United States of America,             )
Plaintiff,                            ) 
vs.                                   )   CASE NO.06-000
Bob Patriot, and                      )   
Karen Patriot,                        )   Opposition to Motion          
Defendants,                           )    to Dismiss 

Defendants above-named hereby file their objection to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss dated February 9, 2007,to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim based on the following grounds:

  1. The DOJ lawsuit in this case is unusual and different from the other similar actions to enforce taxes liens on real estate. The Motion to Dismiss the counterclaim however is more than unusual and appears to be strange.
  2. The Government is unable to find a listing in the counterclaim of a judistricial basis and any waiver of sovereign immunity. However the counterclaim states in paragraphs 9 to 11 very clearly that this action is brought under remedial congressional legislation aka “Federal Bounty Hunter Statutes”.
    The Congress voted the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights II (IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.L.No. 105-206) to curb the IRS stomping on the middle and low-income taxpayers. Congress passed the Illegal Tax Collection Act, IRC 7433 and the Illegal Tax Lien Act IRC 7432 to authorize the victims of IRS unbridled aggression to bring suit in federal court to not only stop the brutally of the tax collectors but also to collect damages for the victims of the Service. These statues clearly and distinctly granted subject matter jurisdiction and waiver of sovereign immunity.
    The position of the DOJ is not only dead wrong but also simply outrageous. In paragraph 11 in said counterclaim the taxpayers listed numerous statutory jurisdictional laws. This action is brought under IRC 7432 and 7433, which are specific exemptions of the Anti-Injunction Act IRC 7421.
  3. The DOJ is correct that the tax victims have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies. However, the court can waive this minor procedural point in the interest of judistricial economy. Nobody wants two separate lawsuits with the same real estates, taxes, parties, court, etc. Let us bring just one lawsuit and resolved the lawsuit expeditiously. To exhaust the administrative remedies, Patriots only need to file their letters or administrative claims with the IRS for this purpose. Then they could file a separate lawsuit identical to this one. This would mean two identical lawsuits over the same property in the same court. This would be a dreadful waste of judicial economy. This court has the authority to proceed without the administrative remedies. Many of courts including Chief Justice Roberts, have ruled in other cases that the administrative requirement can be waived.
  4. Karen S. denies working during the year 1999 and denies having access to any trust fund. She does not owe any trust fund recovery penalties and requests that the IRS produce some documents or evidence to link her to any payroll withholding activity.
  5. After initial denial, the Commissioner’s attorney admitted that IRC 7432 (a) and 7433 (a) provide for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Defendants meet the requirements for this waiver. Further, defendants request not only damages (for which administrative remedies must be exhausted) but also a halt in IRS enforcement action for tax liens which are legally unenforceable, invalid, or illegal due to expiration of the Statue of Limitations or improper procedure in placing these NFTL’s. The injunction against the IRS wrongdoing does not have a prerequisite of administrative remedies.
  6. The alleged two-year limitation begins “after the date of the right of action accrues” (page 5 of said motion to dismiss). However, the IRS in violation of the law failed to notify the Patriots that the NFTL’s were filed at the courthouse against them. What are they to do? Go to the courthouse everyday for a title search? The Patriots were not aware of all that the IRS was doing until they received this lawsuit. Within a short period of time after notification of the IRS illegal liens, the Patriots filed their administrative claims to exhaust. The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this case because Congress finally had enough of the rogue agency stomping on the rights of the American people. The elected representatives of the people reigned in the bully agency with the illegal tax collection acts, which clearly are exceptions IRC 7421.
  7. In conclusion tax victims request that this court allow their counterclaim to continue to trial so that all the facts can come out at one trial and this case be disposed of based on the facts and the law.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel on this date.

February 28, 2007

Bob Patriot
Springfield, USA