IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION
_________________________
)
SHERI PATRIOT , )
Petitioner pro se ) Case No. 2:07-cv-372
)
vs. )
) REPLY TO RESPONSE FILED JUNE 5, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) TO PETITION TO QUASH SUMMONS
AMSOUTH BANK, ) WHICH WAS FILED MAY 23, 2005!!!
Respondents )
)
______________________________)
COME NOW Petitioner, pro se, Sheri Patriot, states and alleges as
follows:
- During the past two years, much has transpired which has had a great effect on this
case. Petitioner will try to help bring the new judges, recently assigned to this remanded case, up to date with necessary information or details which occurred over the course of those two years. (Petitioner presumes the new judges know why this case was remanded)
- With regard to Respondent’s FIRST DEFENSE, Petitioner did improperly name
Susan Stonier as a Respondent to this action. At the time of the May 23, 2005 filing, Petitioner did not know IRS agents have total immunity. Petitioner apologies to this Court for that mistake.
- With regard to Respondent’s SECOND DEFENSE, although Susan Stonier was
served her copy of the Petition to Quash on May 23, 2005, and proof of service is
noted on the Docket, this issue is now ‘moot’. See #2 above.
- With regard to Respondent’s THIRD DEFENSE, #1, it is Petitioner’s belief that
Respondent is not able to find his copy of Exhibit A from two years ago, and has
relied on the document available on PACER. Petitioner checked PACER herself, and
only page one of Exhibit A of the Petition is shown. Exhibit A was a copy of the
several page Summons which was issued by the IRS. Therefore, Respondent should
be able to find a full copy of the Summons in the IRS file for Petitioner, if he tries.
If Respondent cannot find a full copy, Petitioner will provide him with another.
- THIRD DEFENSE, #2. Respondent denies this Court has jurisdiction over the case as
it applies in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the US
Constitution. Petitioner will leave that issue up to this Court.
- THIRD DEFENSE #3. Respondent states lack of knowledge to form a belief about
facts already known to the IRS.
- THIRD DEFENSE, #4. Respondent denies the records sought were the Petitioner’s
personal records. Petitioner’s name is on the top of the Summons, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit E and made a part thereof. During Discovery,
Petitioner will include in her Interrogatory Request to the Respondent a question that
Respondent provide the name of whom the records sought belonged, if not the
Petitioner.
- THIRD DEFENSE, #4A. Respondent misstates Petitioner. Petitioner did not state
that a referral to the DOJ was in effect at the time the summons was issued or at the
time the Petition was filed. The Petitioner stated “The IRS….has abandoned, in an
institutional sense, the pursuit of a civil tax determination…., and has made an
institutional commitment to make a referral to the DOJ….as it would merely like to
gather evidence to aid a prosecution”. See copy of Petition filed May 23, 2005
attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part thereof. There is a difference between
the two statements, although subtle. US v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 437 US 46 248, 98 S
Ct 2357 (1978).
- THIRD DEFENSE. #4B & 4C. For Respondent to deny this part of the Petition is
baffling. The following information is documented in the Petitioner’s IRS files.
In Sept., 2004, Petitioner met with Constance Lewis, IRS Agent, at the IRS office in
Fort Myers, Florida. Petitioner took a witness with her to this meeting. In Jan. 2005,
Petitioner had a subsequent meeting with Susan Stonier, a different IRS Agent, at the
same IRS office. Petitioner took the same witness with her to that meeting, as
well. At the end of that second IRS meeting, Ms. Stonier made a statement that she
had completed asking all her questions and the meeting was concluded. The tape
recorders were turned off. As the Petitioner was preparing to leave the small office,
she asked Ms. Stonier, in front of her witness, if there was anything else she needed in
order for her to complete the IRS report for Petitioner’s file, Petitioner asked if she
would have to come back for any more meetings. Ms. Stonier answered, “No, you
won’t have to come back; I have everything I need to write up my report”.
It is important the Court be reminded of facts stated in earlier motions that the IRS
has a huge file for Petitioner of letters, forms, phone calls, meetings, etc. going back
and forth over the past twenty years. At the time of those meetings just mentioned,
the file for Petitioner was eighteen years old, and it was safe for Petitioner to have
stated in the Petition, considering all the circumstances, that the IRS had abandoned
the pursuit of a civil/administrative investigation for collection purposes at the time
the Summons was issued which was four months after the Jan. IRS meeting when
Susan Stonier had said she had ‘everything’.
- THIRD DEFENSE, #4D. In March, 2006, the IRS/DOJ issued more bank
summonses to five different banks. These summonses stated at the top “Criminal
Investigation”. The specific records requested were basically identical to the records
requested in the first Summons issued to AmSouth Bank in May, 2005. The
records requested were much too broad and would have had no bearing on a civil
investigation. Those records requested from AmSouth and the records requested
from the five additional banks are generally exclusively used for criminal
prosecution. This issue can be more detailed during Discovery.
At this point, Petitioner wants to inform this Court that Petitioner timely filed a
Petition to Quash those new five summonses with this Court. There were no judicial
errors made with that Petition. Discovery was allowed and within a very short time,
the IRS withdrew those additional five summonses.
Respondent chooses to deny the balance of #4D. Petitioner cites US v. Genser 595 F
2d 146 (NJ 1979) as her support for her statements in #4 of her Petition.
- THIRD DEFENSE #4E & F. Petitioner restates her beliefs.
- THIRD DEFENSE #4G, H & I It is apparent there is a difference of opinion on
these issues.
- Respondent is correct. Petitioner made a typographical mistake and did leave out a
#5 in the Petition. Petitioner apologies to the Court for that typographical mistake.
- THIRD DEFENSE #6 & #7. It is clear, Respondent has not read the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals’ Order of Feb. 22, 2007. See a copy of said Order attached as
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part thereof. The Appellate Court stated:
“The district court erred in denying Patriot the
opportunity to conduct discovery before denying her
‘motion to request a de novo determination’. We vacate
the denial of Patriot’s motion, and remand to
the district court for discovery and consideration of
whether the IRS summons of Patriot’s records
from AmSouth should be quashed”.
Even though Respondent denies the second paragraph of #7 of Petition, it is
obviously, the Appellate Court agrees with The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982 passed by Congress to provide taxpayers the right to petition to quash a
summons which would include pre-hearing discovery.
- THIRD DEFENSE #7 first paragraph. Once again, Respondent’s response is
baffling. It is clear, with regard to the Respondent, ‘one hand does not know what
the other is doing’. It is not possible for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge or
information unless he has not made necessary inquiries with the appropriate IRS
division, and/or ‘done his homework’. Number 7 of the Petition has played out
exactly as the Petitioner stated it would in her Petition. “Actions speak louder than
words, the true nature of this investigation, and the attempt of the two agencies to
circumnavigate the traditional role of the grand jury and the other Constitutional
protections of the Petitioner as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights” all came true. The
IRS/DOJ issued the five additional summons and a full blown criminal investigation
has continued up to this day. The years of IRS harassment, the judicial errors early
in this case contributing to even worse IRS harassment, have caused the Petitioner
and her family much inconvenience and much unneeded stress for the past two
years.
- THIRD DEFENSE #8. IRC §7603 provides that the summons be “attested”. The
IRS summons in this instant case is not attested and was patently defective on its
face.[Emphasis added in bold by Petitioner]. See Exhibit C attached hereto and
made a part hereof. The Court will see under Sec. 7603. Service of Summons:
“(a) In general – A summons issued under section 6420(e)(2),
6421 (g)(2), 6427(j)(2), or 7602 shall be served by the
Secretary, by an attested copy delivered in hand to the person
to whom it is directed, or left at his last and usual place of
abode…………………..
(b)Service by mail to third-party recordkeepers.-
The Court will also see the summons issued to AmSouth Bank was not attested.
Whereas a summons issued to Stephen Redeker was attested. See Exhibit E & F
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
- THIRD DEFENSE #9. Obviously, Respondent denies this last portion of the Petition
. Petitioner requests this Court to recall the second paragraph of the Appellate
Court’s Order of Feb. 22, 2007. See Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
“First, AmSouth’s compliance with the IRS summons did
not render this case moot because the district court could
have provided a partial remedy by ordering the IRS to
destroy or return all copies of the documents produced
by AmSouth. See Church of Scientoloty v. US, 113 S. Ct. 447, 450 (1992).
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner, Sheri Patriot,
having replied to the two-year overdue response, respectfully requests this Court move this case into Discovery so she made submit her Request for Documents and her Interrogatories to the Respondent.
By:____________________________________
Sheri Patriot, Petitioner, pro se
1776 Patriot Way
Cape Coral, FL 33904