# Appendix — In re Ford > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1130%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2011 - **Citation:** 563 U.S. 986 ## 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 ' * | 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 ® ® YW) ay - } } rT) > ye. @a.2 = Micheal [sic] J PRYOR # ae a >. ESS [4 |12600 WEST Colfax AVI » 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 . 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. “ [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1130%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.