No. 06-14xxxx
In the United States Court of Appeals
or the Eleventh Circuit

Ernest Patriot


The United States,
Appellee –Defendant

On Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Reply Brief of Appellant

Ernest Patriot, pro se
1776 Patriot Way
St. Petersburg, USA


Ernest Patriot,
Appellant-Petitioner,                   )        11th CCA # 06-00000-XX
                                        )        District Court #05-02xxxxCV-T-17-xxx
    vs.                                 )
The United States,                      )
Appellee-Respondent,                    )

Reply Brief of Appellant

Synopsis: The government did not deny the real issue in this case.

Appellant-Petitioner, Ernest Patriot hereby files his reply brief to the Brief for the Appellee dated

December 18, 2006, based on the following grounds:

1. The Department of Justice submitted in this case a fine and written Brief of Appellee, which gave an excellent argument to issues not involved in this case or already abandoned by taxpayer in this case. This appeal only involves one issue, which the DOJ ignored and failed to deny. Their failure to deny is in effect their admission.

2. This case now involves a number of re-filed Notice of Federal Tax Liens (NFTL), all of which were filed against taxpayer after the original liens had expired by Statue of Limitations of ten years. Therefore, these NFTL’s were re-filed under IRC 6325 (f) (2). This code section provides for the revocation of the automatic release by the SOL in certain small number of circumstances. One reason to revoke the automatic release of the NFTL is the tolling of the Statue of Limitation caused by a bankruptcy filing.

3. Normally liens are extended by the extension form; of which must be filed prior to the ten-year expiration. This extension is good for ten years. However, the reinstatement of an expired lien under IRC 6325 is only for the period of the tolling.

4. Taxpayer had in fact filed bankruptcy proceeding due to the collapse of his business and bankruptcy tolls the SoL. Tax payer made a rough estimate of the period of the bankruptcy and parallel tolling to be four years. However, the DOJ at the District Court level calculated this period to be six years, which taxpayer accepted. The lower court found that the tolling and reinstatement period was six years.

Note: the IRS now claims the period is nine years.

5. Regardless of the true time period for reinstatement, the reinstated liens listed a ten-year extension, which everybody agrees is incorrect. Since the dated was incorrect on the lien, the lien is invalid. The lower court held that the date is incorrect which can only mean that the lien is incorrect. Now the IRS claims that the lower court found the liens valid but with incorrect figures. This is not true.

6. NFTL’s with incorrect figures cannot be valid. Under the IRC, they are not enforceable. If they are not enforceable, why should they stay on record at the courthouse preventing taxpayer from the sale of real estate and paying taxes? The Judge had a duty to order the IRS to remove the invalid liens and thereby save everybody time and expense.

7. The DOJ continues to bring up the false claim of the Anti-Injunction Act. IRC 7421. This clearly does not apply because a Federal Judge has already ruled that the ten-year extension period is incorrect and thereby the re-filed liens are incorrect. What more could Patriot ask for?

8. The government claimed on page 18 of its appellee brief “Accordingly the district court explicitly found that the IRS revocations were not illegal.” However, that’s not the issue. Taxpayer does not contest the revocation itself directly. Taxpayer pointed out that the re-filed liens themselves were not valid because listed ten years rather than the correct six or nine years. The Agents are not going to do their job right and the IRS supervisors are not going to make them work properly until the independent judiciary forces them to obey the law.

9. Taxpayer has continually asked the IRS for settlement of this matter, but they refused. Then on August 10, 2006 plaintiff sent the DOJ an offer of settlement letter (attached as Exhibit A).

10. Appellant filed his Motion of new trial/ reconsideration under Rule 59 within ten days of receiving the court order through the post office.


In conclusion, the court system would serve the people better by exercising their inherent right to protect the people of the county from beaucrates who make mistakes. The congress knows that the population must support the tax system. A rogue agency trampling on the properties of the citizens would create animosities and disrespect for the agency and its otherwise valid purposes. To maintain a voluntary tax system, the independent judiciary must force the administrative agencies to strictly obey every word of a congressional enactment.

The IRS would benefit if the district court would order the removable of a liens that the found to be incorrect or invalid.

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

____________________				Date:_____________
Ernest Patriot, Plaintiff pro per
1776 Patriot Way
St. Petersburg, USA


It is hereby certified that this brief was mailed to the Clerk by First – Class Mail on this day of January 4.2007, and that service was made on Defendant-Appellee, January 4, 2007 by mailing First – Class Mail, two copies thereof in an envelope properly addressed to Assistant Attorney General as follows:

Assistant Attorney General
Eileen J. O’Connor
Kenneth L. Greene
Kathleen E. Lyon
Tax Division
Department of Justice
Post Office Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044