THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHEN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Petitioner, )
) Civil Action No.
v. )
) 1:05-Cxxx
GLENN PATRIOT, )
Respondent. )
RESPONSE TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PATRIOT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO QUASH
Respondent, Glenn Patriot, hereby files his response to Brief in Opposition to Patriot’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash based on the following grounds:
1. Respondent Patriot and his Representative, Clarkson, attended a meeting with the Internal Revenue Service on October 25, 2004 in order to comply with a Summons request. The meeting occurred on this date because a previous meeting set for September 29 2004 had to be rescheduled since Respondent was unable to attend. On September 24, 2004, Respondent sent a letter via immediate facsimile and by certified mail notifying IRS Revenue Agent Carla Crosby (hereinafter “Agent Crosby) that the meeting of September 29, 2004 needed to be rescheduled and Respondent gave three(3) alternate dates of which October 25, 2004 was one of those dates. (See letter attached as Exhibit A)
2. Before Respondent was willing to begin the process of testifying or providing any documentation at the October 25, 2004 meeting he requested Agent Crosby answer some very basic questions that would help Respondent better understand and meet his tax responsibilities plus his requirements relative to testifying and producing documents at the meeting. The IRS’ Manual in section 1.2.1.2.1 (Approved 12-18-1993) and Publications 1 and 3498 clearly states The IRS Mission is to “Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. Service employees, in handling such matters in their official relations with taxpayers or the public, will conduct themselves in a manner that will promote public confidence in themselves and the Service. Employees will be impartial and will not use methods which are threatening or harassing in their dealings with the public.” The IRS’ Manual in section 1.2.1.2.38 (Approved 07-24-1989) states “Since taxpayers must compute their taxes under a body of laws and regulations, some of the provisions of which are complex, the Service has the responsibility of providing taxpayers with all possible information to assist them in the performance of their obligations.” As noted by Assistant United States Attorney Neeli Ben-David (hereinafter “Attorney Ben-David”) in his Brief of Opposition…, Exhibit A, Representative Clarkson stated: “We have some questions for you first he wants to ask you” Also as noted in that same transcript Respondent read directly from the IRS Manual regarding the Mission of the Service which obligates the IRS to answer the type of questions respondent was asking.
3. It is a well established and settled law that any attempt to express ones rights under the 5th Amendment or any reference thereof constitutes and can be construed as a pleading of the 5th Amendment right. The United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, has in fact admitted that Respondent, through his Representative Clarkson, made clear reference to and asserted his 5th Amendment right. Assistant United States Attorney, Neeli Ben-David admits to this assertion of the 5th Amendment right at the Summons meeting when he restated from the transcript(Exhibit B. attached to The Brief in Opposition…) that Representative Clarkson raised the question: “As an American Citizen, does he [Patriot] have a constitutional right in the 5th Amendment to decline to self incriminate himself?” Also it is well known, Respondent has protection under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution in regards to his 5th amendment rights at all times, as well as in any future dealings with the Internal Revenue Service.
4. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben-David states in his brief, “Patriot did not object to testifying or producing documents under the 5th amendment”, but fails to mention that any testifying or producing of documents was pre-conditioned by Respondent at the onset of the October 25, 2004 meeting by Respondent first requesting answers to some very basic questions. Upon one attempt by Respondent to ask a question Agent Crosby stated this is a Summons meeting and there is a time and place for questions (Respondent would like to know; whose questions?) yet she provided nothing indicating when and where Respondent is allowed to ask questions nor did she show any evidence that Respondent is disallowed asking questions in a Summons meeting. In essence, Agent Crosby’s comment was implying Respondent was obligated to answer her questions at the meeting but she was not obligated to answer Respondent’s questions. Respondent had specific questions, and the answers to those questions would certainly influence how he should respond to questions raised by Agent Crosby at the meeting. Several attempts were made by Patriot and Clarkson to raise their questions but each time Agent Crosby attempted to dodge her obligation to provide answers by implying Respondent had already been given satisfactory answers to the specific questions. Agent Crosby’s statement was blatantly false. In a letter dated April 2004 Respondent put his questions in writing to the Internal Revenue Service and a copy of that letter was furnished Agent Crosby at their first meeting on June 8, 2004. In response to Respondent’s questions, on June 9, 2004, Agent Crosby mailed to Respondent Publication 1, Publication 2105 and Notice 609 and her attached form letter(See Exhibit B attached) stated these documents were prepared with the intent of answering the kinds of questions Respondent raised. No where, in those documents was Respondent able to find anything written that would provide specific answers to his specific questions nor was anything written regarding Income Taxes, Income Tax Returns, Domestic Income, Tax Form Numbers, the types of income that are taxable by Respondent, or the Code Section(s) that Respondent must follow to meet his tax responsibilities. In the October 25, 2004 meeting Agent Crosby evaded answering Respondent’s questions several times and, one time, as noted in Ben-David’s transcript (Exbibit B attached to Brief in Opposition…), stated, “I don’t have to answer, no, I don’t.” The majority of the questions could have been answered with simple “yes” or “no” replies which would take a relatively short period of time; then the meeting could have appropriately moved forward.
5 In United States v. Troescher, 94-2 USTC (August 1994) the court stated that the proper time to bring up the 5th Amendment is when you are “presented with specific questions. Revenue Agent Crosby would not provide answers to Respondent’s questions and circumnavigated her responsibilities by repeatedly asking Respondent provide answers to her questions. Because Respondent was unable to receive answers to his questions which would have a direct impact on what his obligations would be and how he should answer any questions at the meeting, the meeting never realistically arrived at a main focal point or a true proper time for producing any documents or for raising specific examination questions that would customarily result from reviewing such documents. Respondent, therefore, was never afforded the proper time to formally plead the 5th Amendment, should he so elect, regarding either producing the documents or providing answers to specific questions. On the same basis, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben-David is unjustified when he states in his Brief of Opposition, “A blanket fifth amendment objection is insufficient in itself to excuse Patriot’s refusal to produce documents/testify.” Without Respondent having the opportunity to formally plead the 5th Amendment to specific questions it becomes obvious that any mention to a blanket 5th Amendment objection is very much out of order.
6. Respondent attended the meeting with every intention to comply, but when Respondent remained adamant that Agent Crosby and/or the IRS honor Respondent’s rights by providing answers to his questions, Agent Crosby announced the meeting was over with her immediate withdrawal from the meeting room, without giving Respondent the opportunity to give any written formal Fifth Amendment Claim.
7. Several references were made in the brief of opposition that Patriot refused to comply with the Summons which are false.
a. Page 3. of the Brief in Opposition states “On September 29, 2004, Patriot failed to appear or comply with the Summons as required.” Respondent sent his letter dated September 24, 2004 via an immediate facsimile and by certified mail requesting a rescheduling of the September 29, 2004 in order to comply (See Exhibit A attached)
b. Respondent, with records in hand, attended the October 25, 2004 meeting in a timely fashion with Representative Clarkson, witnesses, and court recorder, in order to comply? However, the IRS attended the meeting 25 minutes late which was stated by Respondent in Attorney Ben-David’s transcript. (Exhibit B attached to Brief in Opposition)
8. The principal issue in Respondent’s Motion to Quash IRS Summons Directed to Respondent was stated in paragraph 2, which reads as follows: “The Service, having abandoned the pursuant of Respondent’s civil tax liability, is attempting to use the summons for the impermissible purpose of gathering evidence solely 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). Respondent has observed that Petitioner did not respond to this principal issue in the Brief of Opposition and therefore has merely admitted by omission that these facts apply in Respondent’s case. It is
Respondent’s belief that the Court and American Citizens are often times deceived and defaulted because the true objectives of the IRS are most often hidden.
9. In conjunction with paragraph 8, the IRS cannot use a civil summons when either (a) a recommendation letter has been issued; or (b) the IRS has made a decision to prosecute and, in some cases, purposely withheld announcement of their decision which, in turn, violates the Constitutional Protection of the American Citizens. Respondent firmly believes the IRS does not use the cumbersome and expensive Summons process under Sec. 7609, which applies in this case, unless the Agents have made a decision to prosecute criminally.
10. Respondent Patriot has no legal education or legal experience regarding any of these matters. Yet, it appears to Respondent that Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben-David is attempting to avoid addressing the true issues relative to the summons and the details of the meeting on October 25, 2004, and is, instead, attempting to circumnavigate the facts, circumnavigate the real and proper legal issues and circumnavigate Patriot’s rights. Respondent clearly sees the methodologies used by Agent Crosby and Attorney Ben-David as blatant attempts to intimidate. Attorney Ben-David knows there is high probability Respondent may not be knowledgeable regarding his rights and will not respond in an appropriate manner to protect those rights. Attorney Ben-David is attempting to create a legal trap whereby Respondent might conduct himself in a manner that will work against him, all in a disguised game to facilitate prosecution. Ben-David has the unlimited resources of the United States Federal Government, backed by a second attorney, James L. May, of the Internal Revenue Service in Nashville, Tennessee, who is also assigned to this case. When considering the methodologies employed by these attorneys and Agent Crosby and when reviewing all of the circumstances surrounding this case, it’s hard to dispute Respondent is being overpowered and bullied unjustifiably. The Internal Revenue Service is very articulate and thorough in their investigative work as is the legal staff at the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice in their legal research and preparation of documents but for some unknown reason when it comes to Respondent asking them to honor their obligations to answer some very basic questions they simply demand Respondent comply to their demands and ignore their obligations to comply with Respondent’s request/rights. Respondent believes he has done everything necessary to comply under the circumstances but the IRS and their associated legal staff has not. 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, Patriot respectfully requests the Court to honor Patriot’s Motion to Dismiss Petition to Enforce IRS Service Summons and Motion to Quash IRS Summons Directed To Respondent.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date I properly sent a copy of this pleading to opposing attorney.
This 22nd day of February, 2005.
Respectively submitted,
GLENN PATRIOT
Respondent Pro Se
___________________________
123 Main St.
Anytown, US 12345