UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) Case No. 8:xxx
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
Jeanne Patriot )
)
Defendant )
)
____________________________________________________)
OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO GRANT PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF LEVY UPON
A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE
OCTOBER 2, 2008 HEARING
Comes Now Jeanne Patriot to file in this court of record, her objection to Counsel to the Plaintiff’s MOTION TO GRANT PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF LEVY UPON A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 2, 2008 HEARING .
I. Defendant hereby files objection to this latest motion filed by the IRS on the grounds that:
A. Defendant, in her filed Objection to the PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF LEVY UPON A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, has fully answered all three assertions of Plaintiff’s, and sees no reason to repeat the content of her objections here.
B. Counsel to the Plaintiff has stated in its filings in this case that that no reasonable alternative for the collection of the taxpayer’s debt exists and yet, the same Counsel for the Plaintiff communicated with Defendant by telephone on 09/10/08, (witness affidavit will be provided upon request) saying in essence (paraphrasing), “You do have an alternative for the collection of the taxpayer’s debt, but that alternative is to get a subordination of liens, so that you can borrow the money to pay this debt. I just have to collect some $35,000 from you, and if I can do that, this case doesn’t have to go to court.” He also told Defendant the form number to request from the IRS (form 784) which tells how to apply for a subordination of liens and suggested that she pursue that option. However, on two days later, 09/12/08, Plaintiff’s counsel made another filing into this case, again denying to the court that any alternative existed for collection of the debt. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. Either there is an alternative to pay debt, or there isn’t an alternative. Which is it? Defendant does not appreciate the games being played by counsel on behalf of Plaintiff.
C. The Counsel for the Plaintiff has, in the latest filing, put forth a copy of a “Statement of Assignment of Account,” and related documents which Defendant once submitted to the IRS as a possible means to discharge her “tax liability”. However, said Counsel did not include a copy of the correspondence letter, dated November 19, 2007, which Defendant sent to Ms. Linda E. Stiff, Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service [see Exhibit A], in which she explained her reasons for submitting the “tender of payment” and asked the opinion of Ms. Stiff as to the validity of said document. In that letter, she also explained that it was prepared for her by well-meaning, but possibly misguided persons, who only wanted to help her because she was being harassed by IRS personnel. Jeanne Patriot also, in that letter, specifically stated if the ‘Statement of Assignment of Account” was not a valid mechanism to discharge her “tax liability,” she thereby withdrew the “Statement of Assignment of Account” and asked that it be returned to her. The fact that the Plaintiff’s attorneys “cherry picked” selected documents to submit to the Court, and conveniently did not include copy of Jeanne Patriot’s final correspondence to Linda E. Stiff in regard to the matter, shows that the intent of these attorneys to present Defendant in the worst possible light to the Court. Defendant objects to this type of behavior, and Counsel for the Plaintiff should be admonished to cease and desist such, and to bring the focus back to the legal matter at hand.
D. Defendant was doing everything in her power to pay what the IRS said that she owed, even though she disagreed with the amount, and hereby submits a copy of her February 17, 2008, letter to Revenue Officer Bryan Morris, [see Exhibit B], explaining that she was attempting to get an equity loan on her property in order to pay the IRS, in order to stop the harassment. (Of course, every lending institution she contacted told her that with over $269,000 worth of “liens” against her property, they could not make her an equity loan.)
II. On the basis of the above and previously stated relevant facts and reasons, Jeanne Patriot hereby requests that the aforementioned PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF LEVY UPON A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE (filed by the Tax Division, US Department of Justice/ IRS) not be granted.
Respectfully submitted this 29th Day of September, 2008.
_____________________________
Jeanne Patriot
Defendant, pro se
Tampa, Florida 33603
All rights reserved without prejudice
I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed a copy of this OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF LEVY UPON A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
to the following parties by First Class Mail:
Robert E. O’Neill Stephen C. Dowdell
United States Attorney Trial Attorney, Tax Division
Middle District of Florida U.S. Department of Justice
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200 Post Office Box 14198
Tampa, Florida 33602 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
________________________ Date: September 29, 2008
Jeanne Patriot
Tampa, FL 33603
All rights reserved without prejudice.