Anonymous
Re: DEAN CALLED FOR MICROCHIP ID CARD TO USE THE INTERNET !
Tue Jan 27 16:11:22 2004
68.95.166.51

The Other Dr. Dean , Who Would Make a Great Commander In Chief, and Flight Surgeon......

See Also: Background History
in IRS Intro Section



Dr. Ward Dean and the IRS

Summary of Recent Events

On 18 March, 2002, IRS agents Ted Poole and Wayne Jackson sent a number of Summonses for records to people who have paid me, or who were “3rd Party Recordkeepers” (i.e., my banks).

I sent letters to the 3rd Party Recordkeepers, none of which were acknowledged (other than the “green card” from the Post Office, verifying receipt), informing them that the Summonses were not legal documents, and that the recordkeepers were under no obligation to comply with them.

I called for a meeting with agents Jackson and Poole to ascertain what law authorized them to do what they were doing. At this meeting, I asked the agents to show me the law that authorized them to examine my books and records. I also asked them to show me the law that authorized Mr. Jackson to send out Summonses. It is clear from the attached transcript that they were unable to identify any law that authorized them to do anything.

I wrote to the supervisor of Agents Jackson and Poole to obtain answers to questions they were unable to answer and to obtain documents they were unable to provide. My letter has never been answered.

On 3 October, 2002, Wayne Jackson and Special Agent Tanya Burgess showed up at my house, and advised me that I was under criminal investigation.


Special Agent Tanya Burgess and Revenue Agent Wayne Jackson

I wrote SA Burgess and requested a Criminal Investigation Conference, to find out what law(s) I had allegedly violated. She denied my request on the basis that I was not under Criminal Investigation -- Only an administrative investigation to determine whether I would be put under criminal investigation.

I have repeatedly requested the job descriptions and Oaths of Office of the agents involved, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)--so far, without success.

SA Burgess sent out follow-up summonses to others from whom I’ve received remuneration. I filed a petition to quash one of the summonses. This petition was denied as “moot” by District Court Judge Lacey Collier, because the agent had already illegally interviewed the individual.

I then filed a Motion for Sanctions against SA Burgess. Also denied.

On 20 February, 2003, I filed a 7431 Lawsuit for SA Burgess’ violation of 26 USC Section 6103, which involves unlawful disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to unauthorized people.

In the meantime, the local U.S. Attorney convinced a Federal Grand Jury to convene a federal Grand Jury investigation, of which I am the target.

I have requested to appear before the Grand Jury, but this request has been denied.


Agents Burgess and Jackson delivering a subpoena to Dr. Dean. On May 21, 2003, I received a letter from the Assistant U.S. Attorney, advising that I was going to receive a subpoena to provide a "handwriting exemplar." He also advised me that I would not be afforded the opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury, nor to answer any questions.

I thought the purpose of the Grand Jury was to conduct an investigation? Since I would presumably be placed under oath if I were to appear, I would either have to tell the truth or be subject to the additional charge of perjury. What is he afraid of?

Within several hours, Special Agent Tanya Burgess and Revenue Agent Wayne Jackson arrived at my house to deliver the subpoena.


Grand Jury Appearance Delayed

Because of pre-existing plans, I notified Benjamin Beard, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, that I would be unable to appear on the 17th of June. I also asked what statute required me to provide a handwriting exemplar. Mr Beard rescheduled my appearance for 15 July. However, in response to my question regarding what statute required me to provide a handwriting sample, he sent a three page letter that cited twelve court cases--but not one law.

The letter also advised me that I would not actually appear before the Grand Jury itself, and that I would not be asked any questions--only that I would be required to make a number of specific handwriting samples in the presence of agents.

I responded by sending a letter directly to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, requesting to appear and answer their questions.

On 25 June, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), I wrote a letter to Mr. Beard (the Assistant U.S. Attorney) requesting that he provide me with copies of several documents that are required for the government to lawfully proceed with their criminal investigation against me. I followed up with another letter on 7 July. In this letter, I requested documents by which I could ascertain (in accordance with the Federal Crop Insurance case [U.S. v. Merrill]), whether Mr. Beard and the IRS agents he is working with have the authority to do what they are trying to do to me. On 8 July, I hand-delivered another Request for a Criminal Investigation Conference to Mr. Beard, which contained 23 questions I have regarding this case.

The Assistant U.S. Attorney replied to my requests for documents and my request for a criminal investigation conference (which included 23 questions regarding what laws the government claims I have violated) with a blistering letter on the 9th of July. In this letter, he threatened to incarcerate me no less than three times if I did not comply with his subpoena. I hand delivered a letter in response to him on 14 July.

Grand Jury Appearance - Read Transcript

At 9 AM on 15 July, in accordance with the subpoena from the grand jury, I appeared at the federal courthouse in Pensacola, prepared to testify. While outside of the grand jury room, Special Agent (SA) Burgess, and Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Benjamin Beard asked me if I was prepared to give them an exemplar of my handwriting. I told them that as soon as they established their lawful authority by providing the documents I previously requested (oaths of office, delegation orders, and Form 9131 [Request for Grand Jury Investigation], etc), I would do so.

Mr. Beard's carotid arteries started to pound, and his blood pressure probably shot up to about 200/100. He stalked off, and before too long, asked me into the grand jury room. After I was sworn in, he asked the same question. I gave a longer, more detailed answer to the assembled 24 grand jurors, over his repeated objection to answer only "yes or no." I explained to the grand jurors that I would provide the handwriting exemplars and any other information they requested, as soon as Mr. Beard and Ms. Burgess complied with my requests for their authorizing documents. After Mr. Beard determined that I would not produce the exemplar without his presenting the requested documents, he dismissed me from the room. Over his objections, I presented a document to the grand jury foreman (which he reluctantly accepted) that provided evidence that IRS special agents have no enforcement authority whatsoever with regard to income tax--and that their authority is only with regard to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

After my brief appearance before the grand jury, I rejoined a group of about a dozen supporters and "court watchers." Chief Judge Roger Vinson, seeing the crowded waiting area, asked Mr. Beard, "Who are all those people?" Mr. Beard responded, "They must be Dr. Dean's 'groupies.'"

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Beard presented me with a Motion for Order to Show, requesting that the Judge order me to provide the handwriting exemplars, or be incarcerated. We were told that the hearing would be at 2:30 PM. Because a number of my supporters had taken time off from work, they decided to go back to work, and return at 2:30. Almost immediately after they left, the AUSA announced that the hearing was now scheduled for 10:15 AM. We had been sandbagged, and lost about half of our observers.

Next, as everyone was preparing to enter the courtroom, it was announced that the hearing would be "In Camera"--meaning, no outsiders/observers would be allowed. I bolted to the Judge's chambers, and asked his secretary if it was regular practice to hold such "star chamber" proceedings. I told her that this type of secret hearing is what characterized Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia--not our supposedly free Republic. I credit Judge Vinson with narrowly limiting the scope of the hearing. By not including other aspects of the case, the AUSA was prevented from restricting observers from the courtroom.

During the hearing, I introduced two motions: one, a motion to compel the government to produce the documents that I had requested, to verify whether the grand jury had been properly impaneled and whether the AUSA and SA Burgess had the authority to do what they were trying to do; the other was a motion to stay the criminal proceedings until the completion of my civil law suit. Not surprisingly, both motions were dismissed out of hand by Judge Vinson, without even reading them.

The judge DID ALLOW me to enter into the record a copy of the exhibit I had presented to the grand jury foreman--a case I vigorously argued from the witness stand. He then asked whether I would comply with his order to provide the handwriting exemplars, or go to jail. I told him that I would do whatever he ordered me to do, but I would do it only under threat, duress and coercion.

I then spent the next hour filling out a bunch of foolish forms in the presence of Ms. Burgess and Wayne Jackson, for whatever good it will do them, since I would have stipulated to whatever they are trying to "prove," anyway.

Click here to see the complete transcript of the hearing.

WEAR-TV in Pensacola found out about the hearing, and stopped by the following day for a brief (surprisingly positive) interview, and even posted the story with a link to my website - ( http://www.weartv.com/news/Stories/July/0716/incometax.shtml ),

Mistakes Made
(for the benefit of anyone else in similar straits):

1. During my brief appearance before the grand jury, I should have immediately asked who was in charge. I know that the grand jury foreman is supposed to be in charge. Unfortunately, these proceedings are invariably controlled by the prosecutor, unless the foreman is forced to take charge. I did not ask who was in charge until after I had answered Mr. Beard's questions. I should probably have led off with the question as to who was in charge, instead of allowing Mr. Beard to have the initiative. I think I could have encouraged the grand jurors to ask other questions, instead of allowing the AUSA to control the proceedings.

2. I did not adequately prepare to cross examine Special Agent Burgess, nor to put Mr. Beard on the stand and cross examine him during the hearing before judge Vinson. Despite the fact that I had questions in front of me that I could have used--the 23 questions I asked him in my letter to Mr. Beard of 8 July--In the pressure of the hearing, I allowed them to get off the hook and didn't think to ask the questions.

Unfortunately, hindsight is always 20/20. It would probably not have made any difference in the outcome, anyway. It was a foregone conclusion that I would have to provide the exemplars. Nevertheless, it would have been nice to get his failure to answer my questions on the record.

Because AUSA Beard made a number of inflammatory allegations and misstatements in his Motion for Order to Show [Cause], I sent him a letter to correct these falsehoods, for the record.

Mr. Beard shot back another demand that I obtain the services of a criminal attorney, and that I refrain from calling, visiting, or writing him. He also warned that such actions somehow would further incriminate me. I guess he really does want me to get a lawyer.

I also sent a third request to appear before the grand jury, apprising the grand jurors of what occurred outside of the grand jury room. This letter was supported by ten exhibits, comprised of letters, IRS Documents, and Court Records.

Government Moves to Stay Civil Lawsuit

On 28 July, the government filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings and Memorandum of Law (supported by a Declaration of Special Agent Tanya Burgess) to block further action in my Section 7431 lawsuit. This Lawsuit, remember, is because SA Burgess violated Code Section 6103, by unlawfully disclosing that I was under criminal investigation. In this Motion for Stay, the government claimed that compliance with my Discovery requests would jeapordize their criminal investigation and give me "earlier access to information and evidence than [I] would otherwise be entitled" and that I could "construct defenses, tamper with potential evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, and otherwise interfere with ongoing investigation and grand jury proceedings."

This is patently absurd, as code section 6103 (k) was written by Congress to protect individuals undergoing criminal investigation from just this sort of abuse by IRS agents. In fact, there are a number of cases that have gone forward while the individual was under criminal investigation, including one in which the plaintiff (a physician in Florida) was awarded $126,000 in damages against the IRS.

My Discovery Requests are enumerated below:

First Interrogatories

First Admissions

First Production of Documents

Second Interrogatories

Second Admissions

Second Production of Documents

With one or two exceptions, which I am willing to waive, my requests in no way relate to the objections claimed by the government. On the contrary, my Discovery requests seek to prove that either SA Burgess did, in fact, break the law, and that she had no authority to do what she was trying to do.

On 8 August, I filed a Memorandum of Law in opposition to the government's Motion to Stay the Proceedings.

Judge Rules Against IRS

On 15 August, Federal District Judge Lacey Collier issued an Order denying the government's Motion to Stay the civil proceedings, meaning (I mistakenly believed) that Discovery may proceed (see judges subsequent order).

Despite Judge Collier’s Order, denying the government’s Motion to Stay my lawsuit pending completion of any criminal proceedings, on August 28th, 2003, the government filed a follow-up Motion to Reopen and Extend the Discovery Period and a supporting Memorandum of Law, in which the government requested 120 more days to respond to my discovery requests. This is preposterous, considering that the original discovery period established by the judge (to which the government and I agreed) was 70 days!

On September 4, 2003, I filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the government’s motion. My Memorandum included a Request for Sanctions against Lindsey Cooper, the attorney for the government, for wasting the Court’s time on a matter on which the court had already ruled (i.e., the court had denied the government’s Motion to Stay).

Without waiting for a response from the Court to the government’s Motion to Reopen and Extend the Discovery Period, Mr. Cooper filed a Response to my First and Second Requests for Admissions, in which he objected to all of my Requests for Admissions as irrelevant, and flatly refused to respond to my Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents!

Mr. Cooper also filed a Renewed Motion to Stay the Proceedings. There were nine exhibits to the government’s motion – all of which were pages from my website! These included:

1. Motion to Stay Proceedings
2. Why I Don’t Pay Taxes Anymore
3. Transcript of Hearing on Government’s Motion to Show Cause
4. Transcript of Meeting with IRS Agents Poole and Jackson
5. Letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney Beard Requesting Documents
6. Freedom of Information Act Request for Documents
7. Petition to Quash IRS Summons
8. Motion to Compel Disclosure
9. Letter to Banks

In addition, the government also filed a Motion to File a Second and Third Declaration of Tanya Burgess. In this motion, the government requested the judge to prohibit me from posting the second declaration, a document of public record, on my website, and from distributing or disseminating it to others. Furthermore, the gove

• IRS , Ward Dean , And Jesus — T. Coleman Andrews, Tue Jan 27 16:15