United States District Court
Middle District o Florida
Fort Myers Division

Sheri Patriot ) Petitioner, Pro se ) Case No. 2:05-mc-0xxxxxvs. ) Motion for Reconsideration ) of Order United States of America ) AmSouth Bank, Susan Stonier, ) Respondents )_________________________ )

Pursuant to Rule 59 of the FRCP, Petitioner, Patriot, hereby moves this Court for Reconsideration of the Honorable Judge John E. Steele’s Order dated May 30, 2006, denying “as moot” the Petition to Quash IRS Summons of May, 2005, issued to AmSouth Bank, based on the following reasons:

1. The issues in this case are ‘mootness’. This case is not ‘moot’ because this case deals with Petitioner’s constitutional civil rights, which are NEVER ‘moot’.

2. This case is not moot because the Court can order the IRS to return the records to AmSouth Bank. Or, in the alternative, the Court can let the IRS keep the records, but order the IRS cannot use the records for any criminal case. Petitioner, Patriot, has no objection to the IRS using the records in a civil case.

3. Petitioner filed her Petition to Quash IRS Summons on May 23, 2005, and served Respondents, United States of America, and AmSouth Bank on May 23, 2005.

4. Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell denied the Petition to Quash, three times. The first denial occurred within 24 hours of the Petition being filed. That denial was a verbal endorsed denial on May 24, 2005, without any explanation based on ‘findings of fact’ or ‘conclusions of law’. The second denial was a written final order on June 6, 2005. The third denial was a written final order signed on Dec. 1, 2005, 5.5 months after the Motion was filed on June 15, 2005.

5. Generally speaking, due process includes “discovery”. Petitioner, without the belief that the Court would deny her Petition in less than 24 hours, correctly thought she would be allowed ‘discovery’. Therefore, Petitioner did not include all her proofs in her initial pleading. Petitioner is Pro se. She is not aware of a requirement that a brief with proofs must be file simultaneously with an initial pleading, whether it is a Petition, Motion, or Notice. Never the less, nowhere in that initial filing did “plaintiff acknowledge that she did not have the necessary proof to defeat the subpoena or to establish that the subpoena was issued in bad faith”. Judge Chappell said that. The Plaintiff never said that. To repeat for the Court, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A ‘SUBPOENA’; THIS CASE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT A ‘SUMMONS’. A grand jury subpoena is not an administrative Form 2039 Summons. A subpoena is a court document with legal enforcement. The Summons, in this case, was an unauthorized IRS form without any legal enforcement.

6. This Court is correct in that the Notice of Appeal filed with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, of Judge Chappell Orders, was dismissed, twice, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction, because the “Order was not final.” All Parties to this action were notified of the Appellate Court’s dismissal in July, 2005. Everyone understood what the words “the Order was not final” meant, EXCEPT the Petitioner. Petitioner believed the Order was not final because Judge Chappell had not yet made a decision with regard to the Petitioner’s Motion filed June 15, 2005. Plaintiff patiently awaited that decision, which eventually was made Dec. 1, 2005. It was not until the 11^th Circuit USCA made the second dismissal in Feb. 2006, for the same reason, lack of jurisdiction because the Order was not final, that Petitioner discovered that an Order in District Court is NOT final until the Order is signed by a District Court Judge, not a Magistrate Judge. Therefore, since the Orders closing this case in 2005 were not signed by a District Court Judge, none of the Orders were final. The USCA does not have jurisdiction until an Order is signed by a District Court Judge.

7. Meanwhile, AmSouth Bank’s LEGAL department, after receiving notification that the Appeal was dismissed because ‘the Order was not final’, went ahead anyway and prematurely, illegally, and incompetently complied with the Summons.

8. Independent, of what this Court may believe, Petitioner will repeat for the Court, that she is not an ignoramus. Of course, Petitioner knew when she filed her Motion for a de novo Determination on April 11, 2006, as the Court aptly stated, “almost a year after the summons date”, that there was no way the Court could be capable of “quashing” a summons with which AmSouth Bank had already complied. But the Court was still capable of offering adequate relief to the Petitioner by ordering the IRS to return the released information to AmSouth Bank and to bar the use of any released information by the IRS/DOJ in any criminal prosecution of the Petitioner.

9. However, the violation of Petitioner’s constitutional rights is NOT moot. The Court may define, explain, or base the actions of Judge Chappell as they wish….”reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard”, but there is no doubt in the Petitioner’s mind that due process. under constitutional law, was never afforded this Petitioner at any time by Judge Chappell’s instant and “erroneous” denial of the Petition to Quash last year. This instant denial, caused the Petitioner NOT to have an opportunity for “discovery”, or at a minimum, an opportunity to file a timely brief with proofs already secured which would have defeated the SUMMONS and definitely established that the SUMMONS was issued in bad faith.

10. Petitioner firmly believes, based on her past year’s experience, that this District Court’s does not consider this case of any significance. If necessary, Petitioner will exercise every legal options available to her to correct this matter.

11. The ultimate purpose of the April 11, 2006, Motion was to finally get jurisdiction available to the Appellate Court. In that effort, Petitioner restated all the mistakes to the District Court Judge, which had occurred during the year-long case at bar, and the Petitioner wanted to give the District Court Judge more proof of the fact that the IRS had acted in bad faith issuing the Summons in 2005, (as the Petitioner had stated from the beginning in the initial filing on May 23, 2005). The civil investigation of the Petitioner which had continued uninterrupted for 14 years, was for all intensive purposes, completed in January 2005, (about four months before the May, 2005 Summons was mailed to AmSouth Bank). Without making a formal recommendation to the DOJ, the IRS was certainly trying to obtain information about the Petitioner by circumventing the traditional role of the grand jury. The additional proof showing the IRS acted in bad faith, was the Petitioner notifying the Court through the April 11^th Motion, of the fact that the illegal release of the information by AmSouth Bank to the IRS in 2005, precipitated the IRS ‘Criminal Investigation Division’ issuing more summonses for four other Banks in March 2006.

12. Petitioner timely filed another Petition on March 30, 2006, to ‘quash’ the new summonses. (Case No. 2:06-cv-201-FtM-99SPC). Fortunately, due to Judge Chappell’s mistakes in denying the first Petition to Quash last year, a different Judge did not make the same mistakes again with the new Petition to Quash.. This time, the Court handled the new Petition properly, and the consent forms, Notice of Pendency, Notice of Interested Parties, etc. were issued by the Court immediately. This standard court procedure of issuing consent forms never had an opportunity to happen properly, if at all with the first Petition (as noted on PACER). The new Judge permitted Petitioner the opportunity to timely file Interrogatories to the Respondents. Petitioner was allowed the opportunity to timely file Requests for Documents from the Respondents. As a result of those filings during ‘discovery’, the IRS immediately withdrew all the new summonses and notified the US Attorney, Paul Perez, of said withdrawals. Following that notification, US Attorney, Paul Perez, filed a Motion with this Court on May 22, 2006, to Dismiss as Moot, Petitioner’s Motion to Quash. Copies of said withdrawals and Motion to Dismiss as Moot are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part of this Motion.

13. Petitioner emphatically believes, if her Petition to Quash, filed in May, 2005, had been handled properly by Judge Chappell, the outcome of that case would have been the same as the new summons case referenced in #12, found immediately above in this Motion.. If the Petitioner had had the opportunity of ‘discovery’ last year, and had been able to file her Interrogatories and Requests for Documents last year, the IRS would have withdrawn the Summons issued to AmSouth Bank last year, as well, and we wouldn’t be still hung up in this case.

14. Near the top of Page 3 of Judge Steele’s May 30, 2006 Order, the Court states “Based on the fact that the documents were provided to the Revenue Agent, the Court finds that reinstatement of this case could not provide relief”. Petitioner is happy to know that finally, this Court would like to ‘provide relief” for her. Since that is the case, (thank goodness), the Petitioner pleads with the Court to reconsider all the circumstances, all the mistakes made with this case during the past year, and most importantly, what has happened recently and why the new summonses were withdrawn by the IRS, The US Attorney immediately notified the Court of this event by filing his Motion on May 22, 2006. This recent event is new proof that the summons was issued in bad faith in May, 2005, as the Petitioner as always stated, but was never given the opportunity to prove.

15. Even if Judge Chappell had been correct with her denial of the Petition to Quash in 2005, in less than 24 hours, in which she was not, it is painfully clear that AmSouth Bank’s legal department, with full knowledge from the Appellate Court’s dismissal papers, compiled with the Summons before the Order was final. According to rules, regulations, legislative law, and case law, which Petitioner stated to this Court in her April 11^th Motion, Judge Chappell’s Orders were not even enforceable Orders.

Petitioner has given this Court every opportunity to correct past mistakes, to set the record straight, and make right an undeniable wrong, (which never should have happened in the first place). This Petitioner has been ‘used and abused’ for more than one year, with regard to this case.

The Petitioner has done nothing illegal. During the course of an IRS 14-year, non-stop, harassing administrative investigation, including numerous administrative hearings, and the collection of too many filing cabinets, filled with correspondence between the Petitioner and the IRS, no evidence of wrong doing has been found by the IRS which

would permit the IRS to begin a legal prosecution. To repeat, the civil investigation was completed and abandoned more than one year ago in January, 2005. Petitioner told the Court in her Motions last year, that she could prove that the civil/administration investigation was completed with witness testimony, but Petitioner was denied that opportunity, too. The Summons which was issued by the IRS in May, 2005, was issued in complete bad faith, for the sole agenda of trying to gain some type of information to be used against Petitioner in a potential criminal prosecution, PRIOR to making a formal recommendation to the DOJ. This flies in the face of the legislation passed by the United States Congress in 1998 for the purpose of prohibiting the IRS from continuing with their outrageous methods of pursuing taxpayers, and supposedly granting individuals embroiled in the IRS collections process some civil relief. This Court must have some knowledge about the notorious reputation of the IRS for illicit abuse of powers and utterly intimidating tactics used in IRS efforts to gain information and money..

The fact that the IRS quickly withdrew the new March 2006 summonses in the matter of the Petitioner, as soon as they received the Petitioner’s Interrogatories and Request for Documents, is a excellent example of the IRS ‘bait and switch’ behavior. When the IRS realizes they will be exposed in the very public Court system (due to the internet) if they continue with their illegalities, they immediately change their approach, and try a different method of attack.

Therefore, Petitioner makes the two following requests for reconsideration:

Based on the premature, and thus illegal, release of the summoned documents, the Court shall order the immediate return to AmSouth Bank, of all released information received by Susan Stonier, IRS Agent..

Finally, based on the long-time legal precedent of Courts barring information obtained from the ‘fruit of the forbidden tree”, information obtained illegally, this Court shall order any information, or possible future information, gleaned as a direct result of the AmSouth illegal release, be barred from use in any potential criminal prosecution, or any other action by the IRS/DOJ, against the Petitioner, as well. Petitioner is sure IRS will copy everything they received, before they return it. Petitioner does not mind the IRS using any of the information in a civil case, and she does not object to the IRS having them for that purpose, only.

The Government would not object to this provision in the final order, because they have stated all along that these summonses will only be used for a civil tax liability investigation.

 If the Court reconsiders and grants these two requests for relief from the illegal behavior of the Respondents; if this Court rights this wrong, by including language in the final Order of this case which will affect Petitioner’s two requests, then this Court will truly be granting, a much deserved, relief to the Petitioner. This Court will be showing a substantial effort to restore Petitioner’s constitutional rights which were violated and trampled by the Magistrate Judge last year.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheri Patriot, Pro se

Certification of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I have mailed properly a copy of this Motion for Reconsideration to all Respondents listed below.

___________________________   Date: _________________________
Sheri Patriot
123 Main St.
Anytown USA 12345
123-456-7890