Appeal to Magistrate's Order

                                                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                          SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Larry Freeman             )
          Petitioner      )
                          )
   v.                     )      Case No. MCxxx
                          )      
United States and         )      APPEAL TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDER
First Merit Bank          )
         Respondents      )

1. Petitioner received a copy of Summons issued by Revenue Agent James C. Farley, I.D. #31-09828 and issued to First Merit Bank dated December 22, 2008.

2. Petitioner, having objections to this Summons, filed his “Petition to Quash Summons” that was filed in a timely manner on January 8, 2009. In this Petition it was noted to the Court that the IRS never sent Petitioner a third-party contact notice mandated by 26 U.S.C. §7602(c). Thus, the IRS neglected to give reasonable advance notice to the Petitioner that it intended to seek information from third-parties.

3. On January 28, 2009 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

4. Petitioner filed on January 30, 2009 a Request for Production of Documents.

5. Petitioner then received a Response to Petition to Quash from Respondent, First Merit Bank. The fact that this respondent has no “dog” in this fight, was unusual to this Petitioner that First Merit would even respond to this Case. The Summons (attached), clearly states that Respondent (First Merit) could mail these documents in lieu of personal appearance. They could be mailed anywhere in the United States without any undo hardship on the Respondent’s part. As to subject-matter jurisdiction. It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the real subject-matter in this case is the Petitioner himself.

6. Since this Petitioner acting as attorney pro se, and needing more time to research the law, filed for a 10 day enlargement of time on February 13, 2009.

7. Court granted this enlargement of time until February 27, 2009. This order was received on February 18, 2009.

8. Petitioner then filed his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2009. In summery of this Opposition, the government is simply trying to make Petitioner file in remote parts of the country and dreaming up impossible requirements for penniless taxpayers.

9. Respondent filed February 26, 2009 his Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss alleging “innocent” party First Merit would be forced to litigate at great expense and distances and have no vested interest in the outcome of this case. Again, the Summons indicated these documents could be mailed in lieu of personal appearance. No burden of great expense or distance to First Merit would be realized in this District or another.

10. Petitioner also received from Magistrate Judge on this same day (February 26, 2009) an Order to Dismiss. An Order can only be given by a District Court Judge (Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S. Sec. 636) unless the parties in a Case consent to the Magistrate’s authority. Petitioner did not give his consent to Magistrate authority.

11. Petitioner filed an Objection to Magistrate’s Order dated March 5, 2009 (attached). The fact that Petitioner did not give consent for Magistrate authority, the Magistrate can only issue Recommendations to the Court. Page 6(D) states that a Magistrate can order the entry of judgment only when he has been designated to do so by the District Court and the parties consent to the Magistrate’s authority (Title 28 U.S.C. 636 (c). Page 7(I) allows for any party to withhold consent to magistrate judge without adverse consequences.

12. Petitioner then filed March 7, 2009 his Response to Defendant’s Reply(attached). Reasons were:

1. The fact that First Merit could mail these documents anywhere in lieu of personal appearance would create no hardship on this Respondent.

2. Requiring Petitioner to take extended amounts of time from work and at great costs to file in a remote courthouse denies Petitioner Due Process of the Law and interfering with an act of Congress.

3. As a pro se Petitioner he must file his petitions in person and at distances of over 1000 miles it would be impossible to meet these demands and still file timely.

4. To clarify Respondent’s misinterpretation or Petitioner’s non-objection to transfer this Case to District Court in Akron Ohio.

13. Petitioner has now received on April 1, 2009 another Order (Recommendation) by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham to dismiss Petitioner’s Petition to Quash and overrule Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate.

14. This pro se Petitioner is trying to abide by the rules of the Court and has exerted great time and effort to protect his rights under the Constitution. The question rises to whether this Court in fairness and willingness will follow the rules set before it.

Wherefore, this Petitioner prays that this Court overrule the Magistrate’s ORDERS and grant Petitioner’s Motion to Quash Summons.

Date:

_______________________________
Larry Freeman, Petitioner, pro se
Blackshear, GA 31516

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that a copy of this foregoing Motion was served on Respondent by US Mail in a postpaid wrapper on or about this 6th day of April, 2009, at Respondent’s address of record.

_______________________________
Larry Freeman, Petitioner, pro se
Blackshear, GA 31516