The Nis Family Trust - Page 14




                                               - 14 -                                                  
            Revenue Service (IRS) District Director, Central California                                
            District; Mr. Johnson is a Revenue Agent of the IRS;  Mr. Bricker                          
            is a Special Agent in the Criminal Investigation Branch of the                             
            IRS; and Mr. Ledbetter is an Appeals Officer of the IRS.                                   
            Respondent made various arguments as to why the subpoenas ought                            
            to be quashed.  Principally, respondent argued that none of the                            
            individuals can give testimony that is required or relevant for                            
            the Court to redetermine the deficiencies determined in these                              
            cases.                                                                                     
                  By order dated May 26, 2000, the Court ordered petitioners,                          
            on or before June 1, 2000, to file a response to the motions to                            
            quash, suspended compliance with the subpoenas, and set the                                
            motions to quash subpoenas for hearing at the trial session.                               
                  On June 5, 2000, petitioners lodged with the Court                                   
            “Petitioners’ Response to Respondent’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas                           
            with Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities” (the                                 
            response to the motion to quash or the response).  Because the                             
            response was late, the Court gave petitioners leave to file it.                            
            In pertinent part, the response contains the following argument:                           
                        The issue before the COURT is whether or not the                               
                  individuals of the so-called INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE                                
                  (IRS) and the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT have legitimate                               
                  authority over the lives and property of the                                         
                  petitioners.  * * *                                                                  
                        Each witness has initiated force against the                                   
                  petitioners.  They have each * * * made the wild claim                               
                  that the individuals of the so-called UNITED STATES                                  
                  GOVERNMENT2 have not only a right to control                                         





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011