Appendix — In re Ford
Supreme Court brief2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
. (A ) eT PD ere
Wen No. Sool
—— 491284 © APR 15 20M
THE CLERK
In The OFACE OF
Supreme Court of the United States
In Re H. Clark Ford, ITI.
Petitioner
On Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Tenth Circuit
APPENDIX PAGES 303-646
VOLUME II
H. Clark Ford, II], pro se
P.O. Box 424
Hagerman, New Mexico 88232-0424
1-575-627-7086
1-575-625-2000
APPENDIX INDEX
Page
VOLUME II
In rem: Notice of Default filed by Petitioner
Horatio Ford, March 28, 2007 ..................... App. 303
In rem: Notice of Default (2003) filed by Peti-
tioner Horatio Ford, March 28, 2007 .......... App. 307
Refusal to Submit to Administrators’ Sum-
mons, February 26, 2007 .................ccccceccc00e App. 309
Personal Service of Process-Hand Delivered
Certificate for the Demand for Record of
Assessment, May 31, 2006............00.0.000.0000. App. 325
First Notice of Acceptance, September 5,
OMIED arabs vaviavasescaxscepriesartterel eco eee App. 332
Second Notice of Acceptance, November 16,
DIT sa nchontversncenseacdteyihecerayianeitaare ater App. 337
Default against First Notice of Acceptance,
September 19, ZOOG.............c0..cosssescccssssceceeee App. 342
Default against Second Notice of Acceptance,
November 16, 2006 ..............000000.0... pee App. 348
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Response to Motion to Dismiss
with Prejudice, March 138, 2008................... App. 352
Interview of Horatio Ford, February 27, 2008... App. 360
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, First Petition to Enforce Sum-
mons, March 12, 2007............ nities App. 380
ll
APPENDIX INDEX — Continued
Page
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Declaration of Mike Pryor,
Py IE aired sadesecsaseies tikes ssnsendivcngevtetcter App. 385
IRS Summons: Calendar Years 2001-2005,
DOPSCMIDEN ZG, ZO0G....os.ccesscssssssscatsvesesverecees App. 389
IRS Summons: Calendar Years 1996-2000,
RIROTIE 2 Doi iscssdncnncnsenessFechdvsscssexsees App. 392
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexice, Request for Setting, May 23,
1 |} ESSE RA C2 are a das rene eo Be ar aeRO App. 395
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Response to Motion to Dismiss
Upon Rules 12 and 56, December 06, 2007.... App. 397
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Defendant’s Amended Motion to
Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, November 26, 2007.......... App. 408
United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Declaration of Michael J. Pryor
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1746, November
MONET Sfaxakavacesseccupsin vasdaxedecavinuseeesdceisoeeessees App. 421
Letter from Horatio Ford to Mr. Mike Pryor,
PE tg IE wince cosas vesssastantaxaexsvinsssies App. 423
Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to
Horatio Ford, November 9, 2007................. App. 426
ill
APPENDIX INDEX — Continued
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for the
Civil Penalty for the ‘Tax Period Ending De-
cember 31, 1996, September 24, 2007......... App
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for the
U.S. Individual Income Tax for the Tax Peri-
od Ending December 31, 2000, September 24,
core eek aide Sains ab ahi capecueariteacasamteneatonnnsiegs App.
Department of the ‘Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for the
Civil Penalty for the Tax Period Ending De-
cember 31, 1997, September 24, 2007......... App
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for U.S.
Individual Income Tax for the Tax Period
Ending December 31, 1998, September 24,
aac roc yasar nis ter Gate enas a Puncncddeces tisxcasasmeutndas App
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for Civ-
il Penalty for the Tax Period Ending Decem-
ber 31, 1998, September 24, 2007 ............... App
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service, Certificate of Official Record for Civ-
il Penalty for the Tax Period Ending Decem-
ber 31, 1999, September 24, 2007 ............... App
Page
. 428
. 439
. 444
. 45]
. 456
i |
i Jaci -
5
.
;
L A
vi¢ !
’ Se
Notic
n rem
i
LitTio
DEFAUL
>
I
.
_~%
‘
VA
App. 304
penalty of perjury that he has not received any affi-
davits in rebuttal from the UNITED STATES DE-
PARTMENT OF TREASURY; the DIRECTOR OF
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS or any agency thereof:
therefore, the Respondent has acquiesced and is in
statutory default for the above stated years.. This
Default Notice shall evidence that H. Clark Ford III
is correct in his analysis of the filing requirements
and other tax inquiries contained within the “Filing
Statement in Affidavit Form”. By this Default Notice,
the Respondent is estopped from any further action
against the Natural Human Person of the Petitioner
and is without judicial standing, as no controversy in
law or material fact between the two parties exists.
s/ H. Clark Ford Il] _
Petitioner
NOTORIAL
COUNTY OF CHAVES
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
On this day of March, 2007 One, H. Clark Ford
III, came before me a Notary Public in and for the
people of The State of New Mexico, One, H. Clark
Ford III, personally known by me, in my presence,
under oath declared the truth of the above Statement
Filing.
S Robin Purcella ;
Notary Public
(SEAL
ry
Q 29 U |
My Commission Expi
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
One, H. Clark Ford III hereby certifies that
Petition for Default and Default Notice was served by
registered mail, by the United States Postal Servi
on March 28th 2006 to:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Hon. John Snow Secretary
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20224 Certified Mail #
7005-0390-0004-087
And
DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL A¥#E4SRS
[Operations]
Operations
Internal Revenue Service
Washington, D.C. 20044 Certified Mail #
7005-0390-0004-827 1
Mike Pryor ID # 84 10124
12600 Colfax Ave
Suite C-300
Lakewood Colorado 80215
Certified Mail # 7005-0390-0004-087 2-028
1.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only: No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at
WWwW.usps.com.,:
OFFICIAL USE
Washington D.C. 20044
Postage $ 0.63 SE
tified Fee
neturn Neceipt Feel &
= a ™ aii }
= mnaorsement Require
: |
= Restricted Delivery | D
)
I ] SC c nt Re i
VY Y a ?
City, slate, Zip +
|| 20044]
App. 307
CERTIFIED MAIL: #7005- 0390- 0004- 0872- 0313
In rem: Notice of Default
H. Clark Ford III
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
Against PETITION FOR
Director of International DEFAULT
Operation Filed March 28, 2007
Internal Revenue Service
Washington DC 20044
Respondent
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
One, H. Clark Ford III, petitions for entry of default
Respondent John Snow UNITED STATES TREAS-
URY SECRETARY and DIRECTOR OF INTERNA-
TIONAL AFFAIRS for failure to rebut petitioner’s
“Filing Statement in Affidavit Forms for Tax Years
1997-2002 and 2004-2005. All mailed to your agency
or agencies on or before April 15th of the respective
previous years, with the exception of 2003, wherein
Petitioner demanded a rebuttal by affidavit, within
30 days of receipt of the “Filing Statement in Affida-
vit form”. Return for 2003 had been sent in a timely
manner as the other returns, however, H. Clark Ford
III has lost record of it and is now filing another
return at this time with the same stipulations.
H. Clark Ford III hereby swears and deposes under
penalty of perjury that he has not received any
affidavits in rebuttal from the UNITED STATES
App. 308
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; the DIRECTOR OF
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS or any agency thereof,
therefore,the Respondent has acquiesced and is in
statutory default for the above stated years.. This
Default Notice shall evidence that H. Clark Ford III
is correct in his analysis of the filing requirements
and other tax inquiries contained within the “Filing
Statement in Affidavit Form”. By this Default Notice,
the Respondent is estopped from any further action
against the Natural Human Person of the Petitioner
and is without judicial standing, as no controversy in
law or material fact between the two parties exists.
/s/ H. Clark Ford IIT
Petitioner
NOTORIAL
COUNTY OF CHAVES
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
On this day of March, 2007 One, H. Clark Ford
IlI, came before me a Notary Public in and for the
people of The State of New Mexico, One, H. Clark
Ford III, personally known by me, in my presence,
under oath declared the truth of the above Statement
Filing.
/s/ Robin Purcella
Notary Public
[SEAL]
9/29/07
Commission Expires:
App. 309
2/26/2007
Certified Mail # 7005-0390-0004-0872-8320
RE: H. Clark Ford III
Internal Revenue Service
Attention: David C. Iglesias
United States attorney
c/o Cynthia L. Weisman,
assistant U.S. attorney
Subject: SUMMONS
Revoked SS # [Social Security Number Omitted]
H. Clark Ford IIT
P.O. Box 424
Hagerman, New Mexico
America
Near: [88232] NON-Domestic Years 1996 thru 2006
REFUSUAL OF SUMMONS FOR FRAUD
IN AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE FORM
IMPLIED LEGAL NOTICE TO:
David C. Iglesias c/o Cynthia L. Weisman
Notice of Crime and request for
investigation and findings pursuant to:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7214
and, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, and, 18 U.S.C. Sec.
912, and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7213 and 7216
MISAPPLICATION OF TITLE
26 USC §7602 SIGNING OF FALSE
DOCUMENTS AND MAIL FRAUD
Dear Cynthia Weisman;
This letter will serve as Implied Legal Notice to
Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 that the Summonses
peneieeeeeeensssieniimeneiiill
App. 310
served against H. Clark Ford III, are unauthorized by
Statute and in error. The Internal Revenue Service's
Summons Form [form # 2039], relied on Section 7602
of the Internal Revenue Code as the reference for
legal evidence of authority of law to summon me for
the purpose of gathering information leading to the
collection of tax. I have grave concerns relative to
your authority to issue the summons as well as the
potential of exposing me to possible prosecution
should this civil matter evolve in character into that
of a criminal investigation. I will not permit any
waiver of my Amendment 1, IV or V Right against
self-incrimination as would be the case, were I to
voluntarily submit the information you have de-
manded without first having received in writing use
immunity for said information.
Your alleged authority under Title 26 of the United
States Code is hereby refuted by the following legal
analysis and rebutted by law. Therefore, all legal
presumption of evidence of law is removed. It would
appear that you, Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124], are
misapplying Title 26 §7602 and misusing the authori-
ty of this section for the collection of information
against me, signing false documents and fraudulently
using the U.S. Mail Service to affect an illegal discov-
ery, under color of law.
The Summons purports to be “issued under authority
of the Internal Revenue Code” but does not substan-
tiate this claim by providing the required implement-
ing regulations. The Summons purports to be for the
purpose “... to give testimony and to bring with you
App. 311
and to produce for examination the following books,
records, papers, and other data relating to the tax
liability or the collection of the tax liability or for the
purpose of inquiring into any offense connected with
the administration or enforcement of the internal
revenue laws”.
There was no indication of providing use immunity
for any such testimony.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States protects the individual, stating:
“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself... .”
The Fifth Amendment seems to apply only to criminal
matters, but the Supreme Court ruled in McCarthy v.
Arndstein, 266 US. 34, that the Fifth Amendment
“... applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings.”
Similar rulings have stated:
“There can be no question that one who files a return
under oath is a witness within the meaning of the
Amendment. Sullivan v. United States, 15 F. 2nd 809,
and
‘The information revealed in the preparation and
filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment
analysis, the testimony of a “witness” as, that term is
used herein.’ Garner v. United States, 424 US. 648.
I am well aware that the fifth amendment will not
preclude an IRS agent from seeking information to
determine a tax liability if no return has been filed as
App. 312
your letter of February 7 alludes, however, I have
filed a return for years 2001-2005 in compliance to
section 6011A of Title 26. Matter is that I have done
so for years beginning in 1997. Simply because I did
not file a 1040 does not connote that I failed to
send in a “return.” The Secretary has not rejected or
denied these returns since 1997. They meet the
requirements set forward at section 3121l(e). Fur-
thermore Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 has already
found a tax liability in as much as he gave my bank a
NOTICE OF LEVY on February 28th 2006 (Exhibit
A). How did he arrive at a figure with out determin-
ing a liability? I accepted his figures twice and both
times, he treated my offer with dishonor (Exhibits B
C D and E). Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 has con-
fessed to not having the authority or standing to
pursue these matters thru tacit procuration. He has
also admitted thru the same mode of communication
that there exists no summary assessment (Exhibits F
and G). The NOTICE OF LEVY at exhibit A is arbi-
trary and capricious.
Understand there may be severe penalties under 18
USC §§241 and 242 which you may be personally
subjecting yourself to if you fail to follow the proper
due process procedures required by law and outlined
in the Internal Revenue Service policy manual for
any unlawful activity by you, against me.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that the
authority of laws in the Internal Revenue Code is
dependent upon the regulations promulgated by the
App. 313
Secretary. As stated in California Bankers Assn. v.
Schultz 416 U.S. 21, 26 (1974):
“... we think it important to note that the Act’s civil
and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of
regulations promulgated by the Secretary if the Secre
tary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no
penalties on anyone.”
None of the presentments I have reviewed contained
the implementing regulations upon which your
alleged authority exists. Title 44 U.S.C. §1501 et seq.,
provides that regulations having general applicability
must be published in the Federal Register. Those not
having general applicability and legal effect or effec-
tive only against federal agencies or persons in their
capacity as officers, agent, or employees thereof, need
not be published (44 U.S.C. §1505). The Internal
Revenue Service records show, or should show, that |
am not an employee, officer or, agent of any federal,
state agency or instrumentality.
The Code of Federal Regulations Index and Finding
Aide Parallel Table of Authorities shows the location
of published regulations. I give notice that section
7602 has no implementing regulation under Title 26
and agent Pryor is not an enforcement agent as
described in section 7608
Title 26 USC §§7602, 7603, 7604 and 7605 deal with
a Summons issued under internal revenue laws. The
CFR Index and Finding Aid Table of Authorities
inform us that the regulations for these statutes are
found in the Title 27 CFR, which deals exclusively
App. 314
with taxable alcohol, tobacco or firearm activities.
The Internal Revenue Service records show, or should
show that T am not involved in any taxable alcohol,
tobacco or firearm activities and strict proof is de
manded to the contrary.
Authority is only provided to internal revenue en-
forcement officers described in 26 U.S.C. §7608 and
its regulations in 27 CFR Parts 70, 170 and 296.
Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 agent, has never been
identified as a section 7608 government person in any
of the writings associated with this instant matter,
nor is it stated that he is acting pursuant to authority
in 27 CFR Part 70, 170 or 296. Please so identify your
status as an enforcement officer and agency, and if
you are proceeding pursuant to 27 CFR Part 70, 170
and 296 as your authority, with your collection activi-
ty against me.
If your lack of authority is not readily apparent to you
after reviewing, the pertinent Statutes and Regula-
tions above T invite your attention to the following.
The Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the U.S. Code
has not been enacted as positive law. Please see
United States Code Service, 1 USC §204, page 52
(1993). Tithe 26 USC is shown to be simply prima
facie evidence of law and is presumed valid until
rebutted. I hereby rebut Title 26 of the United States
Code as being evidence of law, by Acts of Congress
and settled case law on the subject.
The laws that apply to the general public of the 50
Union States are referred to as the Statutes at Large.
App. 315
These Statutes are clear as to the taxable activities
and to those liable for these activities as shown by the
Statutes at Large and the Federal Court decisions.
“_.. official source for United States laws is Statutes
at Large. United States Code is only prima facie
evidence of such laws.” Toyer’s Ine. v. United States
265 F2d 615, 59-1 (1959, CA Pa.)
“Statutes at Large are legal evidence of laws contained
therein and are accepted as proof of those laws in any
court of the United States”. Bear v. United States,
810 F2d 153.
Unless Congress affirmatively enacts Title 26 of the
United States Code into law, ‘Title 26 is only “prima
facie” evidence of law. Preston v. Heckler, 734 F2d
1359, (1984, CA 9 Alaska).
Where Title has not been enacted into positive law,
title is only prima facie or rebuttal evidence of law,
and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had
to original statutes themselves. United States v.
Auger, 474 U.S. 805 (1985)
Where there is conflict between codification and
Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large must prevail.
American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States, 429 U.S.
817 (1976); Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423
(1943): United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964);
Best Food, Inc. v. United States, 147 F Supp 749
(1956)
Internal Revenue Code construction to Statutes
at Large must be made by individual section and
App 316
subsection since each section and subsection is de
rived from their own set of Statutes at Large pam
phlet, Joint Committee in Taxation. “Derivations of
Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Codes of 1939
and 1954 (JCS-1-92), January 21, 1992, U.S. Gov
ernment Printing Office.” United States v. Wodtke,
871 F2d 1092 (1985), ND Iowa)
As can be easily understood, the Statutes at Large
prevail over dispute of Code, which is the situation in
the instant matter with regard me. For your total
comprehension, perhaps a review of the following is
in order.
Authority to Summon — The summons authority of
the Internal Revenue Service rests in Title 26 USC
Section 7602. Legal presumption of lawful authority
of Section 7602 is hereby refuted and rebutted as to
the authority to summon me for the following rea
SONS.
Section 7602 of the 1986 Internal Revenue Code is
derived from Section 7602 of the 1954 Code that was
derived from the 1939 Code. By tracing the genesis of
this Code to its origin and the species of taxes for
which a summons could be authorized, I find only one
specific section where such a tax is mentioned. This
species of tax can be located at 14 Statutes at Large
471, Section 1 of the Revised Statutes of 1867, which
clearly describes that authorization and summons
authority only applies to cotton.
[ was not and am not now involved in any taxable
event involving cotton, for the years in question.
App. 317
There has been no amending of the Statute at Large
or appeal as of this date that changes the original
intent of Congress. The CFR index is in complete
harmony with the Statutes at Large, as the imple-
menting regulation for Title 26 USC §7602 is Title 27
CFR Parts 170 and 296. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, dealing only with collection of
excise taxes promulgated the regulations in Title 27.
I invite your attention to the CFR Index, page 803,
which by reference is incorporated herein. The im-
plementing regulation for Title 26 §7602 is Title 27
Part 70, 170 and 296, which is a regulation that
applies to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-
arms. This agency collects stamp taxes, which is the
species of tax applicable to cotton and distilled spirits.
According to 1 CFR §21.21 each agency shall publish
its own regulations and may not cross-reference to
another agency unless it meets the exceptions as
published in the Federal Register. Please identify the
Statute at Large section that authorizes the Internal
Revenue Service to collect stamp taxes. Also, please
identify by date, volume and page number in the
Federal Kegister where cross-referencing regulations
from Title 27 to Title 26 is authorized, as I am unable
to locate them as being recorded.
Consequently, since there is no statutory authority
allowing the Internal Revenue Service to summon
any records not relating to a stamp tax on cotton or
distilled spirits, you are acting single-handedly and
without authority, under color of law. Unless you can
App. 318
provide me with documentation to the contrary, you
are violating my constitutional mght to due process of
law, the Statutes at Large, Internal Revenue Service
regulations, Internal Revenue Manual rules and
Internal Revenue Code and do so at your own peril.
Therefore, I demand you immediately withdraw from
this summons action for discovery of my records from
either first or third parties. Such activity constitutes
an invasion of my personal effects where there is no
probable cause to do so.
Should this summons action continue against me, or
if you fail to respond to this Implied Legal Notice and
Notice of Crime, within (20) Twenty days, I will
exercise all legal remedies pertaining to the miscon-
duct, and the aiding and abetting thereof pursuant to
Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998, as you have been given Implied Notice of the
prevailing law. There may also be legal remedy
available for me in the state circuit courts. Time is of
the essence.
A copy of this Notice will be sent to the appropriate
Congressman. I will ask him to look into your mis-
application of 26 USC §7602, regarding me. I will ask
the Congressman to contact your office and inquire as
to whether the Tax Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 is being administered to the letter and spirit of
the law by the IRS, District Director, according to the
mandate of Congress.
If there is any section or amendment within the Stat-
utes at Large that rebuts the legal analysis I have
App. 319
presented, please forward it to me at once. Upon
receipt of a proven rebuttal of the aforementioned
Codes, and Regulations as supported by the Statutes
at Large, I will pay any tax for which there is a
liability, and to do so expeditiously
This Implied Legal Notice, and Notice of Crime, is
intended as a rebuttal to the legitimacy of all claims
made in the Form 2039 Summons issued by Michael
J. Pryor # 84-10124, and placing the personal respon-
sibility of verifying the pertinent law contained in the
Implied Legal Notice, herein, by you. Pursuant to
Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence, the contents of
this timely Implied Legal Notice 1s accepted by you
the Service and connected agencies, as accurate if not
countered in affidavit form by you or someone compe-
tent to know the law, with proofs, including, but not
limited to, the taxable activity, which the IRS records
claim I am involved in and produce a bonafide grant
of use immunity for any and all information, docu-
ments and testimony the IRS wants or receives from
me, whether through Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124, or
others.
Request for investigation
Cynthia L. Weisman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, this
letter of mine contains legal opinions and legal con-
clusions. To the extent that you require assistance in
understanding my correspondence or in the prepara-
tion of a response to it, please provide a copy to your
upline United States Attorney David C. Iglesias, and
App. 320
forward it to me, in which you provide legal argument
or offer legal conclusions, and certify your bar mem-
bership and license to practice law in the republic
State of New Mexico, where I am Domiciled. If your
letter was issued with the intent to secure my agree-
ment and participation with the observed violations
of public law and IRS procedures. I am not at lberty
to act as an accommodation party to a fraudulent
proceeding. I am required to report this unlawful
course of action to the proper authorities. If you are
the proper authority to receive this report, pursuant
to the following relevant provisions of law, I demand
a report of the progress of your investigation of the
matters and allegations outlined, and certification
under oath that you are not aiding and abetting
Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 in the violations outlined
below.
Notice of Crime and request for investigation
and report of findings Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001, and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7214 and, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 371, and, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 912,
and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7213 and 7216
The statement of your letter that an JRS summons
has been issued is not supported by the agency proce-
dures and public law references that follow. The
authority, and procedure for the issuance of an inter-
nal revenue summons is found at, Internal Revenue
Procedure 84-62 1984-2 This procedure rendered
obsolete “the Form 2039” and directs authorized
Internal Revenue Service personnel, to use Form
App. 321
6687 Collection Summons, Collection Information
Statement, Form 6688, Collection Summons, Income
Tax return; and Form 6689, Collection Summons,
Financial Records. clearly, articulating the proper
IRS summons forms to be used as; Form “6687, 6688,
and 6689”. The “District Director” is identified as the
responsible official having authority to issue a sum-
mons
While the power to issue is asserted, the authority to
serve a previously issued summons is the point of
argument ... It is the power to issue said summons
not the authority to serve one; that is the issue in this
instant case. Form 2039 has clearly been reserved for
use by another agency, BATF who by regulation and
order of the secretary may not re-delegate that power.
See 27 U.S.C., and at 27 C.F.R. Part 70 Subpart C
Sec. 70.22(b) May not be re-delegated.
It appears that the language of sec 7602 authorizes
any employee of the service to serve a summons but
the power to issue a summons has clearly been re-
served for higher officials. See Sillier v. Board of
Control of Michigan College of Mining and Technolo
gy, 333 Mich. 681, 53 N.W.2d 681, 684 (1952) Revenue
agent Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124 has by-passed the
administrative procedures of the Internal Revenue
Service, and has proceeded to engage in acts prohibit-
ed by Federal law and against the public policy. The
two summonses that are attached to your letter of
February 7 gives evidence that Michael J. Pryor # 84-
10124 not only issued two summonses that he has no
authority for which to issue but also served the same
App. 322
summonses that he illegally issued. Thus, your letter
of February 7 instructs me to comply with two sum-
monses under these circumstances bearing no OMB
numbers. Even if these summonses had been legal, I
would be hard pressed to show up on 500 N. Richard-
son five months ago.
It is agreed that the IRS power to summons exists.
The exercise of that power is not unlimited, Cudahy
Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363, 364, 62
S.Ct. 651, 655 (1942) “Unlimited authority of an
administrative officer to delegate the exercise of the
subpoena power is not lightly to be inferred. Jt is a
power capable of oppressive use, especially when it
may be indiscriminately delegated and the subpoena
is not returnable before a judicial officer ... But the
subpoena is in form of an official command, and even
though improvidently issued it has some coercive
tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights
on the part of those whom it purports to command or
their natural respect for what appears to be an offi-
cial command, or because of their reluctance to test
the subpoena’s validity by litigation. All these are
cogent reasons for inferring an intention of Congress
not to give unrestricted authority to delegate the
subpoena power which it has in terms granted only to
the responsible head of the agency. Any show cause
petition in federal court in favor of the INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE can only result thru an abuse
of discretion
Observed Violations
The following violations of law
are observed and hereby reported
[It is alleged that Mike Pryor has Violated the
following:
1) PL. 105-206 (7-22-98). Internal Revenue
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
By disregarding congressional mandate
to follow agency procedure.
2) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7214 by signing a false
and unauthorized Form 2039
3) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 by knowingly and
willfully making false or fraudulent
statement to agency of United States
4) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 by knowingly and
willfully uttering false or fraudulent
statements through the Unites States
Postal Service. mail fraud.
5) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 conspiracy to violate
United states [sic] statutes.
6) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7213 and 7216 unauthor-.
ized disclosure.
7) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 912 False Personating.
Mike Pryor knowingly and willfully held
himself out to be the District Director
of the Internal revenue [sic] Service and
or an statutory authorized officer of the
BATFE.
App. 324
Respectfully,
s/ H. Clark Ford II]
H. Clark Ford ITI
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico
88232
H. Clark Ford III]
U.S. National/Non Resident Alien
State of New Mexico INDIVIDUAL
COUNTY OF CHAVES ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said County and State on this 26th day of
Feb, 2007, personally appeared H. Clark Ford III to
me known to be the natural man who executed the
within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he executed the same as his free and
voluntary act.
Given under my hand and seal the day and year
last above written.
My commission expires 9/29/07
[SEAL] Robin Purcella Notary Public
SEAL:
I, H. Clark Ford III, on this 26th day of February
do depose and affirm that a full and complete
copy of the above has been sent to:
QOL
App. 325
PERSONAL SERVICE OF
PROCESS-HAND DELIVERED
H. Clark Ford III
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
Petitioner
Against Demand for Record of Assessment
For Tax years 1996-2006
Michael Pryor #84-10124
Internal Revenue Service
12600 W. Colfax Ave
Lakewood Colorado 80215
Respondent
Now comes H. Clark Ford III to petition Internal
Revenue Agent Michael Pryor #84-10124 for a De-
mand for Record of Assessment For Tax years
1996-2006. According to 26 CFR 301. 6203-1. Mr.
Ford is to be supplied with the pertinent parts of the
assessment record which include:
1. The name of the taxpayer for each and every
record of assessment.
2. The date of the assessment asserting that a
certified assessment officer signed the as
sessment on those particular dates for each
and every record of assessment.
3. The character and the liability for which the
record of assessments were made.
1. The applicable tax period for each of the
years demanded.
ea h } f ment pel
i] qaem ind I ent by De! Ollal ervice proce
iilure LO produce these asst ment Within 10 da
proce will conclude that no uch j ( ment
KIST fo! the abe ve Veal If more tf ( | ule ted
| by 7 wed . + | im re )
pectiull' 1}
Ht. Clark Ford II]
H. Clark Ford IT]
PO Box 454
reTT}
App. 327
H. CLARK FORD III
P.O. BOX 424
HAGERMAN, NM 88232
Petitioner,
Vs.
MICHAEL PRYOR #84-10124
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
12600 W. COLFAX AVENUE
LAKEWOOD, CO 80215
Respondent.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
STATE OF COLORADO )
CITY AND ) Ss.
COUNTY OF DENVER )
[, Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr. (print name), do here by
swear and affirm that I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to this matter, and that on the 31st
day of May, 2006 I delivered a copy of a Demand for
Record of Assessment to-wit: Michael Pryor #84
10124, Internal Revenue Service Agent, at 12600 W
Colfax Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. at 9:38
a.m.
Furthermore Affiant sayeth naught
/s/ Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr.
Affiant Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr
H. Clark Ford II]
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico
Petitioner
Notice of Default
Against
Michael J. Pryor # 84-101:
Internal Revenue Service
12600 W. Colfax Avenue
Lakewood Colorado 8021!
Respondent
Now comes H. Clark Ford III to issue to Michael J
Pryor Agent to the Internal Revenue Service Notice
of Default. On May 31st 2006, the Respondent was
hand delivered a Demand for Record Assessment
for Tax Years 1996-2006. This demand is sanctioned
under section 6203 to Title 26 of the US code. The
Demand requested the assessments within 10 days of
process and allowed more time if requested. Today’s
date is July 12, 2006. Mr. Pryor did not request
anymore time and the 10 days have lapsed. To date
there fails to be a production.
Respectfully submitt
H. Clark Ford IT]
H. Clark Ford III
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico
TATE OF NEW MEXI¢
OUNTY OF CHAVES
gy 7 s *
‘pee pe
’
f Default
~~
at
Saat.
]
App. 332
To: Michael J. Pryor 84-40124
Internal Revenue Service
12600 W. Colfax Ave.
Lakewood Colorado 80215-3733
Hand Delivered
From: H. Clark Ford IT]
P.O. Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
Date: September 5th 2006
Notice of Acceptance for Value and Demand
for Delegation of Authority, Oath of Office,
and Bond, of Michael J. Pryor regarding a
Summons, Form # 2039, Request N 09-2006-0001
Dear Michael Pryor,
1 accept your offer to contract, and will submit for
your inspection the documents you ~equested
by way of the above referenced form singed [sic]
by you on August 11th 2006 (see attachment form
2039). I agree to comply with the findings of said
inspection. This agreement presumes that any indi-
vidual reviewing these documents has on file at the
time of review, 1) Delegation of authority to request
and review, 2) Oath of office, 3) Bond, and agrees to
make a good faith “Offer of Proof” of items 1-4 listed
below to H. Clark Ford III, prior to any review of the
information contained in the documents submitted in
“good faith” and in accord with principles of fair
dealing and the clean hands doctrine.
App. 333
Offer of Proof Required
1. Your constitutional oath of office, as required by 5
U.S.C. § 3331:
2. Your civil commission as agent or officer of Gov-
ernment of the United States;
3. Your affidavit declaring that you did not pay for
or otherwise make or promise consideration to
secure the office (5 U.S.C. § 3332); and
4. Your personal official bond or surety bond as
required in 26 USC § 7101; or
a. An obligation as security instead of a surety bond
in 31 USCA § 9308; or
b. A single bond in lieu of multiple bonds approved
by the director in 26 USC § 7102;
c. As required in 26 CFR § 301.7101-1, including
the bonding as required in the 1939 and 1954 In-
ternal Revenue Codes.
d. A copy of the contract, memorandum of agree-
ment or any comparable instrument entered into
by the Internal Revenue Service and the De-
partment of the Treasury of the United States,
authorizing the IRS to operate in an ancillary or
other secondary capacity to provide services un-
der original authority vested in the Treasury Fi-
nancial Management Service or some _ other
bureau of the Department of the Treasury of the
United States.
These documents should all be filed as public records.
See 5 U.S.C. § 2906 for requirements concerning
filing oaths of office. In the event you do not have a
App. 334
personal surety bond, you may provide a copy of your
financial statement, which you are required to file
annually. Your financial statement will be construed
as a private treaty surety bond in the event that you
exceed lawful authority.
It is agreed that by your reviewing, inspecting or
otherwise disclosing the personal information con-
c
tained in this “good faith” acceptance of your offer,
that you are currently vested with and will produce
for inspection prior to any review, the specific items
listed 1-4 above. It is further agreed that your failure
to provide the required Offer of Proof will void any
obligation that may be determined by your findings.
Response Required
“Time is of the essence”; I will grant you ten days to
provide the required offer of proof; if you are unable
to produce the required Offer of Proof within Ten (10)
days from your receipt of this offer, your request for
more time to obtain and produce the Proof will be
granted. Otherwise a default will be entered against
you.
All Rights Reserved
s/) H.Clark Ford TT |
H. Clark Ford III (natural born individual whose
name is not spelled in all upper case)
Enclosed Summons form 2039
App. 335
Notary Public
I Robin Purcella a Notary Public for the State of New
Mexico, do affirm that H. Clark Ford III a natural
person known by me, signed this Notice of Acceptance
For Value and Demand for Delegation of Authority,
Oath of Office, and Bond, of Michael J. Pryor regard-
ing a Summons, Form # 2039 on the 5th day of Sep-
tember, 2006 in the County of Chaves; State of New
Mexico.
[SEAL] ‘s/ Robin Purcella |
My commission expirers [sic] on 9/27/07
IN REFERENCE TO NOTICE OF
ACCPTENACE [sic] FOR VALUE AND DEMAND
FOR DELIGATION OF AOUTHORITY [sic],
OATH OF OFFICE, AND BOND, OF MICHAEL
J. PRYOR REGARDING A SUMMONS, FORMA
FORM # 2039, REQUEST #09-2006-0001.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
I, Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr., do hereby swear and
affirm that I am over the age of 18 years, and that I
am not a party to this lawsuit. I further state that on
the 6th day of September 2006*** I delivered a copy
of Notice of Acceptance for Value and Demand for
Delegation of Authority, Oath of Office, and Bond, of
Michael J. Payor [sic] regarding a Summons, form
#2039, Request # 09-2006-0001. Answer to-wit:
***at 3:31 p.m.
Michael J. Payor (sic| 84-10124
Internal Revenue Service
12600 W. Colfax Ave.
Lakewood Colorado 80215-3733
Furthermore Affiant sayeth naught.
‘s/ Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr.
Cameron A. Hegedus, Jr.
Private Process Server
SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO AND ACKNOWL-
EDGED BEFORE ME THIS 7th DAY OF September,
2006.
(SEAL)
s/ Carmelita Benavidez | 06-26-10
Notary Public in and for MCE
the State of NM Colorado
438 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80204
303-778-7630
[SEAL]
App. 337
Book 7570 Page 1093
To: Michael J. Pryor 84-10124
Internal Revenue Service
12600 W. Colfax Ave.
Lakewood Colorado 80215-3733
Registered Mail RR-849-286-305 US
From: H. Clark Ford II]
Po Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88230
Date November 16th 2006
Second Notice of Acceptance for Value
the Delegation of authority, Oath of Office,
and Bond, of Michael Pryor
regarding a Summons, Form # 2039,
Request # 11-2006-0002
Dear Michael Pryor,
I accept your offer to contract, and will submit for
your inspection the documents you requested by way
of the above referenced form, and letters. I agree to
comply with the findings of said inspection. This
agreement presumes that any individual reviewing
these documents has on file at the time of review, 1)
Delegation of authority to request and review, 2) Oath
of office, 3) Bond, and agrees to make a good faith
“Offer of Proof” of items 1, 2, 3 and four above, to H.
Clark Ford III, prior to any review of the information
contained in the documents submitted in “good faith”
and in accord with principles of fair dealing and the
clean hands doctrine.
a.
b.
d.
App. 338
Book 7570 Page 1094
Offer of Proof Required
Your constitutional oath of office, as required by 5
U.S.C. § 3331;
Your civil commission as agent or officer of Gov-
ernment of the United States;
Your affidavit declaring that you did not pay for
or otherwise make or promise consideration to
secure the office (5 U.S.C. § 3332); and
Your personal official bond or surety bond as
required in 26 USC § 7101; or
An obligation as security instead of a surety bond
in 31 USCA § 9303; or
A single bond in lieu of multiple bonds approved
by the director in 26 USC § 7102;
As required in 26 CFR § 301.7101-1, including
the bonding as required in the 1939 and 1954 In-
ternal Revenue Codes.
A copy of the contract, memorandum of agree-
ment or any comparable instrument entered into
by the Internal Revenue Service and the De-
partment of the Treasury of the United States,
authorizing the IRS to operate in an ancillary or
other secondary capacity to provide services un-
der original authority vested in the Treasury Fi-
nancial Management Service or some other
bureau of the Department of the Treasury of the
United States.
These documents should all be filed as public records.
See 5 U.S.C. § 2906 for requirements concerning
filing oaths of office. In the event you do not have a
App. 339
personal surety bond, you may provide a copy of your
financial statement, which you are required to file
annually. Your financial statement will be construed
as a private treaty surety bond in the event that you
exceed lawful authority.
It is agreed that by your reviewing, inspecting or
otherwise disclosing the personal information con-
tained in this “good faith” acceptance of your offer,
that you are currently vested with and will produce
for inspection prior to any review, the specific items 1,
2, and 3 and 4 listed above, of this offer. It is further
agreed that your failure to provide the required Offer
of Proof will void any obligation that may be deter-
mined by your findings.
Response Required
“Time is of the essence”, if you are unable to produce
the required Offer of Proof within Ten (10) days from
your receipt of this offer, your request for more time
to obtain and produce the Proof will be granted.
Otherwise a default will be entered against you.
All Rights Reserved
/s/ H. Clark Ford IIT
H. Clark Ford III
Registered Mail # RR 849-286-305-US
App. 340
Notary Public
I Robin Purcella a Notary Public for the State of
New Mexico, do affirm that Tracy Ford is a natural
person, who's [sic] signature appears above, ap.-
peared before me on this 16th day of November,
2006 in the County of Chaves State of New Mexico
[SEAL] /s/ RobinPurcella
9/29/07
[SEAL]
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
COUNTY OF CHAVES, ss
FILE FROM RECORD Nov 1%
2006 at 10:29:54 o’clock AM
Receipt No. 283188 Fee $ 11.00
Book 570 Page 1093 Pages 2
To Whom Returned
H. CLARK FORD II]
WILL PICK UP
RHODA C COAKLEY
COUNTY CLERK
By /s/ |Illegible]
App. 34]
Registered No. RR849284812US Date Stamp
Reg. Fee $9.35
Handling $0.00 Return $1.85 Domestic
Charge Receipt insurance up
ao) °
2. — ——— to $25,000 is
@,3|Postage $0.52 Restricted $0.00 | included in
sO an Delivery the fee
5S 2] Received by [Lllegible} Internationa]
A }--— ate wee
© »| Customer x) With Postal ——
& 1 Must Declare Insurance Se meee
. . >... (See Reverse)
Full Value |} Without Postal
$500.00 Insurance
OFFICIAL USE
H. Clark Ford II]
P.O. Box 424
| HagerMAN NEW MEXICO
88232
MICHEAL [sic] PRYOR 89-10124
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
12600 WEST Colfax AVE:
LAKEWOOD CO 80215
PS Form 3806, Receipt for Registered Mail Copy 1
Customer
May 2004 (7530-02-000-9051)
(See information on Reverse)
FROM
(Please Print)
All Entries Must be in
Ballpoint or Typed
TO
To be Completed By Customer
For domestic delivery information, visit our website
at www.usps.com
App. 342
In rem: Notice of default
H. Clark Ford III Registered Mail
PO Box 424 RR 849-284-812-US
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
Petitioner,
Against
PETITION FOR
MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR DEFAULT
AGENT # 84-10124
12600 West Colfax Avenue
Lakewood Colorado 80215
Respondent
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
One, H. Clark Ford III, petitions for entry of
default by the Notary against respondent;
MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR AGENT # 84-10124 of
the Internal Revenue Service. For respondent’s
failure to produce an Offer of Proof to petitioner’s
“Notice of Acceptance for Value” received by re-
spondent on September 6th 2006 the date of Re-
ceipt. Wherein petitioner demanded an Offer of
Proof of respondent’s authority to contract, with-
in Ten (10) days of receipt of petitioners “Notice
of Acceptance for Value”, the respondent has
failed to produce any Offer of Proof of authority
to contract, or provide any response to petitioner’s
Notice. Therefore respondent MICHEAL [sic] J.
PRYOR AGENT # 84-10124 has acquiesced, and
is in statutory default. This Default Notice shal]
evidence that petitioner H. Clark Ford III has
acted in good faith, slean hands and is correct in
his analysis that Kespondent MICHEAL [sic] J
-~
App. 343
PRYOR AGENT # 84-10124 by his silence, has
not acted in good faith, and is without authority
to request, examine, or make any lawful deter-
mination regarding petitioner’s personal docu-
ments. By this Default Notice the respondent is
estopped from any further action against the
Natural Human Person of the Petitioner and is
without judicial standing, as no controversy in
law or material fact between the two parties ex-
ists.
Declaration of Denial of Existence of Corporation
My name is: “H. Clark Ford III’,
(Christian Appellation).
My name Is Not: “H. CLARK FORD IID’ (a [sic] entity)
/s/ H. Clark Ford III
‘H. Clark Ford TIT, Petition All Rights Reserved
DEFAULT
Default is entered in this action against the Respon-
dent named in the foregoing petition for failure to
respond or otherwise answer as required by law.
Notary Public
I Robin Purcella a Notary Public for the State of New
Mexico, do affirm that H. Clark Ford III, a natural
person, who’s signature appears above, appeared
hereby rtifs
, rae | D4 :¢: oe oe
opy or tne retition 1 default and Default
006 to Respondent MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR
>
oo
ed
noes
Z
a
—_
4
+3
4
> cy ‘ > ’ toc
1-10124, Internal Revenue Service, 126
Colfax Avenue |! R09
]
Clark ] |
? } 1,"
lex] ftir lark FI Il. a natu I
I S197 { pears ip r
} @)4 4
Registered No. RR 849 301 113US
- —
Reg. Fee $50.00
Handling $5.45 Return $1.85
Charge IReceinvt
Receipt insurance u
a2. a >, ~ 4 a ' * | <a +, POR \/
Ps @ | Postag Restricted to 20,000
= S| ‘Delivery included il
—! — — re Ge ~
a a the fee
~ + | a 23 | - 1 lL PS
8 a! Received by | sail tea
@ &|Customer J] With Post. Indemnit)
> co| Must De Insurance is Limited
— clare Without P e Revert
Full Value Insuran
$50.00
OFFICIAL
= a | P.O. Box 424
= e2 ize Ic Se ata
~Se> ix HagerMAN NEW MEXI
lll i ee
pas 5 88232
® ® <2 FS |
+> YW) ay - } } rT) > ye.
@a.2 = Micheal [sic] J PRYOR #
ae a >.
ESS [4 |12600 WEST Colfax AVI
» < INTERNAL REVENUE SEI
oe LAKEWOOD Colorado 8021
oo rorm odVt Receipt f
App. 346
SENDER COMPLETE THIS SECTION
be Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if
Restricted Delivery is desired.
@ Print your name and address on the reve1
that we can return the card to you
@ Attach this card to the back of the mailpi
the front if space permits
|. Article Addressed to
Micheal [sic] J. PRYOR
#84-10129
12600 W. Colfax AVE
Lakewood Colorado 802]
Article Number RR-849-248-812-US
A
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVER)
A. Signature
X /s/ Sonja Youngberg Xx) Agent
| Addresses
Received by (Printed Name)|C. Date of Deli
Sonja Youngber 9/28/06
SEAL
Is delivery address different from ite Ye
If YES, enter delivery address below N
}
1. Restricted Delivery ? (Extra Fee
Article Number RR-849-284-812
a
ransfer from service lahel)
ansier Irom Se@rvlceé iD¢
L<
App. 348
Book 0572 Page 0454
In rem: Notice of default
H. Clark Ford II] Registered Mail RR
PO Box 424 849 301 113 US
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
Petitioner,
Against
Petiti f Default
MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR en ee
AGENT # 84-10124
Respondent
12600 West Colfax Avenue
Lakewood Colorado 80215
Respondent
November 16th 2006
SECOND NOTICE OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice number 12-0006-0003
One, H. Clark Ford III, petitions for entry of
default by the Notary against respondent;
MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR AGENT # 84-10124 of
the Internal Revenue Service. For respondent’s
failure to produce an Offer of Proof to petitioner’s
“Notice of Acceptance for Value” received by re-
spondent on November 21st 2006 the date of Re-
ceipt. Wherein petitioner demanded an Offer of
Proof of respondent’s authority to contract, with-
in Ten (10) days of receipt of petitioners “Notice
of Acceptance for Value”, the respondent has
failed to produce any Offer of Proof of authority
to contract, or provide any response to petitioner’s
Notice. Therefore, MICHEAL [sic] J. PRYOR
AGENT # 84-10124 has acquiesced, and is in
statutory default. This Default Notice shall evi-
dence that petitioner H. Clark Ford III] has acted
App. 349
Book 0572 Page 0455
in good faith, clean hands and is correct in his
analysis that Respondent MICHEAL J. PRYOR
AGENT # 84-10124 by his silence, has not acted
in good faith, and is without authority to request,
examine, or make any lawful determination re-
garding petitioner’s personal documents. By this
Default Notice the respondent is estopped from
any further action against the Natural Human
Person of the Petitioner and is without judicial
standing, as no controversy in law or material
fact between the two parties exists.
Declaration of Denial of Existence of Corporation
My name is: “H. Clark Ford ITT’,
(Christian Appellation).
My name is not: “H. CLARK FORD III (a entity
/s/ H. Clark Ford IIT _ ”
H. Clark Ford III, Petitioner All Rights Reserved
DEFAULT
Default is entered in this action against the Respond
ent named in the foregoing petition for failure to
respond or otherwise answer as required by law
Notary Public
I Robin Purcella a Notary Public for the State of New
Mexico, do affirm that H. Clark Ford III, a natural
person, wh2's [sic] signature appears above, appeared
App. 350
before me on this 4th day of December, 2006 in the
County of Chaves State of New Mexico.
‘s/ Robin Purcella _
[SEAL | My commission expires 9/29/07
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[, H. Clark Ford III, hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the Petition for Default and Second
Notice Default was served by Registered Mail, on
December 4th 2006 to Respondent MICHEAL [sic] J.
PRYOR AGENT # 84-10124, Internal Revenue Ser-
vice, 12600 West Colfax Avenue Lakewood Colorado
80215
s/ H. Clark Ford III
H. Clark Ford III, Petitioner,
Notary Public
I Robin Purcella a Notary Public for the State of New
Mexico, do affirm that H. Clark Ford III, a natural
person, who’s [sic] signature appears above, appeared
before me on this 4th day of December, 2006 in the
County of Chaves State of New Mexico.
s/ Robin Purcella
[SEAL] My commission expires 9/29/0%
[SEAI
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
COUNTY OF CHAVES, ss
FILE FROM RECORD Dec 5,
2006 at 9:50:09 o’clock AM
Receipt No. 283833 Fee $ 11.00
Book 572 Page 544 Pages 2
To Whom Returned
H. CLARK FORD III
WILL PICK UP
RHODA C. COAKLEY,
COUNTY CLERK
By /s/ [Illegible] Spivey Deputy
IN THE UNITED STATS [sic] DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES AND
INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE
Petitioner |
# 07-mc016 JCH
V
H. Clark Ford III
Respondent
Response to Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice
(Filed Mar. 13, 2008)
Now comes H. Clark Ford III an natural living man
filing in a special appearance Response to Motion
to Dismiss With Prejudice.
To dismiss with prejudice is a tacit admission to a
falsehood.
Mr. Ford came to Albuquerque on April 19 2007. The
US District Court had summonsed him for not having
filed returns. The IRS based the subpoena upon a
false statement that Mr. Ford had not filed returns.
The IRS also based the purpose for this action mak-
ing a false accusation that Mr. Ford had previously
failed to respond to a previous federal summons by
filing the complaint under section 7604(b). Even
though the petition complains about Ford “not having
filed returns” there is no law before the court support-
ing this assertion. The Petitioner files this complaint
App. 353
under sections 7402(b) and 7604 to Title 26 of the US
code. Section 7402(b) renders jurisdiction where Ford
is not geographically domiciled (Doc. 8 Aff. St. 6).
Section 7604 says much the same things except that
in subsection (b) it goes on to say:
Whenever any person summoned under section
6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 6427(j)(2) or 7602 [26
USCS § 6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 6427(j)(2) or 7602)
neglects or refuses to obey such summons, or to
produce books, papers, records, or other data,
or to give testimony, as required...’
“7604(b) was intended only to cover persons who were
summonsed and wholly made default or contuma-
ciously refused to comply.” Ford has not refused to
answer a summons in regards to any of the above
sections; Ford has not been summons [sic] under the
above sections of Title 26. Thus, the petition entered
on March 12 2007 is structurally flawed and factually
inaccurate. (Exhibit A Ford Affidavit). He has refused
to succumb to the “administrative summonses” sent
to him by IRS Agent Michael J. Pryor # 84-10124.
This was after Agent Pryor had given tacit admission
to being for a lack of delegated authority for which to
issue summons form 2039 (Exhibits 14A-15B Doc. 5).
The Petition accuses Ford of having refused to comply
with ‘judicial summonses” that have not been issued.
He has never been summons [sic] under the above.
' 26 USCA 7604(b)
* Reisman v. Chaplin 375 US 440
App. 354
At no time has he refused to answer a “judicial sum-
mons”. Neither of the sections that the court sum-
monsed him under sport any verbiage of “no returns
having been filed.”
The summons issued against Ford on March 12 2007
asserted to Ford having previously refused to appear
for a previous federal summons (see affidavit Exhibit
A). This is an unsubstantiated conclusion for which
there is no testimony. The IRS perused Mr. Ford as a
“collective entity” of some kind of small business that
had been evading taxes by not filing any returns. To
submit to the motion filed by the petitioner at docket
number 65, would be to admit to these kinds of innu-
endos, none of which the IRS has sustained thru any
form of testimony.
After having been incarcerated by order of the court
on June 7 2007, Ford reluctantly and under duress
sat down with IRS agent Pryor on February 27 2008.
This was with the understanding that Ford did not in
any way summit to the authenticity of the two IRS
summonses found hanging on his doorknob August 15
2006. He expressed his sediments in a preamble
before Agent Pryor proceeded to question him. It is
understood that Mr. Ford could find no other way to
relieve himself of his incarceration (Please see tran-
script page 5 Ins 11 thru page 8 line 11 exhibit B). Mr.
Ford received his source form a trust that had al-
ready filed form 1041 for the tax periods at bar (See
Transcript Exhibit B Pg. 11 Ins. 17-23) the trust is the
collective entity not Mr. Ford. (Exhibit B pg. 13 Ins
16-25).
App. 355
Ford does not agree to the movant’s wording; it gives
efficacy to summons form 2039 and it also gives a
legitimate purpose to the issuance of a summons by
one who failed to procure delegated authority for
which to issue. The IRS has ridiculed Ford for mak-
ing frivolous arguments. His arguments in law and
fact have only been met with a sophistry in prose and
a demeaning of a man’s character; there has been no
findings of fact to substantiate any of these conclu-
sions nor has there been any law read to conclude
that Mr. Ford did not file any returns or owes
$100,000 to the IRS. A dismissal with prejudice at
this time would assert the afore mentioned making
damaging conclusions as to Mr. Ford’s legal standing
on these issues.
The judgment roll sports no evidentiary hearings to
enable this court to grant the motion at docket num-
ber 65 with prejudice; there are a number of issucs
still floating about that would damage Mr. Ford due
to their unresolve:
1. Mr. Ford evaded taxes for nine years by not
filing any returns. This could leave him open
to a federal indictment or a loss of his real
and personal property.
2. Michael J. Pryor could use the information
from the interview on Feb. 27 2007 to File
SFR’s under section 6020 even though it is
unsubstantiated that Mr. Ford failed to file
returns.
App. 357
Certificate of Service
I H. Clark Ford III, The Applicant in the above styled
cause here by affirm on this ____ day of February that
a clear and accurate copy of Response for Motion
To Dismiss With Prejudice was sent
To Cynthia Weisman
Office of the United States Attorney General,
district [sic] of New Mexico
PO Box 607 Albuquerque New Mexico 87103
Counsel for Petitioner petitioner
The last known address by way of United States Mail
On the 12th day of March 2008 by the US Postal
Service.
By /s/ H. Clark Ford Ul
H. Clark Ford III -
Po Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
mapas
fens
irs
oo >
ow
al
App. 360
IN THE MATTER OF:
IRS
UD
H. CLARK FORD, III
INTERVIEW OF H. CLARK FORD, III
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
Kendra Tellez Court Reporting, Inc.
300 Central SW
Suite 1500-E
Albuquerque, NM 87102
305-243-5691
Fax 505-242-0318
RE: IRS VS. H. CLARK FORD, II]
O7-16JH
INTERVIEW OF H. CLARK FORD, II]
February 27, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Regional Correctional Center
415 Roma Northwest
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
TAKEN BY RICHARD L. KRAFT
ATTORNEY FOR
H. CLARK FORD, III
App. 361
REPORTED BY: DESTENIE MARTINEZ P-120
KENDRA TELLEZ COURT
REPORTING, INC.
300 Central Avenue, SW,
Suite 1500-E
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
APPEARANCES
For H. Clark Ford, ITI:
Richard L. Kraft
KRAFT & HUNTER, LLP
111 West Third Street
Roswell, New Mexico 88202
(505) 625-2000
For Internal Revenue Service:
Agent Michael Pryor
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
INDEX
PAGE
INTERVIEW OF H. CLARK FORD, II]
By Mr. Pryor
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
OF DEPOSITION 20
(3] MR. PRYOR: Let me please open up the
meeting. We’re at Albuquerque 415 Roma Street,
Regional Detention Center for a meeting and present
are Horatio Clark Ford, III, attorney Richard Kraft,
court reporter Destenie Martinez, and I’m Revenue
App. 363
MR. KRAFT: And I’m, on behalf of Mr.
Ford, am handing to you a cashier’s check for
$100,000.
MR. PRYOR: Okay.
MR. FORD: And that eliminates me from
needing to answer questions six through thirteen, if
I’m going to understand; is that correct, sir?
MR. PRYOR: Yes, the payment of the taxes
makes moot the summons for a current financial
statement to help us determine your ability to pay
taxes if they’re already assessed so, yes.
MR. FORD: So I only need to be answering
questions one through five in Ms. Weisman’s letter of
February 7th?
MR. PRYOR: Yes, sir.
MR. KRAFT: And I'll give to you — here’s a
form which says “I Michael Pryor acknowledge re-
ceipt of a cashier’s check, and it has the number — ”
MR. PRYOR: “060784.”
MR. FORD: “ — payable to the Internal
Revenue [5] Service in the amount of $100,000 issued
for the benefit of H. Clark Ford, III.” And Id ask if
you could sign one out. I'll give you a copy for your
records.
MR. PRYOR: Okay.
App. 364
MR. KRAFT: That the IRS has received
that check.
MR. PRYOR: Okay. Okay. Excuse me for
just a sec. I just noticed everything is dated February
27th, and I didn’t read that into the record. So far —
today is the 27th?
MR. KRAFT: Yeah, 2008.
MR. FORD: Im going to ask that I be able
to read a preamble before answering any questions,
and that these — what I say here pertains to every
question that I answer won’t be repetitious, and it
won't be any more haranguing or time spent on any of
the legal aspects of what — what I think this is about.
But just this statement that I make before, and it is
applied to eight answers — questions that I answered,
and/or documents that I might render forth, and also
anything that Mr. Kraft might say on my behalf on
helping to clarify my financial situations here.
“I have been incarcerated for over eight months
now, since June 7, 2007. Each morning for the last
265 consecutive days, I have woken up in a jail cell
and had my freedom taken from me.
[6] “Iwo summons have been previously deliv-
ered to me by — both issued on the 11th of August
2006, IRS Form 2039. I have maintained and contin-
ue to maintain that the two summons have been
issued without authority or — and are written out on
an invalid form.
App. 365
“My answering questions is done under duress
for the purpose of ending my incarceration. I under-
stand that if I do not answer questions asked by IRS,
I will remain incarcerated possibly for the life sen-
tence the way the order has been written.
“By answering questions today, I’m reserving full
rights to pursue my positions set out in my previous
motions, briefs, and memorandums to the U.S. Dis-
trict Court and the U.S. Court — United States Court
of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and my answering
questions is in no form or matter to be construed as
my consenting to authority, procedure, or process of
the IRS in issuing and serving the summons.
“I affirmatively state that I have been filing tax
returns, and it is my sincere belief that I have not
violated Section 7604(b) of Title 26.
“Under duress, I have deposited $100,000 with
the IRS — has — has been demanded by the IRS. I
dispute that I owe the IRS the $100,000 paid, and I
disagree with the calculations made by the IRS that
arrives at an [7] amount owed is $100,000.
“Under duress, I am providing to the IRS docu-
ments and will provide information to questions one
through five of U.S. Attorney Cynthia Weisman’s
letter of February 7, 2007 regarding any remunera-
tions I may have received for the period at far [sic].
“My providing documentation and answering ques-
tions is not to be construed in any matter or form as
my granting consent to allow the security [sic] to fill
App. 366
out Section 6020 of Title 26 of the U.S. any substitute
for returns for me, and I expressly dispute that the
IRS has the right to file any substitute returns for me.
“In addition to the above, I add the summation
that in none of the returns that I have filed, have I
made a self-assessment.
“What I have just stated is coming — continuing
objections of each and every question that I ask — that
is asked as if I restated each of the positions I just
stated in their entirety after each question is asked
and before providing my answer. What I have stated
is continuing objection to each document that I pro-
duce as if I restated each of the positions I stated in
their entirety after each question. is asked and prior
to my producing each document.
“Mr. Kraft of Kraft & Hunter Law Firm, LLP
may [8] have to help me with some of the answers. In
the event he does so, the continuing objection as I just
stated applies to each and every answer, and he
provides or statements he makes as if they were
restated for the entirety of the questions before each
statement’s [sic] made by him.”
And with that, I am not going to make any more
statements about law or duress or any other — my
other conclusions as I would like to proceed with any
questions that Mr. Pryor may have for me.
MR. PRYOR: Okay. Thank you. We’re just
dealing now with the summons regarding your in-
come and need to file a tax return for the years 2001,
App. 367
02, 03, 04, ’05 as you stated the first five questions
on Ms. Weisman’s demand letter of February 7.
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. Pryor) So first question for the year
2001 through 2005, did you bring documents showing
any and all wages earned during those years?
A. I have no records of that. I didn’t earn any
wages or have any employment for that period of
time.
Q. Did you perform any services on a contract
basis for which you were paid by the — by the contract
or by the part or job accomplished that were not
current wage — W2 wages, but 1099 income?
[9] A. 1099 ~— no, 1099, no — no contract labor or
services of any kind for that period.
Q@. Okay. Question Number 2 then, for the years
2001, through December 31, 2005, did you bring
documents showing interest and dividend income you
received or that was received on your behalf for those
years?
A. Ive received no dividend income for those
years.
Q. Okay. Was any dividend income received on
your behalf, but not particularly in your name?
A. No, sir.
App. 368
Q. Okay. Number 3, I think is a little bit repeti-
tive, but documents showing employee earning
statements for you for the years 2001 through 2005?
A. I was not employed by any — any entity
during those years.
Q. Okay. For the years 2001 through 2005, did
you bring documents showing deposits to bank ac-
counts for you or on your behalf?
A. I’ve had no bank accounts in my name or for
those years.
Q. Are there or were there any bank accounts
during those years in another name of another person
or entity for which you had signature authority?
A. No, I have no signature authority for any of
those, no, sir.
[10] Q. Okay. For the years 2001 through 2005,
did you bring any other documents, books, records, or
receipts showing your compensation, wages, salaries,
tips, fees, commissions, gains from real property
deals, interest, rent, or royalties, dividends, alimony,
annuities, income from life insurance policies, en-
dowment contracts, pension payoff or indebtedness,
distribution of shares of partnership of gross income,
the state income, trust income, this includes compen-
sation paid to you or to someone else, or to an entity
on your behalf?
A. The answer to that is — is — is, yes, I do have
documents for that. I receive — I receive withdrawals
App. 369
from a trust account which Mr. Pryor — Mr. Mr.
Kraft has his seven years of documentation of H.
Clark, III, revocable trust, which 1040s have been
filed. Those are for your records. | do have — I did
receive some rent income from a — from the Twin
Diamond property which was rather erratic. Those
are included in this — in this — these documents. But
basically everything that was made on that Twin
Diamond, we — ‘Twin Diamond property, which I live
in now in Roswell, I used to rent it, and the renters
breached their contracts, and I did receive some rent
— rental income on that property which is included in
the other things.
MR. KRAFT: Can I give this?
[11] THE [sic] FORD: Yes, you can give that.
MR. KRAFT: Mr. Pryor, let me give you one
worksheet here which basically summarizes these tax
returns as Mr. Ford said, the trust is called Hl. Clark
Ford, III, revocable trust. And — although the ques-
tions pertain from ’01 to ’05, these are returns from
when the trust was created in 2000, all the way to the
most recent return 2006, and what these returns will
show, and you’re welcome to look at them. It will
show that the income over that seven year span, it
wasn’t a full year in 2000, is $2.63 million, and it will
show that the taxes that were paid on that trust were
$511,493 and then there’s another entry that has tax
exempt income of $69,417, but just kind of as a global
information for you, that’s — that’s what the returns
show when they’re totaled.
MR. KRAFT: And is that something that
you've entrusted to Mr. Miller to figure out each year?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. KRAFT: And he’s done the trust from
the beginning, and I don’t hold myself out as a tax
attorney, you know, so.
MR. PRYOR: Okay.
MR. KRAFT: [ll tell you my perception. My
understanding is that when it’s taxed at the trust
level, then ends flowed out to Mr. Ford in this in-
stance, it’s not necessarily taxable to him
MR. PRYOR: Okay.
MR. KRAFT: There may be some that is,
but I [16] don’t know — I mean, there has been money
received by him as he indicated, but my understand-
ing is that because whatever this shows as being
distributed, you know, to him, was received by him,
that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to pay taxes on it.
MR. PRYOR: Okay. I'm a revenue officer,
not a revenue agent, and you may be 100 percent
correct. ’'m assuming these are for me to keep?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
oe
MR. PRYOR: So with that, I appreciate
what you've brought me here. It does answer my
questions. And [m going to recommend that this
summons enforcement be closed as of today —
MR. FORD: Okay.
MR. PRYOR: — and let you go home. I’m
sorry it took all of this, but it’s just questions I had to
have as part of my investigation.
MR. FORD: OkKay.
MR. PRYOR: And [’ll turn these over to the
examination division, as those taxes owed. That’s al]
there is to it.
MR. KRAFT: And I'll just say, ’'m not — Pm
not sure if there is or not, but I don’t believe — it’s
possible that there isn’t any, or if there is, it’s not
necessarily — I mean, I don’t fully understand it [17]
myself, but the way I’ve been told, it’s possible there’s
none. Does that make sense?
MR. PRYOR: Yes, it does make sense, and
I don’t know this answer either. It’s over my educa-
tional level. This is up to the examination division to
determine “all been paid, most of it’s been paid, or the
K-1’s taxable.” I just don’t know.
But you met the terms of my summons, so that’s
all I can ask.
MR. KRAFT: We can go off the record then.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MR. FORD [sic] [Mr. Kraft:]: We're back on
record with just a short — with a — we were just off the
record for less than a minute there, but Ms. Weisman.
U.S. Attorney has prepared a Joint Motion for Release
App. 376
and also a stipulated order granting release, and she
informed both Mr. Pryor and I that we would need to,
on the record, ask Mr. Ford about his consent to these
documents.
Mr. Ford, before we came in here, I did go over
with you the Joint Motion for Release.
We went over that. J read it, and I think I signed
it, did I not?
MR. KRAFT: Well, you didn’t sign the
motion, but the order you did sign.
MR. FORD: Where’s the motion? Where do
I need [18] to sign on the motion?
MR. KRAFT: You don’t need to sign the
motion.
rm
bay
a al
ew
FORD: Oh, I don’t need to sign the
motion
MR. KRAFT: But you read through the
motion that — that she intends to file which would ask
that you be released from your incarceration?
THE [sic] FORD: Right.
c
MR. KRAFT: And then there's an order and
the order — let me read it to you. It says it’s called
“Stipulated Order. Granting Joint Motion for Re-
lease.” It’s says, “This matter having come before the
Court upon the parties joint motion for release, the
App. 377
Court being fully advised of the premises finds that
the Motion is well-taken. It is ordered that Mr. Ford
shall be released from incarceration.” And there’s a
signature line for the judge, there’s a place for Ms.
Weisman to sign it, that’s W-e-i-s-m-a-n, and there's
also a place for you to sign it.
Have you signed this here?
MR. FORD: I've signed it.
MR. KRAFT: Are you giving authority then
to Ms. Weisman to go ahead and submit the order
with your consent to Judge Herrera?
MR. FORD: Absolutely.
MR. KRAFT: She wanted us to get that on
the [19] record so Mr. Pryor could inform her that we
made a record on that.
Thank you. We'll go back off the record.
(The interview was concluded at 10:33 a.m.)
[20] CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION OF INTERVIEW
Il DESTENIE M. MARTINEZ, NM #P-180 DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 27, 2008, the
interview of H. CLARK FORD, III was taken before
me at the request of, and sealed original thereof
retained by:
App. 378
RICHARD L. KRAFT
Attorney for H. CLARK FORD, III
111 West third Street
Roswell, New Mexico 88202
I FURTHER CERTIFY that copies of this Certifi-
cate have been mailed or delivered to all Counsel, and
parties to the proceedings not represented by Coun-
sel, appearing at the taking of the Interview.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the recoverable cost
of the original and one copy of the Interview, includ-
ing exhibits, to RICHARD L. KRAFT is: $
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I did report in steno-
graphic shorthand the questions and answers set
forth herein, and the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the proceeding had upon the taking of
this Interview to the best of my ability.
[21] I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither
employed by nor related to nor contracted with (un-
less excepted by the rules) any of the parties or
attorneys in this case, and that I have no interest
whatsoever in the final disposition of this case in any
court.
Destenie M. Martinez
Court Reporter #P-180
License Expires: 08/22/08
22] STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
I, DESTENIE M. MARTINEZ, New Mexico
Provisional Reporter, working under the direction
and direct supervision of Kendra Tellez, New Mexico
CCR License Number 205, hereby certify that |
reported the attached proceedings; that pages num-
ber 1-21 inclusive are a true and correct transcript of
my stenographic notes. On the date I reported these
proceedings, I was the holder of Provisional License
Number P-180.
Dated at Albuquerque, New Mexico, this 27th
lay of February, 2008
Destenie M. Martinez
Court Reporter #P-180
License Expires: 08/22/2008
Kendra Tellez
Certified Court Reporter #20
License Expires: 12/31/08
App. 380
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA and INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE,
Petitioners,
VS.
H. CLARK FORD III.
Respondent.
FIRST PETITION TO
ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS
(Filed Mar. 12, 2007)
The United States of America and Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), by and through the United
States Attorney for the District of New Mexico on
behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue, file this Petition for
an Order to Show Cause why H. CLARK FORD III
should not be made to appear and produce certain
items in his control as sought previously in two IRS
summonses. The IRS issued two summonses in
August 2006 for Mr. Ford’s records for 2001-2005, and
for August 1, 2005, to July 31, 2006, as further ex-
plained in both Summonses (Exhibits Al and A2,
Summonses).
The IRS needs the information for two reasons.
One is to obtain information to determine Mr. Ford’s
App. 381
tax liability for 2001-2005, because he did not file
returns for those years. The other is to obtain infor-
mation to prepare a financial statement for Mr. Ford
to determine his ability to pay his delinquent taxes
for 1996-2000. (Exhibit A, declaration of IRS Revenue
Officer Mike Pryor, at { 2.) In support of this Petition,
the USA and the IRS state as follows:
1. H. CLARK FORD III, a resident of Hager-
man, New Mexico, is within the jurisdiction of this
Court. See Exh. A { 3; Exhs. Al & A2.
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 26
U.S.C. 8§ 7402(b) and 7604 of the Internal Revenue
Code.
3. On August 15, 2006, IRS Revenue Officer
Mike Pryor served upon Mr. Ford both IRS Sum
monses and a Form 433-A (Collection Information
Statement (CIS) for Wage Earners and Self-Employed
Individuals), asking Mr. Ford to produce certain
information on September 26, 2006. (Exh. A {] 3-4
Exhs. Al & A2 Summonses; Exhs. A3 & A4, Service of
Summonses; Exh. Ad, CIS.)
4. One Summons seeks testimony and the
production of information for 2001-2005 which the
IRS needs in order to determine Mr. Ford’s tax liabil-
ity for those years to assist the IRS in filing returns
for 2001-2005 for him since no returns were filed.
(Exh. A J 2; Exh. Al.)
5. The other Summons seeks testimony and the
production of information for August 1, 2005, through
App. 382
July 31, 2006, which the IRS needs in order to deter-
mine Mr. Ford’s current ability to pay his delinquent
taxes for 1996-2000. (Exh. A ¥ 2; Exh. A2.)
6. Mr. Ford did not appear on September 26,
2006, as required in the Summonses. (Exh. A { 5.)
Mr. Ford submitted a letter dated September 5, 2006,
entitled “Notice of Acceptance for Value and Demand
for Delegation of Authority, Oath of Office, and Bond,
of Michael J. Pryor Regarding a Summons, Form
#2039, Request #09-2006-0001.” This document from
Mr. Ford did not provide any information responsive
to either Summons. Id.
7. On February 7, 2007, the United States
Attorney’s Office sent Mr. Ford a demand/last chance
letter for the summoned information, asking Mr. Ford
to meet with Mr. Pryor on March 1, 2007, at the IRS
office in Roswell, New Mexico. (Exh. A 4] 6; Exh. A6.)
8. On March 1, 2007, Mr. Ford did not appear at
the IRS office
9. Mr. Ford’s tax liability as of August 2006 was
assessed at over $91,600 and estimated at $60,000,
plus penalties and interest that continue to accrue.
(Exh. A J 2.)
10. Mr. Ford has not provided any of the infor-
mation requested in either IRS Summons. (Exh. A
{j 8.)
App. 383
WHEREFORE, the United States of America and
the Internal Revenue Service request the Court to
order as follows:
A. Directing Respondent H. CLARK FORD
III to appear before this Court at such
time as may be fixed by the Court to
show cause, if any, why an order should
not be issued directing and commanding
him to appear before an officer of the
IRS at such time and place as the Court
may order, to provide the Requested In
formation as stated in both IRS Sum
monses (Exhibits Al & A2).
B. That the Order to Show Cause provide
that service of the order and a copy of
this Application and the attached ex
hibits will be made on Respendent H
CLARK FORD III via personal service.
C. That If Respondent H. CLARK FORD III
fails to appear as ordered above he may
be held in contempt for failing to comply
with this Court’s Order, he may be ar-
rested for civil contempt of Court, and he
may be held until such time as he can
appear before this Court to show cause
why he failed to comply with the direct
order of this Court, and the Court may
issue another Order to serve as a war
rant for the immediate errest of Re-
spondent H. CLARK FO...) IIT by the
United States Marshal for this District,
or by any of his deputies.
4
ARRY GOME.
IN THE DISTRICT COUR!
OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXI¢
NITED STATES O]
AMERICA and INTERN
REVENUE SERVIC]
DECLARATION OF MIKE PRYOI
Filed Mar
Lava 4 \ i \ " \
} 1¢ o investl ror tne I ~ p
ng for examination, books, papers, record
data for calendar years 2001-2005, and also for A
gust 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006, as described
the two IRS Summonses I[ served August 15. 200¢
ne irpose of the first Summons es
Mr. Ford’s tax liability for 2001-2005
I1i¢é I e pul
—
m x
eEPTrter t \4, .
_-
\ttor fy 1 {
; .
' — Twa Ty > « 0 os j
~~ _ 2
A = . LA 44 4 | |
‘ ‘ ‘ . ,
App. 389
Al
[SEAL — Sum- Summons
mons Form 2039]
In the matter of H Clark Ford, P O Box 424, Hager-
man, NM 88232
Internal Revenue Service (Division): Small Business
Self-Employed
Industry/Area (mame or number): Small Business
Self Employed — Western Area
Periods Calendar Years Ended: December 31, 2001,
December 21, 2002, December 31, 2003, December 31,
2004, and December 31, 2005 _
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
To H Clark Ford
At 7728 Maya Road, Hagerman, NM or 901 Twin
Diamond Road, Roswell, NM
You are hereby summoned and required to appear
before Mike Pryor, an officer of the Internal Revenue
Service, to give testimony and to bring with you and
to produce for examination the following books,
records, papers, and other data relating to the tax
liability or the collection of the tax liability or for the
purpose of inquiring into any offense connected with
the administration or enforcement of the internal
revenue laws concerning the person identified above
for the periods shown.
All documents and records in your possession or
control reflecting the receipt of taxable income by you
App. 390
for the year(s) Calendar Years Ended: December 31,
2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003. De-
cember 31, 2004, and December 31, 2005, including
but not limited to: statement of wages for the year(s)
Calendar Years Ended: December 31. 2001, December
31, 2002, December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004, and
December 31, 2005; statements regarding interest or
dividend income for the year(s) Calendar Years End-
ed: December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December
31, 2003, December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2005;
employee earnings statements for the year(s) Calen-
dar Years Ended: December 31, 2001, December 31,
2002, December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004, and
December 31, 2005; records of deposits to bank ac-
counts during the year(s) Calendar Years Ended:
December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31,
2003, December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2005:
and any and all other books, records, documents, and
receipts regarding wages, salaries, tips, fees, commis-
sions, and any other compensation for services (in-
cluding gains from dealings in property, interest,
rental, royalty and dividend income, alimony, annui-
ties, income life insurance policies and endowment
contracts, pensions, income from the discharge of
indebtedness, distributive shares of partnership gross
income, and income from an estate or trust), so that
Federal Income tax liability for the year(s) Calendar
Years Ended: December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002,
December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004, and Decem-
ber 31, 2005 (for which year(s) no return have been
made) may be determined.
App. 391
Do not write in this space
Business address and telephone number of IRS
officer before whom you are to appear:
12600 West Colfax Ave., Ste C-300, M/S 5223WO.
Lakewood, CO 80215 303-231-5270 x229
Place and time for appearance at: 500 N. Rich-
ardson, Room 113, Roswell, NM 88201 on the 26th
day of September, 2006 at 11:30 o’clock Am.
Issued under authority of the Internal Revenue
Code this llth day of August, 2006
[LOGO] IRS
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Www.irs.gov
Form 2039 (Rev. 12-2001 catalog number 24795)
Ey, Mike Pryor
Revenue Officer
Signature of Issuing Officer Title
7
Signature Of Approving Title
Officer (If Applicable)
App. 392
A2
[SEAL — Sum- Summons
mons form 2039]
In the matter of H Clark Ford III, PO Box 424.
Hagerman, NM 88232
Internal Revenue Service (Division): Small Business/
Self Employed
Industry/Area (name or number): Small _ Business/
Self Employed — Western Area
Periods Calendar Years Ended: December 31, 1996,
December 21, 1997, December 31, 1998, December 31,
1999, and December 31, 2000
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
To H Clark Ford III a Ce
At 7728 Maya Road, Hagerman, NM or 901 Twin
Diamond Road, Roswell, NM
You are hereby summoned and required to appear
before Mike Pryor, an officer of the Internal Revenue
Service, to give testimony and to bring with you and
to produce for examination the following books,
records, papers, and other data relating to the tax
liability or the collection of the tax liability or for the
purpose of inquiring into any offense connected with
the administration or enforcement of the internal
revenue laws concerning the person identified above
for the periods shown.
App. 393
All documents in your possession or control reflecting
the assets and liabilities of the above named taxpay-
er(s) including, but not limited to, the following: all
bank statements, checkbooks, canceled checks, sav-
ings account passbooks, and records of certificates of
deposit, for the period August 1, 2005 to July 31,
2006, regarding accounts or assets held in the name
of the taxpayer(s) or held for the benefit of the tax-
payer(s); all records or documents regarding stocks
and bonds, deeds or contracts regarding real property,
current registration certificates for motor vehicles,
and life or health insurance policies currently in
force, any of which items are owned, wholly or par-
tially, by the taxpayer(s), or in which the taxpayer(s)
have a security interest, or held for the benefit of
either or both of the taxpayer(s), so that a current
Collection Information Statement may be prepared. A
blank copy of such Collection Information Statement
is attached hereto to guide you in the production of
the necessary documents and records.
Do not write in this space
Business address and telephone number of IRS
officer before whom you are to appear:
12600 West Colfax Ave., Ste C-300, M/S 5223WO.
Lakewood, CO 80215 303-231-5270 x229
Place and time for appearance at: 500 N Richard-
son, Room 113, Roswell, NM 88201 on the 26th day
of September, 2006 at 11:00 o’clock Am.
App. 394
Issued under authority of the Internal Revenue
Code this 11th day of August, 2006
[LOGO] IRS
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
www.irs.gov
Form 2039 (Rev. 12-2001 catalog number 24795
/s/ Mike Pryor _ Revenue Office:
Signature of Issuing Officer Title
Signature Of Approving Title
Officer (If Applicable)
App. 395
In the United State [sic] District Court of
New Mexico
United States of America
And Internal Revenue Service
Petitioner
Vv #1: O7-mc-16
H. Clark Ford IT
Respondent
Request for Setting
(Filed May 23, 2007)
I Type of case — Advisory . Jury ;
X Non Jury
2. Assigned Judge — Hon. Judith C Herrera
3. Hearing presently set — none
4. Specific matters to be heard — Coram
Nobis Rules 60(4) & (3) Relief from
Order and Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice.
a. Dose [sic] the District Court have
Jurisdiction?
b. Has Mr. Ford filed returns and is
Agent estoppled [sic]?
Does Agent have delegated authority?
d. Is there a liability?
e [s there fraud upon the court?
App. 396
f, Do forms 2039 and 433-A have legal
efficacy?
g. Is this a matter of equity?
5. Estimated total time needed 1 hour
6. Requested by H. Clark Ford ITI
~]
Other Attorneys and pro se parties enti
tled to notice: NA
8. H. Clark Ford III is not available thru
the first week of June. He will be availa
ble after that time.
Respectfully Submitted
/s/ H Clark Ford III BS
H. Clark Ford II, special appearance
PO Box 424
Hagerman New Mexico 88232
505-317-4648
App. 397
In The US District Court
District of New Mexico
En Re H. Clark Ford III
Applicant
Vv Civ 07-0836 JCH-LFG
Agent Michael J. Pryor
# 84-10124
Respondent
Response to Motion to Dismiss Upon Rules 12
and 56
(Filed Dec. 6, 2007)
Now Comes H. Clark Ford III, pro se Applicant in the
above styled cause to file a Response to Motion to
Dismiss upon Rules 12 and 56.
I. Introduction
There have been allegations that the Applicant is
encumbered with a tax liability. The information
provided thus far, has not produced the needed in-
formation for which to conclude that such liability
even exists. The Respondent has not rendered to the
Applicant a Record Assessment. As a matter of law,
the motion to dismiss upon Rule 12 and 56 shall not
issue.
Record Assessment
~ cv ~ .
’ 7
orn | a’
i
x7 &
: |
. , , y +}
pt i | Ait at
. “~
} ; rsa S ’ ! ‘
a : a % -
. i} ‘
’ ate ; 1¢ |
] Record Asse SSMme€e!
> >
t ' i
; . A > 4 [> ..~ . : :
a Cy ALZeETIL f ‘ I bias a LiTiis
la } arith R val’ -d A > mt
E J Ll W1itn a e©cora ASsessmen .
} ] 7 >»* + . . - .
not provided this informat ALDI
K ¢ | | Tt for \
"~D
Tha ] WI! I SCOD¢E ) oO UFR -,
‘ TY + ,
A i f le~ral Neguilat ns ST i
{ + oe 4 7
4 . 7 | 4 L y 4 i | i . >
Kec Ord
sSSeEssment
ne late oT the assessments Asserting
that i Certified Assessment Office
Signed These Assessments on Those
Particular Dates For Each and Ever
Kecord Assessment
j j
2 ~
” Me
- . , +
> ye " ° j
7 — + ‘
App. A403
can be no tax lability if there is no Record Assess-
ment. Ford remains uniformed as to the amount and
the character of the original liability owed. He filed
returns for the years at bar but he did not assess
himself for any of those years for the reasons con-
tained in his returns.
Agent Pryor has not furnished the information re-
quested in this application; he is not incompliance
isic] with 26 CFR 301.6203.1. Agent Pryor has aed
duced certified accountings of penalty assessment:
do not have any information in regards to the See
assessment from which all these penalties have
arisen. Agent Pryor has also failed to inform the
Applicant as to the point in time a certified assess-
ment officer might have made a Record Assess-
ment. The Applicant has not requested any
particular form nor does the CFR specify what form
the IRS must use. The code does, however, provide a
guide as to what kind of information may be sought.
Ford has geared his demands accordingly. Mr. Ford
has not received any information that would consti-
tute a Record Assessment.
Genuine issues of material fact will remain. The
Respondent will assert that Mr. Ford has been ren-
dered the proper information to satisfy the manda
mus application. Ford on the other hand will not
agree. The Respondent will support this contention
by affidavit in-stating that these various different
ead Case 1:07 MC 0016 Exhibits 1-10: docket 5
App. 404
forms have supplied the needed information. Ford on
the other hand has held that he himself has filed
returns for all of the perspective years and in those
years; he has not effected a self-assessment but has
sworn that he has had no federal tax hability. Ford
will make these contentions based on the following
observations about the information before him:
1. The Apphlcant’s name is not spelled in all
caps. All of these certifications refer to Mr.
Ford being some sort of “collective entity”.
There is no evidence to show that this is the
case.
bo
H. Clark Ford III does not have a Social
Security Number. Thus there is no contrac-
tual relation between him and the federal
government. The accountings contain a SSN.
There were no assessment officers making
any assessments under oath for the tax peri-
ods at bar.
(ow)
4. There is no information pertaining to the
character or type of tax lability incurred.
an
The original value set forth by a certified
assessment officer — not an accounting tech-
nician.
It is because Agent Pryor has not furnished the
information that Mr. Ford needs in order to know if
he in fact has a tax liability and that the Respondent
will attest, to the contrary we cannot conclude these
matters on a motion for summary judgment. Genuine
issues of material fact remain:
App. 405
Has the Respondent provided a Record
Assessment for H. Clark Ford III or has
he been informed to the point that he
may be aware of the original assessment
against him?
Or
Have there been any assessments against
H. Clark Ford III the natural living
man?
In as much as Ford has not assessed himself during
the tax periods before the court, we still do not know
where the original tax assessment has come from.
Other questions remain:
Is the Applicant a collective entity?
Is Sally Gale a certified Assessment of-
ficer?
Did H. Clark Ford III file frivolous re-
turns?
These issues arise thru the conflicting affidavits
between the Applicant and the Respondent. These
issues remain undetermined at this time. “A motion
for summary judgment can not be decided on parties’
affidavits where facts are disputed or conflicting
inferences may be drawn there from.” This applica-
tion is to encourage a public servant to do what he is
duty bound to do. Agent Pryor and the IRS have not
* Mayflower Industries v Thor Corp., 83 A. 2d 247
App. 406
preformed their ministerial duty in providing Ford
with a Record Assessment or in the alternative; the
Respondent will not inform the Applicant that there
has been no Record Assessments. As a matter of
law, the motion to dismiss upon rules 12 and 56 must
fail.
Wherefore:
The Applicant Respectively Moves the Court to:
° Deny Respondents Motion to Dismiss
upon Rules 12 and 56
° Order a show cause hearing as to why
Agent Michael J. Pryor should not be
held in contempt for not providing the
needed information Record Assessment
26 CFR 301.6203.1
Respectfully Submitted,
/ H. Clark Ford III
H. Clark Ford III
40161051
415 Roma NW
Albuquerque New Mexico 87102
n
Certificate of Service
I H. Clark Ford III, The Applicant in the above styled
cause hereby affirm on this 5 day of December that a
‘lear and accurate copy of Response to Motion to
Dismiss Upon Rules 12 and 56
was sent Ke)
Counsel for IRS/ Agent Michael J. Pryor # 84-10]
Andrew L Sobotka
State Bar Number 18819900
Department of Justice
717 n. Harwood Suite 400
400 Dallas Texas 75201
The last known address
On the 5 day of December 2007
Service
H. Clark Ford II] 12/4/07
H. Clark Ford ITI Date
App. 408
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE DIVISION
In Re H. Clark Ford III,
Applicant,
)
)
)
. Civil No.
Agent Michael J. Pryor, ’ 07-0836-JCH-LFG
Revenue Officer, Internal
Revenue Service, :
)
Respondent.
Defendant’s Amended’ Motion to Dismiss and
Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment
(Filed Nov. 26, 2007)
Pursuant to Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Michael Pryor, Reve-
nue Officer of the Internal Revenue Service, and the
United States of America, on behalf of the Internal
Revenue Service (collectively “the Defendant”) move
this Court for an Order dismissing the Application
For Writ of Mandamus filed by H. Clark Ford, III
(Ford); or in the alternative, for summary judgment
' Defendant’s initial Motion to Dismiss and Alternative
Motion for Summary Judgment was erroneously styled for the
United States Bankruptcy Court. However. it was filed in the
Distmct Court. The motion has been amended with the correct
style and is being refiled. There are no other changes to the
initial motion.
App. 409
denying the Application. Defendant would respectful-
ly show that: (A) Ford has failed to properly serve
process; (B) Ford has already been provided with all
of the information his is entitled to receive under
26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1; and (C) mandamus is not
available to compel a government official to perform
more than is required by the law or to determine how
that official is to perform a discretionary function.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
1. The Court is already familiar with Ford’s
refusal to pay federal income taxes and provide in-
formation to the IRS concerning his assets, income
and expenses despite having been summoned by the
IRS and ordered by the Court to do so. See Miscel-
laneous Case No. 1:07-mc-16 JCH (D. N.M.)
2. In this case, Ford seeks a “writ of mandamus
holding that:
I. “Agent Pryor Provide Record of Assess-
ment in Line with the Requirements dic-
tated by 26 C.F-R. 301.6203-1 for tax
periods 1996-2006.
Or
Provide Notice that no such assessment
exist for the years 1996-2006.”
NS
Application for Writ of Mandamus, Prayer at p.5
(italics in original).
App. 410
3. The Application for mandamus names
Michael J. Pryor as a respondent, in his official
capacity as an employee of the Internal Revenue
Service. Although Pryor is a duly commissioned Reve-
nue Officer of the Internal Revenue Service, Ford
seeks an order compelling Revenue Officer Pryor to
provide Ford with documents or information that are
the property of the Internal Revenue Service, and
therefore the relief sought would also act against the
United States of America.
4. To date, Ford has served only Revenue
Officer Pryor with a summons and the Application,
but has not served the Internal Revenue Service or
the United States with a copy of the summons and
Application in the manner required by Rule 4(i) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Revenue Officer Pryor has already sent Ford
MFTRA-X Transcripts for his 1996 through 2000 tax
periods containing the name of the taxpayer, the date
of assessment, the character of the liability assessed,
the taxable period, and the amounts assessed. See
Declaration of Revenue Officer Pryor, attached as
Exhibit 1, at 43 and Exhibit 1-A, at last 11 pages.
Additionally, Ford has been sent Certificates of As-
sessments and Payments (Forms 4340) for the same
periods showing the same information. See Exhibit 2.
6. There are not yet any assessments against
Ford for tax periods 2001 through 2006 because Ford
has failed to file returns for those periods and failed
to provide the IRS with information concerning his
App. 411
income and expenses despite having been summoned
by the IRS or ordered by the Court to do so. Thus,
there are not yet any records of assessment to be
provided to Ford for 2001 through 2006. Declaration
of Revenue Officer Pryor, {]4.
Il.
Law and Argument
A. Dismissal for Failure to Make Service of Process
Ford has sued an officer of the United States in
his official capacity, and served only that employee
with process. To date Ford has not served a summons
and copy of his Application for Writ of Mandamus on
the Internal Revenue Service and the United States
in the manner prescribed in Rule 4() of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Ford’s Applica-
tion should be dismissed for failure to make proper
service of process under Rules 12(b)(2), (4) and (5) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When service of
process is challenged, as it has been above, the party
on whose behalf service is made bears the burden of
establishing its validity. System Signs Supplies v.
United States Dept. of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013
(5th Cir. 1990); Familia de Boom v. Arosa Mercantile,
S.A., 629 F.2d 1134, 1139 (5th Cir. 1980). Ford’s pro se
status does not excuse him from failing to obtain a
summons or to effect service of process. System Signs
Supplies v. United States Dept. of Justice, 903 F.2d
1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990).
App. 412
B. Ford has already been provided the information
he is entitled
lord has already been provided the information
he is entitled under Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1. That
regulation provides:
The district director and the director of the
regional service center shall appoint one or
more assessment officers. The district direc
tor shall also appoint assessment officers in
a Service Center servicing his district. The
assessment shall be made by an assessment
officer signing the summary record of as-
sessment. The summary record, through
supporting records, shall provide identifica
tion of the taxpayer, the character of the lia-
bility assessed, the taxable’ period, if
applicable, and the amount of the assess-
ment. The amount of the assessment shall,
in the case of tax shown on a return by the
taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all
other cases the amount of the assessment
shall be the amount shown on the supporting
list or record. The date of the assessment is
the date the summary record is signed by an
assessment officer. [f the taxpayer requests
a copy of the record of assessment, he
shall be furnished a copy of the perti-
nent parts of the assessment which set
forth the name of the taxpayer, the date
of assessment, the character of the lia-
bility assessed, the taxable period, tf ap-
plicable, and the amounts assessed.
26 C.F_R. § 301.6203-1 (empnasis added)
App. 4138
As shown in Revenue Officer Pryor’s Declaration
(Exhibit 1) and the last 11 pages of the March 6,
2006, letter from Ford to Revenue Officer Pryor
(Exhibit 1-A), Ford received MFTRA-X transcripts for
the income tax and civil penalty assessments against
him for tax periods 1996 through 2000. These
MFTRA-X transcripts provided Ford with the name of
the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of
the liability assessed, the taxable period, and the
amounts assessed. In other words, the MIFTRA-X
transcripts gave all the information required by
Treas. Reg. § 301.62034. Additionally, Certified Rec-
ords of Assessments and Payments (Forms 4340) for
Ford’s 1996 through 2000 unpaid accounts unpaid’
[sic] were mailed to Ford by the undersigned counsel
on November 9, 2007, in an unredacted form. Redact-
ed copies of those Certificates of Assessments and
Payments (Forms 4340) are attached hereto as Exhib-
it 2." These Forms 4340 are admissible without the
need for any greater evidentiary foundation* and
* A Form 4340 for Ford’s 1996 individual income tax ac-
count (Form 1040) was not generated or included in this mailing
because the existing assessments for that account have been
paid. However, a MFTRA-X for that account was previously
included in the documents provided by Revenue Officer Pryor.
* Ford's Social Security number and any address have been
partially redacted in the attached exhibits to protect Ford's
privacy.
‘ Consistently, courts have held that Form 4340 is self
authenticating and admissible over hearsay objections. See, eg ,
United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir), cert.
denwd, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S. Ct. 3018, 65 L. Ed.2d 1117 (1980);
(Continued on following page)
App. 414
provide Ford with the same information listed in
Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1 in a different format.’
The regulation does not prescribe the form = or
manner in which the information about the assess-
ment is to be provided to the taxpayer. Thus, while
the act of making an assessment may be ministerial,
the decision as to the form and manner of providing
the required information about the assessment to the
taxpayer is left up to the discretion of the Internal
Revenue Service.
Several courts have held that the IRS can satisfy
its obligation to prove a taxpayer with the infor-
mation described in Treas. Reg. § 301.6203 by provid-
ing Certificates of Assessments and Payments (Forms
Schmidt v. IRS, 717 F. Supp. 7638, 764 (D. Kan. 1989) (“Form
4340, Certificate of Assessments and Payments... . [is] proper
and admissible evidence pursuant to Rules 902(1) and 803(8) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence”), vacated on other grounds, 913
F.2d 837 (10th Cir. 1990). See also, McCarthy v United States,
929 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. McCallum, 970
F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1992); Hughes v. United States, 953 F 2d 531,
535, 539-540 (9th Cir. 1992); Rossi v. United States, 755 F. Supp.
314, 316-17 (Dist. Ore. 1990). Garm v United States. 114 B.R
414 (Banks. M.D Penn., 1990).
It should be noted that MFTRA-X Transcripts and the
Certificate of Assessments and Payments do not always reflect
the accrual of statutory interest or the accrual of penalties on
taxes, penalties or interest previously assessed. Treas. Reg.
§ 301.6203-1 does not require the IRS to provide information
about statutonly accrued interest and penalties However, the
IRS includes information on the amount of these accruals in its
demands for payments, notices of intent to levy and lens and
responses to taxpayer requests for payoff information.
App. 415
4340) to the taxpayer. Roberts v. Commissioner, 329
F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003); Koff v. United
States, 3 F.3d 1297, 1298 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. dented
114 S.Ct. 1537, 511 U.S. 1030, 128 L.Ed.2d 190;
Gentry v. United States, 962 F.2d 555, 557-558 (6th
Cir. 1992) Moreover, the Tenth Circuit and other
courts have held that the IRS may satisfy its obliga-
tion under the regulation if provides other types of
documents that contain the same information re-
quired by Treas. Reg. §301.6203-1. In James v. United
States, 970 F.2d 750, 755 (10th Cir. 1992), the Tenth
Circuit held that the IRS’s regular notices and de-
mand for payment to the taxpayer contained suffi-
cient information to satisfy the requirements of
Treas. Reg. 301.6203-1. See also, United States v.
Chila, 871 F. 2d 1015, 1017 (11th Cir. 1989) (“any
part of the records of the government that supplies
the pertinent information”). Similarly, the Tax Court
has held that sending the taxpayer a MFTRA-X
Transcript provided all of the information required by
Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1. See Perez v. Commissioner,
T. C. Memo 2002-274, 2002 WL 31437309 at *3 (US.
Tax Ct. 2002); Standifird v. Commissioner, T. C.
Memo 2002-245, 2002 WL 31151194 at *3, n. 4 (U.S.
Tax Ct. 2003), affd. 72 Fed. Appx. 729, 2003 WL
21995390 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Ford has been given
both MFTRA-X Transcripts and Certificates of As-
sessments and Payments (Forms 4340) for his 1996
through 2000 tax periods.
Finally, because Ford has not filed tax returns for
his 2001 through 2006 tax years and has not. provided
App. 416
the IRS with information about his assets, income
and expenses for those tax years despite having been
summoned by the IRS and ordered by the Court to do
so, the IRS has not yet made any assessments against
Ford for those periods. In sum, Ford already has been
given all that he is entitled to receive. As such, he is
not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
C. Mandamus is not available to compel a govern-
ment official to perform more than is required
by the law or to determine how that official is to
perform_a discretionary function
An examination of the March 6, 2006, letter Ford
sent to Revenue Officer Pryor (Exhibit i-A), reveals
that Ford wants the Court to order Pryor to provide
more than is required by Treas. Reg. § 301.6203.
Ford apparently wants copies of the documents which
where [sic] signed by the assessment officer on the day
the assessments were made against him. This docu-
ment is known as the Summary Record of Assessment
and historically was a Form 23C. More recently, the
IRS has used a RACS Report 006 as the document
which the assessment officer signs. See Roberts v.
Commissioner, 329 F.3d 1224, 1228 (llth Cir. 2003)
The Summary Record of Assessments is just what it
suggests ~ a summary and does not identify specific
taxpayers by name, Social Security numbers or
individual assessments. Gentry v. United States, 962
F.2d 555, 557-558 (6th Cir. 1992). Instead, it is a
App. 417
summary of all the combined assessments made by
the IRS at a particular location for a particular day.’
It is for this reason that the courts have held that
Treas. Reg. § 301.6203 does not require the IRS to
provide taxpayers with the Summary Record of
Assessments or other proof of an assessment officer’s
signature. Koff v. United States, 3 F.3d 1297, 1298
(9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 114 S.Ct. 1537, 511 U.S.
1030, 128 L.Ed.2d 190.
Mandamus is not favored except in extraordinary
situations. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 34 (1980). Mandamus may be invoked only
where three elements coexist:
1) a demonstrated “clear and indisputable
right” to the relief sought,’
* The signed Summary Record of Assessment (Form 23C or
RACS 006) is analogous to a balance sheet which summarizes
the entire financial activity of a business for a given time period.
While that balance sheet might contain combined figures for one
or more groups of accounts receivable, the combined amounts of
those accounts receivable would not specify the name of, or
amount owed by, each specific person in the group Instead, it is
only by looking at the supporting books and records of the
company, such as journal entries and ledger accounts, that the
names and amounts owed by a specific person can be deter-
mined. By contrast the MFTRA-X Transempts and Certificates
of Assessments and Payments (Forms 4340) are more analogous
to individual ledger accounts.
ara
4090
Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service,
F.2d 1358, 1360 (6th Cir. 1985), czting, Allred Chemical Corp.
Dazrflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980.
App. 418
2) aclearly defined, mandatory duty to per-
form the particular act requested,’ and
3) no other adequate remedy is available.”
Thus, a court may not order the performance where
there is no duty or the performance of a purely discre-
tionary duty, Gilliland v. Brooks, 651 F. Supp. 73
(M.D. Tenn. 1986); nor may it direct the manner in
which the discretionary act is to be performed or
influence the exercise of discretion in making the
decision. McQueary v. Laird, 449 F.2d 608 (10th Cir.
i971).
In sum, Ford has received everything he is enti-
tled under Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1; neither Revenue
Officer Pryor or the IRS have any duty to provide
Ford with a copy of the signed Summary Record of
Assessment for each day that assessments happened
to have been made against him; and the Court is
without authority to override the IRS’s discretion as
to the form and manner of providing Ford with the
information that was required by Treas. Reg.
§ 301.6203. Accordingly, Ford is not entitled to the
writ of mandamus he seeks.
" Save The Dunes Council v Alexander, 584 F.2d 158, 162
(7th Cir. 1978).
9 ~ F ro « For j é,
Georges v. Commussioner, 88-2 USTC 119527 (1st Cir
1988); Gillis v. Internal Revenue Service, 578 F. Supp. 69, 71 (D.
N.H. 1983). See also, United States ex. rel. Girard Trust Co. v.
Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 543-44 (1937); Jones v. Alexander, 609
F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1980).
App. 419
Prayer
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant re-
spectfully requests that the Court dismiss Ford’s
Application for Writ of Mandamus with prejudice, or
in the alternative, that the Court grant summary
judgment denying Ford’s Application for Writ of Man-
damus.
LARRY GOMEZ
United States Attorney
Electronically filed,
/s/ Andrew Sobotka_
Andrew L. Sobotka
Attorney, Tax Division
State Bar No. 18819900
Department of Justice
717 N. Harwood, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 880-9736
(214) 880-9741 (Fax
Attorney for
Revenue Officer Pryor and
the United States
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on November
26, 2007, I filed the foregoing amended pleading
electronically through the CM/ECF system, and that
I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing
pleading to the following pro se party: H. Clark Ford,
Iti, #40161051, Regional Correcti:
Roma, NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Andrew Sobotka
Andrew | Sobotk
App. 421
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE DIVISION
In Re H. Clark Ford III,
Applicant,
)
)
)
Vv. ) oa
Civil No.
Agent Michael J. Pryor, ) 07-0836-JCH-LFG
Revenue Officer, Internal
Revenue Service, :
Respondent. )
Declaration of Michael J. Pryor
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746
(Filed Nov. 26, 2007)
Michael J. Pryor declares:
1. I ama duly commissioned Revenue Officer of
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), employed in the
IRS office in Lakewood, Colorado.
2. In my capacity as a Revenue Officer, I have
been assigned to collect delinquent federal income tax
accounts and frivolous return penalty accounts of H.
Clark Ford, III (Mr. Ford) for 1996 through 2000, and
to secure information to be used to prepare returns or
assessments for his 2001 through 2005 tax years.
3. On February 27, 2006, I received a request
from Mr. Ford for a copy of the record of assessments
against him for tax years 1996 through 2006. On the
same day I requested MFTRA-X transcripts on all
App. 422
periods for which Mr. Ford had any unpaid assess-
ments. On February 28, 2006, I mailed Mr. Ford the
original MFTRA-X transcripts of account for tax
years 1996 through 2000. These MFTRA-X tran-
scripts of account provided Mr. Ford the name of the
taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, and the
amounts assessed. I know that Mr. Ford received
these MFTRA-X transcripts because he included
thern as the last 11 pages of an attachment to a letter
he sent to me dated March 6, 2006. A copy of Mr.
Ford’s March 6, 2006, letter to me is attached as
Exhibit 1-A.
4. Mr. Ford has not filed federal income tax
returns for tax years 2001 through 2006 and has
refused to provide information concerning his income
and expenses for tax years 2001 through 2005 despite
being summoned by the IRS and ordered by the Court
to do so. Accordingly, the IRS has not yet assessed
any tax liabilities for his 2001 through 2006 tax
years, and there is not yet any record of assessment
to be provided to Mr. Ford for those tax years.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore-
going is true and correct.
Executed this 8th day of November, 2007.
/s/ Michael J. Pryor |
Michael J. Pryor
Revenue Officer
App. 423
Mike Pryor
12600 W. Colfax Ave.
Suite C-300
Lakewood Colorado 80215
March 6, 2006
Re: Information about assessment officers
And request for due process hearing.
(Filed Nov. 26, 2007)
Dear Mr. Pryor: Cert.# 7005 1820 0002 7113 3343
Thank you for your immediate response to my letter
dated Feb. 21st, 2006. Since I sent this registered
letter (# 7005-0390-0004-0871-9430) I have received
two correspondences from your office. I am sorry to
reflect that I am becoming increasingly confused as to
the actual dollar amount due. When we first spoke on
the telephone you indicated that my notice of debt
was $80,000. The three correspondence from your
office evince different dollar amounts:
yl a a a Exhibit A $26,718.64
Feb. 24th 2006.............. Exhibit B $217.14
Feb. 27th 2006.............. Exhibit C $21,889.29
These conflicting totals must be as confusing to you
as they are to me. We are talking about 9 different
tax periods here — 1997 thru 2006. May you please
inform me as to who the respective assessors were for
each of those tax periods. I need to know each asses-
sor’s name address or phone number so I can find out
how much I actually owe. The Secretary of Treasury
having certified all 9 of these assessors will give
App. 424
authority to the true value of debt. Of course if one
or more of the federally certified tax assessors have
died — I will need to know who took over the account
for that particular year. Inasmuch as you are the
agent, you may make me aware as to whom the
principle [sic] is in all of the above scenarios and I can
for once be relieved to know the true value of these
things and will be happy to come current.
I see at exhibit C under code 582 on Feb 10th 2006
there is a federal lien. If you have placed a federal
lien on something I might own, I ask that you take it
off? We are being premature; it is my impression that
I have 30 days to respond. The notice of intent went
out on the 7th day of February. If I am allowed 30
days to respond there should not be any action
taken against me until March 13th allowing 3 days
for mailing while, the 12th falls on a Sunday.
Due to the fact that I am willing to pay what I owe
but am confused as to the amount and that it may
appear that a federal lien might be illegally attached
to something I might own, I am attaching a form
12153 request for due process hearing. Thank you in
advance for your attention to these matters.
3est Regards,
/s/ H. Clark Ford III |
H. Clark Ford III
Hagerman New Mexico
\pp WAS
RECEIVED
B\SE — Compliance Fi
MAR 8 2006
>
akewood. Colorado 80 i
[SEAL]
U.S. Department of Justice MANCKAMUS
Tar Division 1:07 ( V 053 6 aii Hi
RTM:LPH:ALSobotka 717 N. Harwood
DJ: 5-49-2825 Suite 400
CMN: 2008100162 Dallas, Texas 75201
Main Line: (214) 880-9;
Attorney's Direct Line
(214) 880-9736
Be & of (2714) SSO 9741 Me
November 9. 2007
Ii. Clark Ford, IT]
#40161051,
Regional Correction C
415 Roma, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Re: H. Clark Ford, II], v. Michael J. Pryor
Civil Action No.: 1:07-cv-836 (D. N.M
Dear Mr. Ford
Please find enclosed unredacted copies of Certifi
cates of Assessments and Payments (Forms 4340) for
the following periods consisting of 40 page:
1997 Form 1040
1998 Form 1040
1999 Fonn 1040
2000 Form 1040
1996 Civ. Penalty
1997 Civ. Penalty
1998 Civ. Penalty
1999 Civ. Penalty
Andrew L. Sobotka
Andrew L.. Sobotka
Trial Attorney
Civil Trial Sectior
uthwestern Re
HAL
nited States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
riily that the annexed: is a true Form 434
rtificate of Assessments, Payments and Other!
specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, LI], SSN: 527-68
6736, for Civil Penalty, for the tax period ending
December 31, 1996, cor tit four ives under the
&
WITNESS WHEREOF, I hay
ereunto set my hand, and caused
» seal of this office to be affixed,
}
:
the day and year first abo
Sally Gra
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Techni
Ooden W&I Scvmission Proce
W Dele ration { )r ler | }
SCELLANEQUS PEN
6102 PENALTY FOR F
ha OUS INCOME TAY
FA f 59 ,
A\f
EVY PRAOR
YI PFRAVUURAY
‘ nian pm
MODULE REVERSF]
ly Iku Y LiwWll
AYMENT LEVY PR
‘ mrar my Y
\ - \ ala! }
i a avid
7 nA .
~ ¥ ey Mow A {
Ab AW LL
4
°
H Cl Ul ARK A ‘ORD | \ iS N \ ~ - \
TYPE OF TAK: | ss IL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC |
L VY DT A 4 \\ L 4} A @ 1m wueee f wien, [ 4 , VIL ‘
DAT! EXPLANATION OF TRANSA \SSESSMENT, OTHER +PAYMENT ASSESSMENT DATE
ATR “ArtITYe ,
NiKKV KI ~ 4 ~ \/ t
02-07-21 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
= \ 4AaVva
aarti tianlian waite < wider
DUE PROCESS NOTICE LEVY N
ISsU BU
03-08-2006 COLLECTIONS WORKING
M
4-3-2006 MODULE REVERSED 0
FEDERAL PAYMENT |
om |
~<
A
2
J
12-14-2006 COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSL\
BY APPEALS-DETRMINATN LTR
ISSUED, odo W ATVD JUDC]
REVW OR WTH W HRNG | RQS]
11.9 TRCAT CHIT NOLONC RR peNnn
11-10- VVU0 LEUAL OUI NO Lf ALS ER | NUILN
\
q s
10 R.1Q0 \ ry \
9 NI
10-03-20 \ \
App. 431
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: (Social Security
Number Omitted]
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1996
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale_
PRINT NAME: _ Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I lchecienion Processing
DELEGATION ORDER: SW Delegation Order 198 |
App. 433
[SEAL]
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, SSN: {Social
Security Number Omitted], and Spouses SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted], for U.S. Individual In-
come Tax Return (Form 1040), for the tax period
ending December 31, 2000, consisting of four pages
under the custody of this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
s/ Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
TYPE OF TA
FORM: 104
DATE
VU aw VV
TAX PERIOD: DEC 2
EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTI
Ahi dul
ESTIMATED TAX PEN¢
4
UITUUAT DING CRPN
WITHHOLDING CREDI1
ADDITIONAL TAX ASSESS!
BY EXAMINATION AUDIT
DEFICIENCY PER DEFAU
OF 90 DAY LETTER
{ i
~~ 44
AX: INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETU
COLO
ASS LOOM
DEBITS (REVERSAL
© 4)
Socl
ae
EN]
‘i
AOOTOOMILR
\SSESSMEN
nr als
RAC 0)
App. 435
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD II] EIN/SSN: [Social Security Number Omitted]
(Social Security Number Omitted]
TYPE OF TAX: INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 2000
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) (REVERSAL) (23C, RAC 006)
)4-18-2005 RENUMBERED RETURN
49247-484-00100-4
INTEREST ASSESSED 2,582.08 (4-18-2005
20051408
FAILURE TO PAY TAX PENALTY 2,876.30 04-18-2005
20051408
3-03-2006 FEDERAL TAX LIEN
3-27-2006 FEES AND COLLECTION COSTS 18.00
)2-27-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
DUE PROCESS NOTICE
LEVY NOTICE ISSUED
)3-07-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
DUE PROCESS NOTICE
RETURN RECEIPT SIGNED
)3-20-2006 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
13-08-2006 COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
14-03-2006 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF
FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY
PROGRAM
App. 436
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III RIN/SSN: [Social Security Number Omitted]
Social Security Number Omitted
TYPE OF TAX: INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 2000
DATE
03-08-2006
07-28-2006
12-14-2006
02-19-2007
04-18-2005
01-16-2006
EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) (REVERSAL 230, RAC 006)
LEGAL SUIT NO LONGER PENDING
COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD
BY APPEALS - DETRMINATN LTR
ISSUED, TXPYR WAIVD JUDCL
REVW OR WIHDRW HRNG RQST
MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
Statutory Notice of Balance Due
Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
App. 437
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Numbers Omitted |
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 2000
BALANCE 20,484.68
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: _ Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: _ SallyGale __
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing —
App. 438
DELEGATION ORDER: SW Delegation Order 198
LOCATION: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
ACCOUNT STATUS DATE 09/24/2007
App. 439
[SEAL]
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted], for Civil Penalty, for the
tax period ending December 31, 1997, consisting of
three pages under the custody of this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOFP, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
/s/ Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III RIN/SSN: {Social Security Number Omitted
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1997
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION — ASSESSMENT, OTHER +PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) (REVERSAL) 23C, RAC 006 )
MISCELLANEOUS PENALTY 00.0 10-18-1999
IRC 6702 PENALTY FOR FILING FRIV
OLOUS INCOME TAX RETURN
29254-673-52015-9 19994008
ADDITIONAL TAX ASSESSED 18-1999
29204-673-52015-9 19994008
02-21-2000 MODULE BLOCKED OR RELEASED
FROM FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY
PROGRAM
12-30-2002 REVERSAL OF MODULE BLOCKED
FROM FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY
PROGRAM
12-30-2002 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
07-28-2003 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER
AL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
11-21-2005 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
02-10-2006 FEDERAL TAX LIEN
(2-07-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION DUI
— NOTICE LEVY NOTICE Is
App. 441
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III KINSSN: [Social Security Number Omitted
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1997
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) (REVERSAL) (23C, RAC 006 )
02-14-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION DUE
PROCESS NOTICE RETURN RECEIPT
SIGNED
02-06-2006 LEGAL SUIT PENDING
03-08-2006 COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
04-03-2006 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER-
AL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
03-08-2006 LEGAL SUIT PENDING
11-10-2006 +LEGAL SUIT NO LONGER PENDING
12-14-2006 COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD BY
APPEALS-DETRMINATN LTR ISSUED,
TXPYER WAIVD JUDCL REVW OR
WTHDRW HRNG RQWST
02-19-2007 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
10-18-1999 Statutory Notice of Balance Due
12-13-1999 Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
10-03-2005 Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
App. 442
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
Hi CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Number Omitted |
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN £‘TAX PERIOD: DEC 1997
BALANCE 500.00
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
App. 444
[SEAL }
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24. 2POO7
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted], for U.S. individual In-
come Tax Return (Form 1040), for the tax period
ending December 31, 1998, consisting of five pages
under the custody of this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
S/ Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
TYPE OF TAX: INDIVIDUAL IN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
HDATR ATT(\\ IL TDANO
Vali iil ’ ALY
STEN CROSS INCOM
7a 5 { ps
A \ VLU,
‘ 4Q ‘
AV ADT LT Kr Fy on os ~
LAAADLE LV MG vin
()]-28-1 999 RECRIVEN DO A/T)
BMUVULILIY IT VUALLA
No 17 T
()S. &.7QQQ
. ‘to
PPMAURN DAA!
MUVED PUA
1A ) ANTIMN fT
] UY.) QUU Mi RIVE) POA
iu ‘ bhi\ avid’ | L
MVATON TA
\ | |
LWALEL LAA FE \
ramMD Ot nr nraritm
Tovey N( BANA }
- & AsAsda » ade aati i
04 1 WOT DING CPENTT
ss MALIN URAL II
ADDITIONAL TAX ASSESSED Bi
AMINATION AUDIT DEFICIENC’
Vil Miiivilu
;NAVIRTT DED
J DAY LEI!
Wi
’
sthiisibiul/ itl
10 1 RENTIMRERE
\
TAT ADI, r ny
8 R
H CLARI rUnN
al T AATATTIAY T) 4 LIT) “Vint ta, 2 en mn
if n \ 4 4 | ‘ s\ \ be 3 ei \ Ly
DATE \ ANA \ i Fe 54 ¥ OLE ie A i L vill % Nd L
“HITT NTT NAs rMieTng nin
yw — 7. RAV RRS = 3 }
WIEDLOT Ts OE
ViK Re A h by ‘ ;
Vilsikblawh ThA od lil’ & ~ - a
PATTURE TO PAY TAX PRNATT
Midd ib . ~
rmrTkyT HIAA +
}
02-24-2003 MODULE BLOCKED OR RELEASE
FROM FEDERAL PAYMENT LEV’
PROGRAM
LAATaN RIA TOM ararraAn
RUCESS N{ CE LEVY NOTICE JS
Ui l LEVINViII
aati
QTIFN
A 5 ‘ 1
4 y ~
Ud-JU- LUA 1 YIUULUDULIVAN EL
wT NIVTT DAT Nr
7. if nN AS
ATALTTATY
wi}
\ . AMITNAIT AN ~T , Y
()]-19- i\4 REVERSA] {\k VF Cc
| Oe ae? t ROY LIWAL Ur oA Cll v1
mn A OONMN al Nir mam
FROM FEDERAL PAYMEN
ba AYLI hathd a.
) XDA
(HeKA y
=_* eS
« \ 7 YY AY TTT
\ } b \ ~
a ALU dds ~
re nANh har
\ hy "
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTER
H CLARK FORD III
TYPE OF TAX: INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
DATE
11-07-2005
EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION
wae eS
DEBITS (REVERSAL
MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER-
AL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
2-12-2005 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
02-10-2006
03-08-2006
04-03-2006
03-08-2006
07-28-2006
12-14-2006
02-19-2006
12-16-2002
01-06-2003
10-24-2008
LEVY PROGRAM
FEDERAL TAX LIEN
COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER
AL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
LEGAL SUIT PENDING
LEGAL SUIT NO LONGER PENDING
COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD BY
APPEALS-DETRMINATN LTR ISSUED
TXPYR WAIVD JUDCL REVW OR
WTHDEW HRNG RQST
MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
aT) }
Statyytary Notice ak Palawan 1 his
otatutorv .\otice of Balance Vu
fanhitary f ire of | ant to | fe.
Statutory Notice Oo! intent to Lev)
+atrista AH AR A Int ++ | :
Stanton \ rs inter if
i vwLuUuwi + a s Ai¥ as & A ’
MIITN NavuIparn ANLr
4h ri y\ KN { wh
aidsild PALM. 4, Vabiu
DEUTDDCAT
Noy ERSAL
H CLARK FORD II KIN/SSN: {S
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL IN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
| OUDT ALATA AL TD into: baleen ¥ ban eu ee , DOQMDAM DAT
\ wk hk VAT} f 9 }
All AP LALNALIVUIN UP LIAN DOLSOMENL, Ut AT VLEAN 1 LOOLOOMENL DALL
10-24-2
App. 449
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
ewe we RH Oe ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Be OO ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee eee
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Number Omitted |
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
ae ee et et Se se sk hs sh te
I CERTIFY THAT THE FORFGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
App. 450
DELEGATION ORDER: SW Delegation Order 198
LOCATION: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
ACCOUNT STATUS DATE 09/24/2007
App. 451
[SEAL]
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted], for Civil Penalty, for the
tax period ending
December 31, 1998, consisting of
three pages under the custody of this office.
/s/
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
App. 452
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III RIN/SSN: [Social Security Number Omitted]
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER =PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) (REVERSAL) (23C, RAC 006 )
MISCELLANEOUS PENALTY 500.00 10-18-1999
IRC 6702 PENALTY FOR FILING FRIV-
OLOUS INCOME TAX RETURN
29254-673-52016-9 19994008
ADDITIONAL TAX ASSESSED 0.00 10-18-1999
29254-673-52016-9 19994008
02-21-2000 MODULE BLOCKED OR RELEASED
FROM FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY
PROGRAM
12-30-2002 REVERSAL OF MODULE BLOCKED
FROM FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY
PROGRAM
12-30-2002 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
07-28-2003 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER:
AL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
11-21-2005 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
02-10-2006 FEDERAL TAX LIEN
02-07-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION DUE
PROCESS NOTICE LEVY NOTICE IS-
SUED
App. 453
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMEN TS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
POO CRORE OEE E ESSE SHEE S EHH EEE HEHEHE EEE H SOUS SESE HEHE OEE EEE H HHH a Henne Bn ew nunusebebuuuhuuueuen
H CLARK FORD II] FINSSN: (Social Security Number (mitted|
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
DATE —_ EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DA'TE
DEBITS (REVERSAL) — (REVERSAL) et, RAC 006 )
Sr ne Tne NR SeRPSSOPEERERROPRERESERE SORE SUSUR SSE Rate er aera Teus Ase bet ges op 2Ed4U46 Owe 46s yb SED oN eSPE ee SREVAKK SEOs O40 H 584 O98 604s oes deewes OUGUADHHONUSOSEEEYORe6ibaxeses ceesdncaesendde
02-14-2006
03-06-2006
03-08-2006
04-03-2006
03-08-2006
11-10-2006
12-14-2006
02-19-2007
10-18-1999
12-13-1999
10-03-2005
INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION DUE
PROCESS NOTICE RETURN RECEIPT
SIGNED
LEGAL SUIT PENDING
COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
MODULE REVERSED OUT OF FEDER:
AL PAYMENT LEVY
LEGAL SUIT PENDING
LEGAL SUIT NO LONGER PENDING
COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD BY
APPEALS-DETRMINATN LTR ISSUED,
TXPYER WAIVD JUDCL REVW OR
WTHDRW HRNG RQWST
MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
Statutory Notice of Balance Due
Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
App. 454
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Number Omitted]
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1998
BALANCE 500.00
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale -
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
\
H CLARK FORD III EIN'SSN: {Social Secunty Number Omitted
TYPEOF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1999
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
‘ NOaygt y a0 n YN ane
DEBITS (REVERSAL REVERSAL 23C, RAC 006
02-14-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
DUE PROCESS NOTICE
RETURN RECEIPT SIGNED
03-06-2006 LEGAL SUIT PENDING
03-08-2006 COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
04-03-2006 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF
FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
03-08-2006 LEGAL SUIT PENDING
11-10-2006 LEGAL SUTT NO LONGER PENDING
12-14-2006 COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD BY
APPEALS - DETRMINATN LTR ISSUED
TAPYR WAIVD JUDCL REVW OR
WTHDRW HRNG RQST
02-19-2007 MODULE IN FEDERAL PAYMENT
LEVY PROGRAM
07-02-2001 Statutory Notice of Balance Due
2-04-2002 Statutory Notice of Intent to Levy
10-03-2005 Statutory Notice of Intent to Lewy
App. 459
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS.
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Number Omitted |
TYPE OF TAX: CIVIL PENALTY
FORM: CVPN TAX PERIOD: DEC 1999
BALANCE 500.00
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
DELEGATION ORDER: SW Delegation Order 198
App. 461
[SEAL]
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate, of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted] and Spouses SSN: [Social
Security Number Omitted], for U.S. individual In-
come Tax Return (Form 1040), for the tax period
ending December 31, 1999, consisting of four pages
under the custody of this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
/s/ Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
44a
17
44
)
|
TT
{
DT
“
A dive
\D
DE
Vil
+
(}4-
a. see
An hy
p
H CLARK FORD I ] RIN/SSN: [ Sc cial Security Number (
S001 | Sec curit y Num mber ( fetes
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1999
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT
DEBITS (REVERSAL) REVERSAL
10-03-2008 MODU LE BLOCKED OR
RELEASED FROM FEDERAL
PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
09-24-2005 REVERSAL OF MODULE
BLOCKED FROM FEDERAL
PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
10-24-2005 MODULE IN FEDERAL
PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
02-10-2006 FEDERAL TAX LIEN
02-07-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
DUE PROCESS NOTICE
LEVY NOTICE ISSUED
02-14-2006 INTENT TO LEVY COLLECTION
DUE PROCESS NOTICE
RETURN RECEIPT SIGNED
03-08-2006 COLLECTIONS WORKING CASE
04-03-2006 MODULE REVERSED OUT OF
FEDERAL PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
03-08-2006 LEGAL SUIT PENDING
ASSESSMENT DATE
23C, RAC 006 )
H CLARK FORD Ill RIN/SSN: (Social Security Number Omitted
Social Security Number Omitted
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1999
DATE EXPLANATION OF TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT, OTHER PAYMENT, CREDIT ASSESSMENT DATE
DEBITS (REVERSAL (REVERSAL 23C, RAC 006 )
07-28-2006 LEGAL SUIT NO LONGER PENDINC
12-14-2006 COLL DUE PROC HRNG RSLVD
BY APPEALS - DETRMINATN LTR
ISSUED, TXPYR WAIVD JUDCL
REW OR WTHDRW HRNG RQST
(2-19-2007 MODULE IN FEDERAL
PAYMENT LEVY PROGRAM
04-18-2005 Statutory Notice of Balance Dus
05-23-2005 Notice of Balance Due
06-27-2005 Statutory Notice of Intent
App. 466
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
Se ee ee ee ee ee
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Numbers Omitted |
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1999
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing _
App. 468
[SEAL]
United States of America
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Date: Sept. 24, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL RECORD
I certify that the annexed: is a true Form 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other
Specified Matters for H. Clark Ford, III, [Social
Security Number Omitted], for U.S. Individual In-
come Tax Return (Form 1040), for the tax period
ending December 31, 1997, consisting of six pages
under the custody of this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of this office to be affixed,
on the day and year first above
written.
By direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury:
‘s/ Sally Gale
Sally Gale
Supervisor Accounting Technician
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
SW Delegation Order 198
— rnAir nr
wel hk wh M >
. a ab ed i Ll
ATATT TT . =
h \ h
. STAG YC
CL PAVULS AVI
\ ne ‘\
i \ a . r ’
» x¥S\\ 4
‘ ~~ ‘
4 T ’
h \
\
U
“ “ - ~ ~ \
a 7; y
Lh " he be | Vb
‘ i \ 7
- a 295 —
* ‘ TT
4 he \ Kk
VE mT TTT Ker
1) ‘ x = SS
- " Ls >
ie = if l TAT rv ‘
| ~ bb he
oe Bt my asd LN eres! »
ITY pparDay
’ 4 , ATi e! 4
af Y i T 4
wd ~ - Wik iu . , ws
ees anon aa
r 4
Ud-USZ LUR LI WOKE
od
ve) T IMT nr
thy-t)S nr . \ DEN
\ ~ A Lia i Li
) my 4 .
UA- \. iy \ re \ -
- . Y
te
ti. " s nS
Ve - we DA
}
¢ > = 7
Hih , ~~ a te Pa .
4 4 ~- eV LY '
. \
17
ae \ \
ai ~ ‘ a uQ
. \
)
| s ~
LH
mT AT mM, .
LIThUr LAS Oo. LAVIV IU
WIRMV ] T DERTION: DNF
{ : t | y
Wa TT a ‘ : wT mMatTn
. ~ . x\4\ J . \ he
7 = - 4- ~ - |
~ es eas \
+ ~
\
. — m1 Q
~ hd ~ . - 4 av .. LiL Y\ st
TapDDrPalta nomim sim
SY APPEALS ~ DETRMINATN
Di Ti La ViLLINMLVAL
TAXATION MDM) winn nH
\\ Mi] \PY {| i}
WL dob APY AR WAV JUL
— — =
ly \ t D\
¥) nh Wi .¥
T|] ADATTDOATT Naw
. Si KN \
~ Sep 8 Os Sh
ta
LIN WReT)R
’ eAN i\ L
TAI NNArHily
\ kK L
h\ \
t " . ~
{ Ss) ORS
* . wh
} . ‘
TY
App. 475
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS,
AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
H CLARK FORD III EIN/SSN: [Social Security
Number Omitted]
TYPE OF TAX: U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
RETURN
FORM: 1040 TAX PERIOD: DEC 1997
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT
OF THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE IN RESPECT
TO THE TAXES SPECIFIED IS A TRUE AND
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PERIOD
STATED, AND ALL ASSESSMENTS, ABATE-
MENTS, CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND ADVANCE OR
UNIDENTIFIED PAYMENTS, AND THE AS-
SESSED BALANCE RELATING THERETO, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE
AS OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS DATE ARE
SHOWN THEREIN. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THE OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS SET FORTH
IN THIS TRANSCRIPT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SER-
VICE.
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER: Sally Gale
PRINT NAME: Sally Gale
TITTLE: Supervisor Accounting Technician,
Ogden W&I Submission Processing
App. 477
In the United States District Court
District of New Mexico
United States of America and
Internal Revenue Service
Petitioner
# Mic. # 07-16 J.H.
U
H. Clark Ford Ill
Respondent
ORDER-FO-SHOW-GAUSE
(May 01, 2007)
Motion for relief from void order based upon Rule
60(b)(4) for lack of jurisdiction and Rule 60(b)(3)
Fraud Upon The Court in affidavit form with memo-
randum of law is support
Now Comes H. Clark Ford III, a natural living man
making a special appearance for fear of his liberty, a
motion for relief based upon a Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of
jurisdiction and Rule 60(b)(3) for fraud upon the court
in affidavit form with memorandum of law in sup-
port.
I. Cause of Action
This motion is founded upon the concept that juris-
diction is lacking. Respondent to the above styled
cause seeks relief from order issued April 23 2007 at
docket #7 Rule 60(b)(4) to where the court is for a
App. 478
lack of jurisdiction to enforce administrative sum-
mons. Respondent also relies on Rule 60(b)(3) in that
the above-mentioned order is directing the Respon-
dent to participate with the Petitioner in fraudulent
activity. The Respondent fails to waive the argument
of en persona in that this motion is limited to ques-
tioning the jurisdiction of this court. Notice is hereby
made that counsel for the Petitioner did not notify the
Respondent for his consent to order issued April
23.Any impressions that Respondent approves of said
order is in error. Respondent has failed to make
contact to counsel for the Petitioner to approve of this
motion. Two attempts were made on April 30 between
3:00 4:00 PM with out success.
II. Grounds for Which Motion Must Be Granted
1. Respondent is named as a legal fiction in that the
Petitioner writes his name is all capital lends.
2. Respondent is named on the administrative
petitions as a small business or a wage earner.
3. The Respondent lives outside the geographical
jurisdiction of the US District Court District of
New Mexico.
4. Petitioner filed a “Show Cause” complaint be-
cause “no returns had been filed”; this is a false-
hood.
5. Petitioner issues a summons that has been
obsolete for 23 years.
6. Neither summons sports an OMB number.
App. 479
7. Court orders Responded to fill out a form that
has no OMB#.
8. Petitioner makes claim that a tax liability exists
where there is no assessment.
9. Petitioner has issued these summonses for pur-
poses other then [sic] those stated.
10. Petitioner purports to have authority to issue an
administrative summons where no such delegat-
ed authority exists.
11. Order forces Respondent to join the Petitioner in
fraud.
12. Petitioner has committed fraud upon this court.
Affidavit of Material Facts
Of Horatio Clark Ford III
This affidavit of material facts frames my rela-
tionship to internal revenue laws of the United
States. It is intended to comply with the “substantial
authority standard” (26 CFR § 1.6662-4(d)) and the
“good faith and reasonable cause standard” (26 CFR
§ 1.6664-4(a)). It also complies with requirements of
state law, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Fed-
eral Rules of Evidence. Authority cites following fact
statements, i.e., code sections, regulations, delegation
orders and the like, are included to clarify statement
application. I have personal knowledge of facts set
forth herein (Rule 43(e), F.R.Civ.P & Rule 602,
F.R.Evid.). Declarations of material fact are as fol-
lows:
oneenemeeetenrnnneeeennneentll
one
10.
App. 480
My name is Horatio Clark Ford ITI; I am a living,
moral being endowed with unalienable rights to
life, liberty and property, and all substantive
rights secured by the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of New
Mexico
I do not spell my name in all capital letters.
I am a Citizen of New Mexico, which is a State of
the Union.
I have made Chaves County my home since 1976.
My abode and dwelling is geographically located
in New Mexico, which is a State of the Union.
I am not domiciled with in any federal enclaves
that might be located with in the borders of New
Mexico (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 US Consti-
tution).
I was not born in any geographical area as de-
scribed as the “United States” or “State” (26
USCA 3121(e)(1)(2).
I passed from the womb upon the land of the
particular state of Ohio.
I grew up in the particular state of Arizona.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never re-
ceived notice from a District Director of an inter-
nal Revenue Service District, nor the Assistant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Internation-
al), that I am or ever have been required to keep
books and records and file returns for any of the
eight classes of tax administered by the Internal
Revenue Service. (Letter 978 (DO) & Notice 555).
App. 481
(See also, 26 U.S.C. § 6001, 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-
l(d) & 31.6001-6 & Treasury Delegation Order
No. 24).
11. I am not aware of any internal revenue district
within the state of New Mexico
12. To the best of my knowledge, I have never re-
ceived lawful and procedurally proper assess-
ments of Federal taxes, penalties, or interest for
calendar years ending December 31, 1996
through 2006. (26 U.S.C. § 6203, 26 CFR
§ 301.6203-1,)
13. In good faith, I have filed returns for years 1997-
2006 in affidavit form in accordance with (6213
(g)(1) 6011 and 6012 (Exhibits 1-9)
14. All of the returns filed from 1997 thru 2006 have
been made in Affidavit form and request a rebut-
tal.
15. ‘The ‘Treasury Department and or ‘The Internal
Revenue Service have acquiesced thru _ silence
from 1997-2005 (Exhibit 10).
16. On March 17 2006, I sent a notice nunc pro tunc
affidavit to ten different agencies of the Internal
Revenue Service (Exhibit 11)
17. This Affidavit redeemed me from the social
security# and the legal fiction Il. CLARK FORD
ITI.
18. I sent all of these agen‘ces the notice nunc pro
tunc by certified mail.
19. None of the agencies rebutted and all are in
default.
patie
App. 486
By the doctrine of jus soli and thru the definitions
from Title 26 Mr. Ford, unless he has had any sources
from with in the Territorial District United States, is
outside the jurisdiction of this court. Finally, the
Petitioner has failed to render up the body in that he
spelled the Respondents name in “all caps”. H. Clark
Ford III, the natural living man, appears out of fear
for his liberty. His appearance remains special.”
B. Subject Matter
One may not render subject matter to a court based
upon fraud. The purpose for rendering the Respon-
dent to an administrative vendetta was based upon
the notion that “no returns had been filed.” Before
Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 filed his petition
the Respondent wrote a refusal letter indicating that
he had filed returns (Exhibit 23). Neither Michael J.
Pryor agent # 84-10124 nor the Justice Department
concerned themselves with what Mr. Ford had said.
After the Respondent produced these returns, counsel
for Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 alluded that
Mr. Pryor had no knowledge of these returns (Exhibit
25 page 3, lines 17 thru 25). In fact, Mr. Ford had
sent Mr. Pryor a copy of his 2005 return of which he
could have traversed in affidavit form and decided
not to (Exhibit 9). The petition was filed on the notion
that “no returns had been filed” it was not filed on the
basis that “nol040’s had been filed.” The issue was
whether returns were filed not whether or not the
* 26 USCA 7604 (b)
App. 487
returns that were filed are frivolous or that the law
states, “One must file form 1040.” In as much as the
Petitoner [sic] has failed to amend the petitions this
court fails to have jurisdiction over the subject mat-
ter. The Petitoner [sic] has also failed to file this
petition under the proper section of Title 26, as we
will soon discover.
Il. Mr. Pryor Has Not Followed The Proper
Administrative Procedures.
A. Delegated Authority
Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 has committed
fraud upon this court in giving the appearance that
he has delegated authority for which to summons the
Respondent into a “house of pains and penalties”. He
enables himself obscuring his lack of delegated au-
thority by using obsolete form 2039 that has been
outlawed since 1984:
Rev Proc 55-6 prescribed a single form, Form
2039. Summons for use by all persons au-
thorized to issue a summons under sections
7602. The revenue procedure also set forth a
list of officers and employees of the internal
revenue service authorized to tssue sum-
monses under 7602.
Other official summons forms have been
provided for since the publication Rev Proc
55-6. Current service practice provides for
the use of three additional official summons
forms — Form 6637 Collection Summons Col-
lection Information Statement; Form 6638
Collection Summons Income Tax Return:
and Form 6639 Collection Summons Finan-
cial Records.
7
If the court will take notice that Rev Proc 84-62
provides for three different forms, which are more
Tr)
specific as to what kind of information the agen
T it~
able to procure — three different forms for three
different types of information. This is too specific for
Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124; so he prefers to
assail his query the old way of doing things. Becaus:
Rev-Proc. 55-6 does not reflect current law and pra
tice of the service, it is here by declared obsolete
. +
TMF } rT)
{ is as
On the face of both issued summonses, there
documentation of delegated authority. On Form 2039
a space for any attestation is absent. There is no
space where any such proof may be documented. It
fF MAL
can also be evinced that Michael J. Pryor agent #
10124 fails to document his authority to issue the tw
summonses at exhibit 20. Nor does he make declara-
tion of any delegation of authority in his petition at
20)
exhibit 21. The two summonses at exhibit lack
legal efficacy upon the face for three reasons:
Rik sme §
of these summonses
2
oO.
App. 489
Mr. Ford is not properly identified.
4
In addition to using a form for which has been de-
clared obsolete for the last 23 years. Michael J. Pryor
agent # 84-10124 snubs at the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Respondent seeks protection and relief from this
public servant by way of 44 USC 3512:
(a)
(b)
Not withstanding any other provision of
law no person shail be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a col-
lection of information that is subject to
this chapter if
I. The collection of information does
not display a valid control number
assigned by the director or
2. The agency fails to inform the per-
son who is to respond to the collec-
tion of information that such person
is not required to respond to the col-
lection of information unless it dis-
plays a valid control number.
the protection provided by this section
may be raised to the form of a complete
defense, bar, or otherwise at anytime
during the agency administrative pro-
cess or Judicial action applicable there
to.”
While failing to follow proper revenue procedures, Mr.
Pryor violates section 3512 of Title 44 by signing his
’ 44 USCA 3512
App. 490
name to an obsolete summons form that has no OMB
number. All the time that he is doing this he is de-
ceiving the court into believing that he has the dele-
gated authority to infringe on the respondents expec-
expectancy of privacy. He also encourages the Justice.
Department to join him in these fraudulent activities.
To exacerbate matters, Michael J. Pryor agent 84-
10124 has to create a legal fiction to make assump-
tions that the natural living H. Clark Ford III can be
assumed a “small business.” This way he can sum-
mons H. CLARK FORD III — thus he files against a
legal fiction. He has to do this to fit the Respondent
into his illegal summons form 2039. The problem that
we run into, however, is that by filing a petition
against a legal fiction, Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-
10124 has created a “John Doe” situation by spelling
Mr. Ford’s name in “all caps”. Asummons for a “John
Doe” or even a “small business” can only be filed
under a petition to the district court based upon a
section 7609(f) not section 7602.
The Petitioner committed fraud upon the court by
misrepresenting to the court as to who the Respon-
dent really is. He has to do this to get Mr. Ford to fit
into his illegal summonses.
The problem we run into however is that now the sub-
ject matter fails to fit the circumstances. Mr. Pryor
filed under the wrong section of Title 26. “Revenue
App. 491
officers may use JOHN DOE summonses in their
investigations; however they are not authorized to
issue JOHN DOE summonses (emphasis added).
Pursuant to delegation order 34 (rev. 22), the Area
Director and the Field Territory Manager are autho-
rized to issue JOHN DOE summonses. No one may
serve a JOHN DOE summons without first (emphasis
added) obtaining approval from the appropriate
federal district court.” Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-
10124 did not file under section 7609(f). He did not
have the authority to do so. He could not clear it with
this court prior to August 11 2006. Thus to employ
this court to enforce his summonses he files under
7602 which is inappropriate for a JOHN DOE sum-
mons, but to carry thru with the ruse he has to trans-
form Mr. Ford into a legal fiction. “Where party
intentionally deceives court as to identity of litigant
and permits court to waste its time on trial of action
against non existing party such conduct constitutes
fraud upon the court”
The Respondent brings proof that Michael J. Pryor
agent # 84-10124 did not go thru the proper proce-
dures to procure the delegated authority to violate
Mr. Ford’s expectancy of privacy under the Fourth
Amendment. On September 6 2006, the Respondent
affected to Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 a
conditional notice of acceptance for proof of delegated
" Legal Reference guide for revenue officers Chapter
5.17 6 2.1 (2) Statutory Authority
* Halloran v Blue and White Liberty Cab 92 NW 2d.794
App. 492
authority (Exhibit 14). Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-
10124 dishonored this offer (Exhibit 16). Later Mr.
Ford attempted to contract with Michael J. Pryor
agent # 84-10124 on November 16 2006 (Exhibit 15)
and was again dishonored on December 6 2006 (Ex-
hibit 17).
B. Liability
The two summonses at exhibit 20 have no purpose.
Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 had already ad-
mitted as early as July 19 that there had been no
assessment. Counsel for Mr. Pryor falsely presented
herself when she testified that her client had sent Mr.
Ford an assessment (exhibit 25 page 8 lines 12-13).
First of all this is hearsay information in that counsel
may not testify to fact.
If Mr. Pryor were to testify that, he had sent out
assessments he would be lying. On the 31st day of
May, a one Cameron A. Hedgedus hand delivered a
demand for assessment (Exhibit 18). Mr. Ford made
this demand upon 26 CFR 301.6203-1; it asked for
the dated assessments for each year by an assess-
ment officer under sworn statement as required by
the regulation. Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-10124 did
not send Mr. Ford any of these assessments for years
1996-2006. Rather, the Petitioner dishonored Mr.
Ford’s demand for assessment and notice was given
on July 19 2006 (exhibit 19) Thru his silence to the
issue of assessment Michael J. Pryor agent # 84-
10124 admits that there is no liability; yet not three
App. 493
weeks after his tacit admission Mr. Pryor issues and
serves his unauthorized summonses. “In order to
establish that IRS summons has been issued in good
faith it must be determined that investigation was
pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry
was relevant to that purpose, that the information
sought was not already with in the commissioners
possession and that the administrative steps required
by the code have been followed.” There is no purpose
to an IRS summons if it is established that Mr. Ford
has no tax liability from 1996-2006.
UI, Abuse of Discretion
Whether one is to concur that an order is in line with
law and reason, one must follow a court order as best
he or she can. The issue at bar for this case was “no
returns
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.