US District Court
District of South Carolina

United States of America}
  Plaintiff                                         }       No. 05cv2734-hmh
Vs.                                                 } Reply to Response in Opposition to Motion 
                                                    }              for New Trial                         
Robert Clarkson, individually                       }
and dba The Patriot Network                         }
    Defendants                                      }          

Pursuant to Federal Rules, Defendant Robert Clarkson hereby files this Reply to Government’s Response in Opposition to Clarkson’s Motion for New Trial dated January 17, 2006 based on the following reasons:

1.      The Magistrate judge signed an order (docket entity 20) classifying The Patriot Network as a separate entity then ordering it to retain counsel. The Magistrate did this on his own without prompting from the DOJ. Clarkson timely filed a motion for a reconsideration (docket entry 25/26) of this “sua sponte” order.

2.      Previously Clarkson had filed his Special Appearance (docket entry 14) stating very clearly and distinctly the IRS had not served The Patriot Network. Clarkson alleged that the Return of Service from the US Marshall was altered. As anyone can see, the Return of Service form dated 10/17/05 (attached) states very clearly that one summons and complaint were delivered to Defendant Robert Clarkson, and nothing was served on the Patriot Network. No Return of Service form was filled out for The Patriot Network. Beyond any shadow of a doubt The Patriot Network, as a separate entity, has not been served and therefore is not included in this case.

3.      If the Patriot Network has not been served, then this court has no jurisdiction over the Patriot Network and the court order mandating retained counsel for the Patriot Network is a nullity. Without service on The Patriot Network (if a separate entity), the Court has no power and any order pertaining to the Patriot Network (if a separate entity) is naught.

4.      In the complaint against Clarkson, the Government alleges he is liar and a fraud artist, one who cannot be relied upon. However, the said Opposition to Clarkson’s Motion for New Trial is based entirely on the words of R. Clarkson, who the Government now states, is believable and totally correct in his pleadings.

5.      Therefore, Clarkson’s earlier Motion for New Trial should be granted. After a hearing, which includes opportunity for both sides to present their final position, the court should make a decision pertaining to the service and status of The Patriot Network.

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

___________________________                                    Date: 29 Jan 06

Robert Clarkson
515 Concord Ave
Anderson SC 29621