Docstoc

S District Court Summons in a Criminal Case Blank Legal Form in New York

Document Sample
S District Court Summons in a Criminal Case Blank Legal Form in New York Powered By Docstoc
					                                    Robert A. McNeil
                                    4400 Memorial Dr. #1200
                                      Houston, Texas 77007
                                         713-806-5199


September 13, 2007


Mr. Roger Caris
Revenue Officer
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
8701 S. Gessner, STOP5433HAL
Houston, Texas 77074

Subject: SECOND Response to Summons

Dear Mr. Caris:

I received a letter from R. Scott Shieldes, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, dated August 16,
2007, entitled “Enforcement of Summons” (see Exhibit A). In that letter, he stated:

      That I had failed to fully comply with a summons to appear in your office at 10:00am on
       August 10, 2007 and provide all documents and records I possess or control about
       income I received for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006;
      That he had been requested to institute proceedings against me in the United States
       District Court to secure an order directing me to appear and to provide the requested
       information;
      That I am ordered to appear before you on September 14, 2007, at 10:00am at 6701 S.
       Gessner, Houston, Texas 77074 and produce the books, records, or other documents
       called for in the summons at that time, and;
      That, if I fail to fully comply with the summons, he will immediately proceed to file an
       action against me in the United States District Court.

As you are no doubt aware, I responded to the summons with a 24-page letter, dated August 9,
2007, delivered to you, via courier, on August 10, 2007 (see Exhibit B).

In that letter, I demanded that you provide evidence of your authority to take action against me
by completing and returning to me an “Affidavit of Authority”. The Affidavit contains the
following 10 questions, with instructions:

“Please fill out the following Affidavit and return by certified mail to Robert A. McNeil within 10
days. You may fill out only those items that you are prepared to swear to or affirm. You may
refuse certain items by drawing a line through the items and initialing those items in the margin.
Page 2

Please be notified that if you refuse to swear to or affirm any of the listed items, relying on your
5th amendment rights of not being compelled to testify against yourself, that such refusal shall be
the equivalent of standing mute and the court will be forced to make its determinations based on
the sworn testimony and evidence provided by Robert A. McNeil.

   1) I understand that Robert A. McNeil is a citizen of Texas and the United States and is not
      engaged in a corporate activity and is not liable for the income tax under the corporate
      income (excise) tax and does not have earnings from foreign sources.

   2) Robert A. McNeil is liable for the individual income tax, that is a direct tax on his
      property, levied without the Apportionment provision of the U.S. Constitution.

   3) IRC section 7608 or section _________ authorizes agents with my title to perform
      collection actions under subtitle A and C.

   4) I certify that I am duly delegated to issue Notices of Lien and Levy by Delegation Order
      number ____________ from the Secretary.

   5) My delegation orders from the Secretary to perform collection actions under IRC Section
      6331 are listed in delegation order number(s) ________________.

   6) I am authorized to take collection actions against Robert A. McNeil, under the authority
      of the 16th Amendment without the constitutional requirements of Apportionment. I
      understand that Robert A. McNeil is not operating as a corporate entity and has not
      received taxable income under the definition of “income” in the 16th Amendment, as
      stated by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

   7) The Internal Revenue Service has the lawful authority under subtitle A to require Robert
      A. McNeil to file 1040s and require him to include his sources of income as if those
      sources were “income” defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

   8) The Internal Revenue Service has the lawful authority to require Robert A. McNeil to file
      form 1040s under penalty of perjury for any and all years in question and this would not
      violate Robert A. McNeil’s Constitutional protections.

   9) Our lawful authority to impose an individual direct tax without Apportionment, that
      makes Robert A. McNeil liable for the individual income tax, is the Internal Revenue
      Code, section _______, paragraph(s) ________, and regulation number ___________,
      paragraph ________ of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26.

   10) I further certify that the IRS is acting under all lawful and correct collection
       procedures.”

You failed to complete and return the Affidavit to me.
Page 3

In fact, this is the second time you have refused to provide evidence of your authority to take
action against me. The first instance occurred when you refused to respond to my March 16,
2007 letter, in which I provided the first copy of the Affidavit for you to complete (see Exhibit
C).

Although you failed to complete the Affidavit, you made the effort to detach the Affidavit from
my letter and return the original, blank Affidavit to me, staple holes intact, in an obvious act of
defiance. Your actions clearly demonstrate bad faith in dealing with the matters before us today.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your authority or to respond to the issues raised in my letters,
however, is consistent with the actions of other IRS employees, as well, as shown below:

        Jan Sinclair, Operations Manager, Automatic Substitute For Return (ASFR),
         Holtsville, New York, who refused to provide evidence of authority or respond to the
         issues raised in my letters dated August 25, 2005 and January 21, 2006.
        Scott Prentky, Field Director, Compliance Services, Ogden, Utah, who, in effect,
         referred to the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings as “frivolous” and
         refused to respond to the issues raised in my letter dated August 25, 2005.
        Larry Leder, Operations Manager, Automated Collection System (ACS), Bensalem,
         Pennsylvania, who refused to provide evidence of authority or respond to the issues
         raised in my letter dated September 13, 2006.
        Mary Hannah, Operations Manager, Automated Collection System (ACS), Bensalem,
         Pennsylvania, who refused to provide evidence of authority or respond to the issues
         raised in my letter dated February 12, 2007.
        Theresa Harley, Operations Manager, Collection, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who
         refused to provide evidence of authority or respond to the issues raised in my letter
         dated February 12, 2007.

The silence and evasion exhibited by you and the above-referenced IRS employees clearly
demonstrate a pattern of bad faith dealing and occurred in spite of the fact that I served notice to
all parties of the following case law, which requires me to know the authority of the agent who is
taking such action:

State ex rel McConnell v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 124 S.W.2d 726, 733 (1938):
Bank insolvency case:

    "All persons dealing with public officers are bound to take notice of the law
    prescribing their authority and powers."

Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1940):

    "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are
    defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does
    not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with
    knowledge of the extent of their authority," 113 F.2d, at 286.
Page 4

Section 1132.55 of the Internal Revenue Manual (entitled “Criminal Investigation Division”)
begins as follows:

    “The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to
    income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws …involving United States
    citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal
    income tax filing requirements…” [IRM, Section 1132.55 (1991 Ed.)]

The decision reached in the case of Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc. 713 F.2d
1405 (9th Cir. 1983) states in part,

    "When and if IRS Personnel are notified to irregularities, protests, objections, etc., it
    is up to the officer or agent to prove authority." If the IRS officer or agent fails to
    prove authority when challenged, s/he may be held liable, without immunity, if it later
    proves that there were in fact, procedural flaws and authority was imposed without
    the force of law.

Per Ryder v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, I am required to
initiate a direct challenge to authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government
officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoid implications of de facto
officer doctrine. When challenged, those posing as government officers and agents are required
to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim.

In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages.
See particularly, the former 26 U.S.C. § 7804(b), now published in notes following § 7801. Per
26 U.S.C. § 7214(a), if and when IRS personnel exceed authority prescribed by law, or fail to
carry out duties imposed by law, they are criminally liable.

Now comes my SECOND response to the Summons.

In my letter of August 9, 2007, I noted that the summons was issued under authority of 26 USC
7602, 7603, 7604, 7605, and 7210, which relate to activities involving alcohol, tobacco products
and firearms.

Fully convinced that I have never been engaged in such activities, I responded with the following
statement:

    “I, Robert A. McNeil, state, unequivocally, that I have not now, nor have I ever been,
    engaged in any business activity related to alcohol, tobacco products, or firearms.
    Therefore, I have no documents responsive to the Summons.”

I have no “income” related to the activities under which the Summons was issued.

I stand by that statement today.
Page 5

You failed to refute my claims or even respond to that letter, choosing, instead to contact the
U.S. Department of Justice to initiate proceedings against me in United States District Court.

From my research, I noted that the IRS relies primarily on United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48
(1964) to determine the validity of a Summons. In that case, the Court held that the IRS did not
have to satisfy any standard of probable cause in order to issue a valid summons. All that the
Government must show is that the summons meets all of the following four criteria:

    1.   The summons is issued for a legitimate purpose;
    2.   The summons seeks information that may be relevant to that purpose;
    3.   The summons seeks information that is not already within the IRS's possession; and
    4.   The summons satisfies all administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code.

The Summons seeks all documents and records I possess or control about “income” I received
for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

I contend that the Summons fails to meet the criteria required in United States v Powell
379 U.S. 48 (1964), as follows:

1. The summons is issued for a legitimate purpose.

    I have no “income” subject to any income tax law, and the IRS knows it. I say this with
    certainty because I have served notice to the IRS, on numerous occasions, of the following
    court cases supporting my position:

            Butcher's Union vs. Cresent City, 111 US 746, 756 (1884)
            Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 629 (1895)
            Flint vs. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107, 151 - 152 (1911)
            U.S. vs. Whitridge, 231 US 144, 147 (1913)
            Stratton's Independence, 231 US 399, 417 (1913)
            Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509, 518 - 519 (1921)
            Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 12 (1916)
            Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103, 112 -114 (1916)
            Doyle vs. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918)
            Peck vs. Lowe, 247 US 165, 173 (1918)
            Southern Pacific vs. Lowe, 247 US 330, 335 (1918)
            Evans vs. Gore, 253 US 245, 263 (1920)
            Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920)
            Bowers vs. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174 (1926)
            Jerome H. Sheip Co. vs. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 (1930)
            Redfield vs. Fisher, 135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (Ore. 1930)
            Helvering vs. Edison Brothers, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)
            U.S. vs. Ballard, 535 F2d 400 (1976)

    Further information regarding these cases can be found in “Exhibit F” attached.
Page 6

    It should be noted that the IRS’ consistent response to legal arguments based on these cases
    is to refer to them as “frivolous” and to contend that they have no basis in law. When
    challenged in court, the U.S. Attorneys consistently cite U.S. Tax Court cases and
    unpublished lower court decisions to refute the U.S. Supreme Court cases, in clear violation
    of “stare decisis”, the doctrine of precedence under which a court must follow earlier judicial
    decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.

    Given the overwhelming evidence that I have no “income” subject to any income tax
    law, the Summons is invalid because the IRS has knowingly and fraudulently issued the
    Summons for no legitimate purpose.

2. The summons seeks information that may be relevant to that purpose.

    As stated in the paragraph above, I have provided overwhelming evidence that I have no
    “income” subject to any income tax law, and the IRS has knowingly and fraudulently issued
    the Summons for no legitimate purpose.

    The Summons is, therefore, invalid, because there is no relevant purpose for seeking
    information regarding “income” not subject to any income tax law.

3. The summons seeks information that is not already within the IRS's possession.

    U.S. Attorney Manual Title 6 Tax Resource Manual 27 sets forth the requirements necessary
    to satisfy the third Powell requirement as follows:

         The IRS must show that the summoned information is not already in the IRS'
         possession. As noted above, the simple statement in the IRS agent's declaration that
         the summoned information is not in the possession of the IRS is sufficient to shift the
         burden of proof to the party opposing enforcement to come forward with evidence to
         the contrary.

    The Summons seeks records and documents supporting “income” I may have received for
    the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In reviewing the Summons, I noted that you had
    attached eight (8) pages of documents that appeared to have been extracted from the IRS’
    computer files.

    The header on each document indicates that they were extracted on July 24, 2007 on Station
    Name: HUS026MA2621481 using Document Type “1099-MISC” as the search criteria.
    Each document shows the “Payer Identity Data” and “Non-Employee Compensation”
    amounts for tax years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

    These documents provide clear and convincing evidence that the IRS already has in its
    possession all information necessary to determine “income” for the tax years 2003, 2004,
    2005, and 2006, as stated in the Summons.
Page 7

    I have reason to believe that you made a false and misleading statement to the U.S. Attorney
    that the summoned information is not in the possession of the IRS, thereby rendering the
    Summons unenforceable.

    Therefore, the Summons is invalid and “unnecessary” because it fails to satisfy the
    requirement that the information sought is not already within the IRS’ possession, as
    set forth in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964).

4. The summons meets all administrative requirements

    26 USC 7602(c) sets forth the requirement that, prior to the issuance of a Summons, the IRS
    must notify me of contact with third parties with respect to the determination or collection of
    a tax liability, as follows:

         (c) Notice of contact of third parties
              (1) General notice
              An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may not contact any person
              other than the taxpayer with respect to the determination or collection of the tax
              liability of such taxpayer without providing reasonable notice in advance to the
              taxpayer that contacts with persons other than the taxpayer may be made.
              (2) Notice of specific contacts
              The Secretary shall periodically provide to a taxpayer a record of persons contacted
              during such period by the Secretary with respect to the determination or collection
              of the tax liability of such taxpayer. Such record shall also be provided upon
              request of the taxpayer. (Emphasis added).
              (3) Exceptions
              This subsection shall not apply—
                 (A) to any contact which the taxpayer has authorized;
                 (B) if the Secretary determines for good cause shown that such notice would
                 jeopardize collection of any tax or such notice may involve reprisal against any
                 person; or
                 (C) with respect to any pending criminal investigation.

    Further, U.S. Attorney Manual Title 6 Tax Resource Manual 27 sets forth the requirements
    necessary to satisfy the fourth Powell requirement as follows:

         The fourth element of the Powell test is that the IRS comply with the administrative
         steps required by the Code. These steps include service on the summoned party and,
         in the case of a third-party summons, notice to any person identified in the summons.

         Courts occasionally have excused minor failures to comply with the required
         administrative steps provided that the taxpayer has not been prejudiced thereby.
         United States v. Texas Heart Inst., 755 F.2d 469, 478 (5th Cir. 1985) (provided that
         the taxpayer has had "every benefit of the administrative steps required by the Code,
         a failure by the IRS to meet the technical niceties of the statute will not bar
         enforcement") (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds, United States v.
         Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Privitera, 75 A.F.T.R.2d
Page 8

         (RIA) 1266, 1266 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Minor violations will be excused where the IRS
         acts in good faith and there is no prejudice to the taxpayer."). (Emphasis added)

         But even though the Sixth Circuit allowed enforcement of a summons despite a
         nonprejudicial administrative deficiency, it cautioned that it expected the IRS to
         strictly adhere to all administrative niceties in future cases. See Cook v. United
         States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997). In other words, "technical" violations should
         be not treated lightly. (Emphasis added)

I acknowledge notice of third party contact under 7602(c), as evidenced in your letter dated
February 9, 2007 (copy included in Exhibit C attached). I call your attention to the last
paragraph of that letter, which reads as follows:

    “If you have any questions regarding this letter or wish to request a list of contacts,
    please do not hesitate to contact us at the telephone number listed above.”

In all of my dealings with the IRS, I prefer to use written correspondence, as stated in my March
16, 2007 response to your letter (see Exhibit C attached):

    “It is apparent that the Internal Revenue Service is gathering evidence for future legal
    action against me, so I would prefer to communicate with all IRS personnel in writing
    from this day forward.”

Further, I made the following request, as provided for in 26 USC 7602(c)(2):

    “So, please let this letter serve as my formal request to be provided with a list of all
    persons contacted by any employee, contractor, agent, officer, or other representative
    of the Internal Revenue Service, along with the name(s) and employee number(s) of any
    employee(s), contractor(s), agent(s), officer(s) or other representative(s) of the Internal
    Revenue Service who contacted them.”

To date, you have failed to provide the information requested, in clear violation of 26 USC
7602(c)(2).

The Summons, therefore, is invalid because it fails the fourth Powell test that it “meets all
administrative requirements”.


Which, for a second time, leads me to the subject of Constructive Notice:

    Constructive Notice: Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts
    and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of... notice presumed by law
    to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person. (Black's Law
    Dictionary, Seventh Edition)
Page 9

Constructive Notice serves to inform a party of the existence of facts and circumstances that a
party had duty to take notice of. It also serves to deny the informed party the defense that he/she
had no knowledge of the facts and circumstances relevant to the issues at hand.

Which, for a second time, leads me to the subject of fraud:

You are hereby NOTICED of the definition of the word “fraud”:

    “A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to
    induce another to act to his or her detriment.” Black’s Law Dictionary ~ Third
    Pocket Edition ~ 2006, page 300.

Further,

    Fraud: “Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of
    another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal
    right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and
    accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth,
    or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An
    affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the
    future. McInnes v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.”

    Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). “Fraud and deceit may
    arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an
    untruth.”

    McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307:
    “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate
    concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public
    official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material
    information from them he is guilty of fraud.”

It is well established in American jurisprudence that:

    “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91
    U.S 426; “Fraud vitiates everything”, Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210; “Fraud vitiates
    the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments,” U.S. v. Throckmorton,
    98 U.S. 61.

You are hereby NOTICED that, without proper authority, the Summons issued by the
Commissioner, through you, is fraudulent and, therefore, null and void.

You are hereby NOTICED that it is fraud for an IRS agent to impersonate a criminal
investigator of the Intelligence Division, and fraud vitiates everything that it enters into,
including this summons. You have failed to provide evidence of your authority to act as a
criminal investigator in the Intelligence Division.
Page 10

You are hereby NOTICED of the following case law related to the search and seizure of private
books and papers:

    BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616, 623 (1886): "The search for and seizure of stolen or
    forfeited goods, or goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment thereof,
    are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man's private books and
    papers for the purpose of obtaining information therein contained, or of using them
    as evidence against him. The two things differ toto coelo. In the one case, the
    government is entitled to the possession of the property; in the other it is not."
    "Papers are the owner's goods and chattels; they are his dearest property, and are so
    far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the
    eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are
    removed and erried away the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of
    the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect. Where is the
    written law that gives any magistrate such a power? I can safely answer, there is
    none; and therefore it is too much for us, without such authority, to pronounce a
    practice legal which would be subversive of all the comforts of society.", at 628.

It appears that there is no written law giving you the power to search for and seize my
personal books and records.

You are hereby NOTICED of the following U.S. Supreme Court case, setting forth the essential
elements of tax evasion and willful failure to file, which the Government is required to prove:

    CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991): Willfulness, as construed by our
    prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the (1)
    law imposed a duty on the defendant, (2) that the defendant knew of this duty, and (3)
    that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. There are three essential
    elements to the crime of tax evasion, namely (1) willfulness; (2) existence of a tax
    deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of
    the tax. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, at 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, at 1010 (1965);
    United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d
    1172, at 1174 (7th Cir. 1984); and United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, at 687 (9th Cir.
    1991); United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Lawn v.
    United States, 355 U.S. 339, at 361, 78 S.Ct. 311 (1958.

You are hereby NOTICED of the recent case against Tommy K. Cryer (Case #06-50164-01),
involving tax evasion and willful failure to file. After two years of investigation and preparation,
the Department of Justice attorneys withdrew the felony tax evasion charges at the start of the
trial. In addition, the U.S. Attorneys could not provide the “law” that made the defendant liable
for the Federal Income Tax. As a result, Mr. Cryer was acquitted by the jury of the charges of
willful failure to file. This case was decided on July 13, 2007.

United States v. Tommy K. Cryer
No. 06-50164-01
Western District of Louisiana
Shreveport Division
Page 11

Apparently, Mr. Cryer did a good job of explaining to the jury what he read in the Brushaber,
Stanton, and Eisner Supreme Court cases about the legal meaning of the word "income" and
what he read in the Internal Revenue Code - everything but the law that required him to file. He
had asked the IRS to show him the law that made him liable, but the IRS did not respond.

In the Tommy Cryer case, as well as others, the Department of Justice attorneys committed fraud
by claiming that these Supreme Court cases had been overturned by Tax Court cases and by
unpublished decisions.

In truth, these Supreme Court cases have never been overturned and support the fact that the
following clauses of the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting a direct un-apportioned tax, remains in
full force and effect today.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective
Numbers…..”

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

You are hereby NOTICED of the numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases prohibiting a direct tax
on the citizens of the United States without apportionment according to the census, as set forth in
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. (Please see Exhibit F)

The conclusion to be reached by this discussion is that there is no law requiring me or any
other U.S. citizen to file a tax return or pay Federal Income Taxes.

If you have knowledge of such a law, you will be required to state it when we appear in U.S.
District Court.

Which brings me to the following:

Mr. Shieldes’ letter of August 16 closed with the following statement:

    “Please be assured that if you again fail to fully comply with the summons, we will
    immediately proceed to file an action against you in United States District Court.”

While the prospect of coercive fines and imprisonment causes me a great deal of concern, I am
prepared to demonstrate in Court that the Summons is invalid because it fails to meet the
requirements set forth in Powell, thereby rendering it invalid and unenforceable.

Which brings me to your Oath of Office.
Page 12

Title 5 USC Part III Subpart B Chapter 33 Subchapter II § 3331 sets forth the oath required by
Civil Servants, including IRS Revenue Officers such as you, as follows:

    § 3331. Oath of office
    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit
    in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do
    solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
    States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
    allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
    or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
    office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Your silence and evasion in addressing the facts of this case; your failure to recognize the
numerous Supreme Court cases supporting my position; and your complete disregard for the
U.S. Constitution, all constitute a clear violation of your oath of office, thereby negating your
authority to take any action against me.

Now, this section of my response is directed to Mr. Shieldes.

Mr. Shieldes, you are hereby NOTICED of the Local Rules of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas. You are obviously admitted to the bar of this Court and have
been assigned Texas Bar No. 38944. In accordance with Section LR83.1 Admission to
Practice, you were required to take the following oath:

    LR83.1.I Oath. On admission, the lawyer will take this oath before any judicial officer of
    the United States:

    I do solemnly swear [affirm] that I will discharge the duties of attorney and counselor
    of this court faithfully, that I will demean myself uprightly under the law and the highest
    ethics of our profession, and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
    United States.

Should you proceed with further actions against me, you will find yourself defending the
fraudulent actions of the Internal Revenue Service, which will place you in the unenviable
position of a being an “accessory to fraud”, in direct conflict with the ethics of your profession
and the very Constitution you took an oath to support and defend. Your actions will constitute a
“Serious Crime”, defined in Part 1.Z of the General Rules of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, as follows:

    “Serious Crime” means barratry; any felony involving moral turpitude; any
    misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation
    of money or other property, or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to
    commit any of the foregoing crimes.”
Page 13

Such actions will subject you to the sanctions provided for in such rules, including:

         Disbarment.
         Resignation in lieu of discipline.
         Indefinite Disability suspension.
         Suspension for a term certain.

The term “Sanction” may also include the following additional ancillary requirements:

     Restitution (which may include repayment to the Client Security Fund of the State Bar of
      any payments made by reason of Respondent’s Professional Misconduct); and

     Payment of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and all direct expenses associated with the
      proceedings.

Mr. Caris and Mr. Shieldes, proceed as you will, but, you are hereby NOTICED that I intend to
vigorously defend myself as a Pro Se litigant and will exercise all of my rights under the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the numerous Supreme
Court cases I have cited, as well as Miranda (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 1966).

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
    free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
    the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
    grievances.
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
    shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
    particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
    a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
    naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
    nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
    or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
    private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:591
posted:7/22/2011
language:English
pages:79
Description: S District Court Summons in a Criminal Case Blank Legal Form in New York document sample