IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD PATRIOT; ) SHERRIE PATRIOT, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants ) ) v. ) Civil No. 1:08XXX ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al, ) ) Defendants/Counterclaimants ) ________________________________________)
1. On September 16, 2008, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for maximum damages based on two alleged reasons: (1) that Plaintiffs’ motion is a rehash of arguments on a tax-defier website”; and (2) “Plaintiffs have failed to provide any admissible evidentiary support for their specious motion.”
I. Plaintiffs’ motion for maximum damages is valid and justified
2. For anyone who had read U.S. Supreme Court cases and the opinion of other courts, it is very evident in certain instances that the courts reflect on the legislative or congressional intent that underlie the law in question. Courts would take that intent into consideration while making their judgment.
3. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ motion for maximum damages included in its introduction a reflection on Congressional intent. Plaintiffs and their attorney are not simply relaying their own views in that introduction. They are relying what they believe to be Congressional intent that underlie the reasoning behind awarding damages.
4. If the Department of Justice has a difference of opinion with that intent, its lawyers could address their views with members of Congress and can tell them that Congressional intent is “replete with hyperbole.”
5. Second, the fact that the introduction has been used in a different case (represented also by Plaintiffs’ attorney) is irrelevant to the issue. It is merely a reflection of what Congress intended and can be applied to any case where damages are an issue.
6. Third, whether a certain document is posted on a patriotic website or any other website is also irrelevant to the case. What is at issue are the facts presented, not where certain statements are published.
7. Fourth, the case cited in Defendants’ Opposition has no relevance to the case at hand. The only suggestion Defendant made is that since a so-called “tax-defier” had posted some statement or document, then anyone using excerpts of that statement is also a “tax-defier” – hence labeling Plaintiffs as “tax-defier plaintiffs.” Based on Defendants’ reasoning, anyone who quotes Plato must be a philosopher.
8. The IRS cannot abuse its authority, violate its written standards, and then accuse anyone who objects to its violations as a “defier.” What many people are defying is illegality, not lawful taxes.
9. Fifth, Defendant never defined “tax-defier” and showed the court how it applies to Plaintiffs before labeling them as such. When the IRS or the government is faced with a challenge, it is customary to begin some type of an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the argument and show where the facts are false, they instead accuse Plaintiffs of being “tax-defiers”, their complaint of being “frivolous”, their argument of being “specious” and “replete with hyperbole.” Regardless of what these words mean, if they are true then why Defendants have not won the case yet? That is because their arguments are of lower quality than the accusations made.
10. Sixth, in all its rhetoric, the Department of Justice never said what specifically in Plaintiffs’ motion is false. To simply say that a motion is specious or frivolous without offering specific reasons on what facts are false is by itself a frivolous argument.
11. If the facts presented by Plaintiffs are inaccurate, then what is preventing the Department of Justice from acquiring a sworn declaration from the IRS Commissioner denying every fact claimed by Plaintiffs and offer supporting evidence?
12. In their motion for maximum damages, Plaintiffs did clearly outline the violations committed by the IRS in this case. More importantly, Defendants’ Opposition did not refute Plaintiffs’ request for maximum damages of $1,000,000. Defendants never offered a single argument that such request is not permitted or deserved.
13. Plaintiffs do seek the maximum damages requested, along with attorney fees and costs and other relief permitted by law.
II. Defendants’ citation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is misplaced
14. Plaintiffs filed a motion for maximum damages, not a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs violated Rule 56 in not enclosing affidavits is misplaced.
15. Even if that rule applies, Rule 56(a) clearly states that a party claiming relief may move with or without supporting affidavits.
16. However, according to Rule 56(e)(2), the opposing party “must” set out specific facts.
17. If Rule 56 applies, then Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Maximum Damages, filed on September 16, 2008, should be dismissed because it was not properly made and supported according to Rule 56(e)(2). It is mostly based on general allegations. It did not rebut specific facts outlined by Plaintiffs; it contained no attachments or declarations to disprove Plaintiffs’ factual allegations.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court do grant the relief herein requested and other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Patriot Attorney___________________ Date: September 22, 2008 Arlington, VA 22209-2004
I hereby certify that on or about September 22, 2008 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following via the Court’s ECF filing Protocol:
Benjamin J. Weir, Esq.
Department of Justice