US District Court 
                      District of South Carolina 
United States of America,    )
  Plaintiff                  )      No. 8:05cv2734-hmh       
		Vs.                    )    
Robert Clarkson,             )     Motion for New Trial 
And The Patriot Network      )            
   Defendant                 )

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59, Defendant Robert Clarkson aka The Patriot Network hereby files his motion for New Trial of the Judge’s Order dated July 3, 2007.

  1. Judge Herlong ruled against Clarkson on both the avoidance activities or Untaxing which he did not actively contest and the “interference activities” which in this case could be called Judgment Proofing.
  2. The Judge’s order on the facts and the law of the “avoidance activities” was clear and distinct. However, the Government did not prove any profit by the Patriot Network which is necessary to prove the commercial speech exception to the First Amendment.
  3. Both the Judge and the Magistrate showed a good understanding of Patriot Network activities and the facts in this case but both surprising appeared to have no understanding of the financial operations of a penniless political action group.
  4. The Magistrate was correct that the Government had not proven two essential facts. However, the District Court relied on case law from other cases that at first glance seemed to be similar to instant case. However those other “Patriot Groups” used those arguments which have long been classified as “frivolous and groundless” or tax protestor pleadings, but Clarkson in thirty years never has done this. The Patriot Network legal assistance is similar to a highly qualified CPA or tax lawyer but low cost or free.
  5. In the other cases, the Judges were referring to harassment pleadings or unacceptable legal work. Taxpayers who hire a tax lawyer do not cause “irreparable harm” to the tax service even though the legal process is slow and expensive to all parties.
  6. However, Clarkson’s reason for this Motion for Reconsideration is that the Judge’s order pertaining to interference is unclear, uncertain and confusing. The Magistrate’s Recommendation was much clearer and should have been used by the court, after some improvement in wordage. A hearing would have been helpful to all parties.
  7. Clarkson’s requests that this court redraw the injunction on “interference activities”, possibly using some input from the DOJ, etc. No precedent exists on this issue to guide the injunction writer, the enjoined one and the DOJ which will prosecute said enjoined one because parts of the order have double meanings.
  8. The court order is also too broad and covers legal activities. Attached is a flyer from an insurance company and a financial planner advertising judgment proofing for seniors seeking to hide their assets from hospitals and nursing homes. Why doesn’t the IRS try to shut them down?
  9. As previously stated, the FBI under an illegal search warrant raided the Patriot Network office and seized the names and addresses of persons who purchased material concerning federal taxes. Defendant requests that this court order the FBI to return to him the names and addresses seized. The FBI dismantlement program is illegal anyway.
  10. The statute relied upon the Government contains a number of criteria for the injunction. One essential requirement is the government must prove false and fraudulent statements by defendant. Clarkson’s advice on “interference activities” is straight out of the law books and not political statements. For example Clarkson says if you do not have a bank account, the IRS cannot seize it. This type of information is true and correct. The government has not stated that any of the information on interference is false and fraudulent nor has the Judge found such.
  11. The Government is not entitled to any costs because for three years they refused any settlement. The Judge’s final order is almost what Clarkson agreed to when he met with the IRS several years ago.
  12. On July 5, the clerk of court signed and mailed his Judgment in a Civil Case which is a copy of the injunction part of the order. Defendants request a re-hearing of this Judgment also. Should not this final judgment be signed and filed after the time had expired for filing a motion to alter Judgment and appeal?
  13. The order was signed on July 3, 2007, mailed on July 5, and postmarked July 6, 2007. Also included in the envelope was a Judgment in Civil Case signed by the Clerk of Court dated July 5, 2007. Clarkson did not receive this courts order until the evening of July 7, 2007. Clarkson at this time has substantially complied with the court order but is having some difficulties.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel by regular U.S.mail.

___________________________                                    Date: July 17, 2007 
Robert Clarkson
515 Concord Ave
Anderson, SC 29621