned, Respondent ask protection of the Court in that justice is served and Respondent’s rights are not trampled.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Respondent respectfully requests the Court to honor Patriot’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgement.

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

This 5th day of March, 2005

Respectively submitted,
GLENN PATRIOT
Respondent Pro Se

____________________
2985 W. Roxboro Rd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30324