THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT , ,
<. * - d4
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION 2,.
, , J.
Case No. 8:05-cv-01015
Honorable Susan C. Bucklew
David Bosset, et al.,
Jointly and Severally
Internal Revenue Service, a private corporation,
Acting through agents,
John Does 1 - 100,
Jane Does 1 - 100,
Contact Pro Se Plaintiff,
acting group spokesperson,
10352 Lafoy Road
Spring Hill, Florida 34608
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ALSO CONTAINING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
Page 1 of 6
CONIES NOW, David Bosset et. a1 (Bosset) to refute and object to defendant's Motion
to Dismiss. Defendant's motion is based FRCP 12(b)(1),(2), (5) and (6) issues.
1. Rule 12(b)(l) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter Jurisdiction over subject
matter is granted by 28 U. S. C. § 1331 Federal Question and diversity of citizenship,
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Plaintiff refers this court to the
original complaint (Dkt. I). The First through the Seventh Cause of Action describe
actions by defendants that will compel the award of damages greater than $75,000.00.
diversity of citizenship further grants this Court Jurisdiction over the subject matter,
Bosset is domiciled in the state of Florida and the Defendant is restricted to the seat of
government (Washington, D.C.) By Constitutional mandate (Article one, section 8,
clause 17) and Congressional action expressed(Tit1e 4 U. S. C. 5s 7 1,72)
2. Rule 12(b)(2) lack of jurisdiction over the person The Defendant by and through its
agents regularly operate within the physical boundaries of the sovereign state of Florida
giving this court jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant and its agents.
3. Rule 12(b)(5) insufficiency of service of process. See Docket 13 and 14 regarding
proof of service. Plaintiff has filed "Notice of Service" with this court.
4. Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The first
Page 2 of 6
through seventh Causes of action state claims upon which relief can be granted. The
seventh Cause of Action pleads the VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY
MANDATED PRIVACY PROTECTION. Relief can be granted as relief has been
identified in Kris M Redy, M.D. v. Internal Revenue Service, Southern District of
Florida Case number 99-8065 and Jerry S Payne v. United States of America, originally
5. Bosset will address the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
TO DISMISS in a separate document.
Therefore, Bosset demands this court ignore the Motion to Dismiss submitted by US
Attorney Turner, furthermore Plaintiff submits the following:
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE
6. Plaintiff moves this Court to strike the answer submitted by the Department Of Justice
(DOJ) Trial Attorney Turner as no evidence appears on the record or that has been
submitted in this case by the DOJ or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that proves that
IRS is a bonafide agency of the Federal Government entitled to representation by the
7. Bosset set forth that claim in paragraph 2 of the original complaint. As stated in
paragraph 2 of the original complaint the IRS is presumed to be a private corporation
Page 3 of 6
based on the adjudged decision of the Supreme Court in CHRYSLER v. BROWN 441 U.
S. 281 (1979). With no presentment of evidence by the DOJ to refute the claim the DOJ
appears to be relying on the prejudice of this court to protect the IRS.
8. "Stare decisis" as applied in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-238 (1997); State Oil
Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3,20 (1997) - "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one
of its precedents." CHRYSLER v. BROWN, 441 U. S. 281 (1979) has not been
overridden by the U. S. Supreme Court since 1979 therefore "Stare decisis" applies
fully in this case and this Court is without authority to overrule CHRYSLER v. BROWN
9. Respectfully, this Court must set aside its previously demonstrated prejudices and strike
the answer submitted by Ms. Turner, DOJ Trial Attorney.
10.In the alternative , this Court can rule that the IRS is an agency of the Federal
Government, effectively over-ruling the U. S. Supreme Court adjudged decision in
Chyrsler v. Brown, supra. Such a decision by this Court will again bring "stare decisis"
to bear in this case, as the same Chyrsler v. Brown, supra case tells us that "substantive
regulations" must exist for a regulation to have the "force and effect of law". As such
the violations of the Privacy act provisions of Title 26 USC § 6103 have clearly been
violated, as no "substantive regulations exist to support the issuance of a "Notice of
Page 4 of 6