THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
United States of America, )
vs. ) CASE NO.06-000
Bob Freeman, and ) Opposition to Report
Karen Freeman, ) and Recommendation
Defendants, ) of Magistrate
Defendants above-named hereby file their Objection to the Report and Declaration
of the Magistrate dated March 19, 2007.
- The Magistrate erred in holding that the Anti-Injunction Act barred a lawsuit under
IRC sections 7432 and 7433. However, US Congress passes these remedial statues in
the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights II approximately sixty years after the Anti-Injunction
Act. Every single congressman was either a lawyer or had a lawyer on his staff.
Every single supporter and advocate of these two federal bounties knew that any
new law would automatically repeal any conflicting old law or automatically amplify
or supplement any pre-existing legislation. Therefore, the enactors of these new
laws did not feel that express language needed to be placed in the new law explaining
the exemption from IRC 7421
- Clearly the Anti- Injunction Act does not apply as these laws are clearly an exemption
and clearly waive sovereign immunity.
- The IRS claims exemption from the law because they violated another law by not sending
the victims the Notices of Federal Tax Lien. IRC 6320 mandates that the tax collectors
send to the victims within 5 days a copy of (1) the NFTL and (2) their Notice of
the Right to CDP Hearing.
- The essence of the Freeman’s counterclaim is that the IRS did not send the required
notices. Since the two mandatory notices were not sent, the two-year statue of Limitations
of the lawsuit in the counterclaim does run at all. Therefore, no two-year limitations
exist in this case.
- Or, the two-year limitation does not begin to run until the victims receive notice
of the NFTL or discover them. The Freeman received notification for some of these
liens when they receive the lawsuit and notice of others when they stumbled upon
them when they were at the courthouse several months prior to the lawsuit. IRS should
not profit from their wrongdoing.
- In conclusion, the Magistrate’s recommendation should be dismissed by this court
and the Defendants receive the relief which they sought.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify I sent properly a copy of this
pleading to opposing counsel on this date.
Date: March 29, 2007