IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OVERTAXED
DIVISION OF FOOLS

JOE H. PATRIOT, )) CIVIL NO. # 1984Petitionervs., ))THE UNITED STATES And THE THIRD BANK OF THE U.SRespondents))) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH ) IRS SUMMONS ISSUED TO THIRD PARTIES

Joe H. Patriot, being duly sworn, deposes:

1. I am a machinist at Pushover Manufacturing Company, a father of six children and a part-time minister of the Home Church of Nondogma. For tax years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, I filed 1040 tax returns whereby I decried "the lack of a sound dollar, the equal exchange theory of income and the lack of jurisdictional by the Federal Courts over my money and my body.

Attached to the tax returns for each year were numbers of papers setting forth some of the reasons and grounds for my stance.

2. In November 1978, I filed amended tax returns for tax years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 whereby I clarified my previous objections to state that I relied solely on my Constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. For tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000, I filed a Constitutional tax return to protect my rights and because I feared prosecution by the IRS and other agencies. My attachments thereto explained the basis of my decision to refuse to witness against myself.

3. The IRS has classified, labeled and identified me as a "Tax Protestor" or some similar description.

Consequently, I have been selected for special handling, special procedures, and speeded-up investigations.

4. As a result of my filing Constitutional tax returns, the IRS has initiated a full-scale criminal investigation against me, in accordance with their procedure required by MS9G-93 and its subsequent and regional manuals. In spite of the assertions in the affidavit of Agent I. Relly Smell attached to the government’s Motion to Dismiss, the IRS is totally committed only to bring a criminal charge against me. The affidavit and petition to enforce 113 summons issued in this case are incorrect, misleading, and/or false, for the following reasons:

a. Almost every word therein is either false or grossly misleading.

b. The statement as to this being a joint investigation is false because the revenue agent was assigned only for purpose of tricking the court.

c. The IRS has abandoned its pursuit of civil tax determination, which the agent knows and has expressed in his actions.

d. The purpose is not to determine whether intervener has "sufficient gross income to require him to file," as the agents already know that.

e. In spite of Agent Smell’s “My only contacts with DOJ, were . . ." the fact is he has had numerous conversations with DOJ, as explained in Exhibits 3 & 8 and Agent Smell should be cited for contempt for denying it.

f. The IRS, with access to Interveners' W-4 forms for year in question, has already determined for themselves he is a "person required to file,” and does not need any more information.

5. Some of the reasons, which clearly indicate that this is solely a criminal, investigation; that the IRS has made an institutional commitment to prosecute; and that the IRS is only using the summons and this Court to circumnavigate the traditional function of the grand jury, include:

a. Two special agents have been assigned to this case from the beginning, since 3 Feb 97 (see letters dated 3 Feb 97 and 30 Oct 97 from Chief, CID attached as Exhibit 1 & 2) and are in total control of the case.

b. A revenue agent was only recently assigned to the case in usual IRS style, two weeks before the summons was issued.

c. An examination of the IRS file on Petitioner, part of which was released via the Privacy Act to intervener and examined by him, reveals no efforts in furtherance of a civil case have been made. The entire file is of course available to the court, which can see for itself that no civil tax investigation has been initiated.

d. On 1 Sept 98, the two special agents appeared at intervener’s house, told intervener he was under criminal investigation and read him his "Miranda Rights." Shortly thereafter Intervener received from the two agents a letter explaining to him his Miranda rights. Exhibit 3. .

e. In May of 1995, 1996 and 1997 about three weeks after I filed my tax returns, I received form letters from the IRS Service Center Form 664 stating that my return was unacceptable and would subject me to criminal prosecution. Exhibit 4, 5, & 6.

f. To pursue this summons enforcement, the IRS has assigned to this case a top-level Justice Department attorney from Washington, DC and will fly him to the hearings. This expenditure, a vast sum, hardly speaks of a civil case. The government has already spent more on this investigation of intervener, to pursue this case, than he would ever earn much less pay in taxes in his lifetime.

g. I have been informed by competent authority that know and can state, that by bringing these enforcement actions the IRS has already decided to recommend prosecution. If this was a simple civil case, Revenue would simply dream up a figure, an outrageously high one, issue a false and inflative Notice of Deficiency, declare that as taxes due and force me or any taxpayer to go to tax court and prove that we do not owe the money.

By the very fact the government decided in this case to issue the summons, they have in effect shown that the decision has been made to recommend criminal prosecution. Their own statistics, available to this court, show that all cases where summons enforcement is initiated evefltual1y lead to a formal recommendation!

h. I have been c1assified by the IRS as a "tax protestor." Attached to this affidavit are records I received pursuant to my FOIA-Privacy Act request that list me over 25 times as a tax protestor or one who filed a "protest" return including

(1) Letter from CID to DD dated 31 Jan 78 (Exh 7); (2) routing slip dated 2 Ju1 97 (Exh 8); (3) Form 3949 (Exh 9); (4) Form 4891 (Exh 10).

The IRS has an institutional commitment to prosecute all persons so classified; both the IRS and US attorney consider my income tax status-type of return to be illegal, a violation of law. By law the officials must prosecute all known violation of law.

j. Further, I have been classified by both the IRS and DOJ as a "flagrant tax protestor" and as a "tax protest leader" because of my active and public stance against the confiscatory level of taxation and Illegal IRS collection methods.

According to documents I received under my FOIA-PA request, the IRS has identified me a leader in the Jeffersonian Anti-Statist Union, which they have classified as a "tax protest group", Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 attached.

k. Attached as exhibits 14, 15 and 16 are copies of three newspaper clippings from the Daily Libertarian of 4 Ju1 97, 15 April 98 and 22 Feb 99 concerning my involvements in the J.A.S.U. All of these articles are IRS documents released under FOIA-PA and incidentally do not deal with the IRS, but only my First Amendment protected activities.

6. The IRS in my case has abandoned the pursuit of any civil tax liabilities, which in spite of their statements is clearly proven by their following activities:

a. No revenue agent was assigned to the case until two weeks prior to issuance of the Third Party Summons. A review of my entire file (revealed under PA). This reveals that no work was done by a Revenue Agent and no civil investigation has begun in any way.

b. The IRS file on me reveals they claim Joe Patriot has transferred all of his assets to his children "and letter dated 30 Oct 99 from S/A Smell to Chief CID (Exh 17) claims I have no assets, that I am "judgment proof."

c. The civil statute of limitations on me for 1994 and 1995 has expired and before the bureaucracy has finished the investigation and examined all my third party records, the civil statute of limitations will have explained for 1996 and. 1997. However, no limitations have expired for criminal prosecution for those years.

For 1994 and 1995 no civil liability exist because I did not halt my withholding at work and paid far more than owed. The IRS already knows this because I told them in a recent letter, (Exh #18.) Also, the letter from Agent Smell to CID (Exh #19) shows that months ago, they knew I had overpaid taxes in 1994 and 1995. This is obvious to anyone with access to my 1991 and 1992 tax returns.

7. The IRS has never sought the records and information listed in the summons from me. Twice I met with the agents when I had my cancelled checks and other documents with me and I actually offered them to the special agents but they refused to accept them, but left the conference mumbling something about the four TV cameras and crowd.

Finally, I wrote (Exh 19) the petitioners on 30 Oct 91 and offered to meet with them to turn over to them all the records sought by this summons that I had in order to save myself the embarrassment and humiliation of their gaining the records from my third party record keeper. They refused to respond to my offer.

8. Much of the information and documents sought by the summons is already in the possession of the IRS.

a. The petitioners seek “all" my bank records and deposited checks from my banker. Yet, the IRS received from my employer six months ago a copy of all my cancelled payroll checks; now they have summoned the exact same records.

b. Two special agents went on 31 Feb 99 to the pastor of the Church, which I formally attended, the Rev. Hap T. Pleaseyou of the Establishmentarian Church of Tradeoff and received voluntarily from him copies of all the checks my wife and I used to make donations.

c. The IRS received the account records from my credit union on 30 Jan 99 (in clear violation of 26 USC 7609).

d. My employer sent at regular and appropriate times my W-2 forms, my financial institutions have already supplied my Form 1099 on interest, yet these same records are now sought.

9. In furtherance with the criminal investigation, the two special agents also interviewed:

a. My supervisor at work, telling him I was under criminal investigation (affidavit of John Henry Exh 20.)

b. My next-door neighbor in 1977 telling her "Mr. Patriot is in serious trouble because this is not a civil investigation." (Exh 20), affidavit of Mary Floosye.

c. My co-worker Mr. Only Supporter, and told him: "Mr. Patriot does not have a chance – the IRS controls all the federal judges in this area! (Affidavit Exh 21).

Surely, this case is not civil with the agents working so hard, going to many people, and collecting so much information.

10. The broad and encompassing request in the summons sought to be enforced in this case is highly indicative of the true direction of case. Many of the documents and material requested have no use whatsoever in a civil case, e.g. signature cards at bank; my chi1drens' accounts at the savings and loan; my various written instructions to my stockbroker.

11. I have personally read or seen on TV numerous statements of top-level officials in IRS and DOJ concerning their plans to prosecute all "tax rebels". I read the article (Exh 22) quoting IRS District Director for this area, Tom F. Scum, stating he "would personally jail any tax rebel discovered in this state," as he was interviewed by reporters while shoveling two tons of manure off his driveway.

Also, I heard on 4 Jul 99 on KNOW-TV broadcast where the US attorney for their state, Rea L. Minion stated, following the acquittal of GG Andgun for assua1ting an IRS agent that, "I consider these tax protestors to be law violators and I will prosecute all of them." Emphasis added.

12. During the course of the last year, my wife and I made 99 FOIA-Privacy Act request, 49 1/2 of them were denied by the IRS claiming exemption due to "law enforcement investigation in progress” and because the information might reveal the identity of a “confidential source.” Informants, as we all know, are not used in civil tax investigations. Denial letters from 15 various IRS offices are attached as Exhibits 25 through 40.

13. I did not receive a copy of this summons from the IRS or US government, but happened to see a friend who worked at Respondent Bank a week prior to this lawsuit. After reading the summons Form 2039-D, I believed that I would be notified and "have the right to . . . present (my) objection before the court."

14. Another purpose of the summons issued in this case is to harass and embarrass me by suing my financial institution in hopes that I will surrender my constitutional, God-given rights and just "pay-up" taxes not owed.

15. The IRS is using the summons to punish me for exposing and combating their Illegal Political Surveillance (IPS) programs, for sending in almost 200 FOIA request on IPS; filing four FOIA-PA lawsuits; forcing the revelation of 1501 documents in their illegal spying and delivering them to the local media. Further, they are seeking retaliation against me for seeking criminal charges against two IRS agents in my district for illegal spying and also sending to both of them newspaper clippings of federal agents going to jail for similar activities.

16. The summons seeking the records of The Church of Holy Deductions is fatally defective since it seeks records from third party record keeper, which relate to business of the Church and not to the taxpayer whose income is under investigation. Since the Church is neither a taxpayer nor under investigation, those summons relating to it should be dismissed by the court; or in the alternative, the court should appoint a special master to examine those first and report to the court those checks which could or might involve Petitioner’s tax liability, in order to lessen the infringement on constitutionally protected church activities.

17. Already the IRS summons has interfered with the religious activities of the church in following particulars:

a. To combat the summons, the Church has diverted resources in time and money from 4 prayer meetings; cancelled the weekend Teenagers Christian Retreat; postponed the fall evangelical drive. .

b. The notoriety of the summons and investigation has caused 3 prospective couples not to return to our services and cause one family to move to another church.

c. The summons has terrorized the Church Board of Directors, caused a split between officers, and lead directly to a fistfight between the treasury and the Chairman of Christian Education.

18. The IRS already in this case has followed the procedures outlined in MS9G-93.

a. Cases with criminal potential will be selected by the Chief, CID for appropriate action. (MS 9G-93). On 22 Oct 99, Chief CID assigned my case for Criminal Investigation. (Exh 41)

b. If the case is selected for investigation, the district will submit a Form 4135 (Criminal Investigation Control Notice) to the Service Center to establish a TC 915 Control (MS 9G-93) pg. 6). This was done on 18 Oct 99. (Exh. 42).

c. Resources should be devoted towards only the most flagrant cases involving the use of a "Vow of Poverty" and/or "Mail Order Ministries" to evade taxes. lMS 9G-93 pg 7. At least two special agents and one revenue agent have been assigned to the case.

d. In accordance with MS 9G-93 pg. 4, illegal tax protestor Functional Reports Forms 6178, 6178A, 6178C and 61780 have been filled out Petitioner.

e. Those cases lacking criminal prosecution potential will be routed to Service Center Collection Function (MS 9G-93 pg 5). This has not been done.

f. Those cases that meet criteria of an illegal tax protestor but lack criminal potential will be referred to the service center classification branch (MS 9G-93 pg 5). This has not been done.

MS 9G-93 is the institutional commitment to prosecute.

19. On 29 Feb. 1997, I wrote the Taxpayers Advocate for my district (Exh 43), requesting assistance. He responded (Exh 44) one week later saying he could not help because my case was "under active criminal investigation."

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this date a copy of this affidavit was mailed properly to opposing party.

_____________________________________ Date: __________________________
Joe H. Patriot, Pro Se
1776 Washington St.
Jeffersonville, SC