- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011