PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Document Sample
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                             -F
                                                                                              '
                        THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                  ,    ,
                                                                                                      .>.
                                                                                                       2,?
                                                                                                          >




                                                                              <.   *                              -   d4
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                                                                   t*        8'
                                                                                                                           CJd7.
                                 TAMPA DIVISION                                    2,.
                                                                                         *
                                                                                         ,        ,                          J.
                                                                                                  ',' '
                                                                                                      .       I
                                                                                                                      '        L$
                                                                                                          (,,:,           -
                                 Case No. 8:05-cv-01015

                              Honorable Susan C. Bucklew

                                    David Bosset, et al.,

                                          Plaintiffs
                                    Jointly and Severally




                       Internal Revenue Service, a private corporation,
                                   Acting through agents,
                                       Mark Everson,
                                     John Does 1 - 100,
                                     Jane Does 1 - 100,
                                           et al.,

                                         Defendants



Contact Pro Se Plaintiff,
acting group spokesperson,
David Bosset
10352 Lafoy Road
Spring Hill, Florida 34608
Hernando County
Phone 1-352-683-2874


                 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

   Texas.

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

   DOJ.

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

  supra.

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