Henry Patriot
Greenville , SC  29607

Department of the Treasury

Philadelphia , PA  19255-0025

RE: SSN ##########

Dear Tax Collectors,& 
1.        You sent me your letter stating that I was subject to back up withholding. Your Backup Withholding notice was dated Feb 26. 2007

2.        You have made a decision against my interest. You will be taking 28% of monies due to me from investment companies. This is taking of my property.

3.        The 5th amendment to the US Constitution provides: “No person shall be …… deprived of …..property without due process of law.”

4.        Therefore, I am entitled to Due Process of Law, which means I am entitled to notice, my day in court, impartial magistrate, the right to appeal, etc…

5.        Your backup withholding notification did not advise me of how and when I could have my constitutionally mandated hearing and appeal. Please send me the necessary forms and instructions so I can request my hearing and also appeal any adverse decisions against me.

6.        I hereby formally request administrative hearing/appeal of the Backup Withholding decision against me. Please advise me on the administrative procedures to carry forth these actions. Below is my position:

The Umbrella of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments

7.       Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the IRS tax assessment or Backup Withholding Notification under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.  No government agency can take any action against any citizen absent judicial intervention.  Government agents are not allowed into people's homes or people's pocketbooks without review by the independent judiciary.

8.       The seizure actions of virtually all other federal agencies are subject to judicial review. A hearing must be held prior to the agency seizing someone's property. In Fuentes v.Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 96-97 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized "the right to a prior opportunity to be heard before chattels are taken from their possessor."

        "The appellees do not suggest that these [contractual] provisions waived the appellants' right to a full post-seizure hearing to determine whether those events had, in fact, occurred and to consider any other available defenses. By the same token, the language of the purported waiver provisions did not waive the appellants' constitutional right to a pre-seizure hearing of some kind...We hold that the Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin provisions work a deprivation of property without due process of law insofar as they deny the right to a prior opportunity to be heard before chattels are taken from their possessor...Since the essential reason for the requirement of a prior hearing is to prevent unfair and mistaken deprivations of property, however, it is axiomatic that the hearing must provide a real test. "[D]ue process is afforded only by the kinds of `notice' and `hearing' that are aimed at establishing the validity, or at least the probable validity, of the underlying claim against the alleged debtor before he can be deprived of his property...." Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., at 343 (Harlan, J., concurring). See Bell v. Burson, at 540; Goldberg v. Kelly, at 267.       

 9.        In Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed "the issue of whether a post-seizure hearing is meaningful in terms of due process and deciding that a pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard is necessary absent an important governmental or public interest to the contrary" under specific circumstances.

 10.       Recent investigations of the problem have disclosed the grave injustices made possible by prejudgment garnishment whereby the sole opportunity to be heard comes after the taking [as noted by Congressman Sullivan, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs who held extensive hearings on this and related problems]...Thus, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that where the taking of one's property is so obvious, egregious, and sinister in effect, it needs no extended argument to conclude that absent notice and a prior hearing (cf. Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 423) this prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the fundamental principles of due process.

11.       Until Schulz vs. US ( Schulz II)  413 F.3d 297 (2d)NY),  95 A.F.T.R.2d 2005-3007,  2005 WL 152090  the IRS has been able to conduct seizures without judicial review. This recent ruling before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals changed how the IRS must comply with judicial review, including how it conducts administrative seizure hearings. Now the IRS also is finally constrained by the "fundamental principles of due process" and its seizure attempts are subject to review by the independent judiciary in order to protect the rights of citizens.

12.       In conclusion, this tax victim request independent judicial review of IRS’s enforcement actions.  The courts have a long string of cases requiring a judicial intervention under the due process clause before state action against a citizen. Therefore the IRS must schedule an administrative hearing to review or scrutinize the intended IRS police state activities, with a possible appeal to the federal judiciary.

____________________         March 26, 2007
 Henry Patriot