Why Dr. Dean's 88-Month Sentence is Illegal: Statement of Reasons

Breaking News Links From Ward - August 15, 2006

Link 1 - Pensacola News Journal
Link 2 - Pensacola News Journal - Forum Post
Link3 - Pensacola News Journal - Forum Post

Dr. Ward F. Dean is my personal physician and friend. He is an officer and a gentleman, West Point graduate, retired Navy Commander, medical doctor and a true American patriot of the first order.

Several years ago Dr. Dean discovered the truth about the fiat money system foisted upon the American people by Congress, through the Federal Reserve, and the fraudulent administration of the income tax. After careful study of Supreme Court cases, the Internal Revenue Code, historical documents, and many books, Dr. Dean realized that he could no longer participate in the federal tax scam in good conscience. He settled on the method of Irwin Schiff, filing a 1040 zero return with an affidavit stating why he was filing at all, why he was filing a zero return, and why he believed he had no liability for federal income taxes.

After doing this for seven years, the government began to harass Dr. Dean and ultimately ordered a grand jury investigation. Dr. Dean addressed all their correspondence and requested to meet with the grand jury. He also called a meeting with the IRS agent investigating him and asked to see the agent’s oath of office, job description and delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury giving the agent the authority to conduct the investigation. Dr. Dean also repeatedly requested to see the law – any law - that made him liable for any federal tax or imposed any duty on him to file any returns. The agent would not answer any of those concerns and got so angry that he threw a document at Dr. Dean, knocking over Dr. Dean’s tape recorder.

In the end the government ignored everything Dr. Dean presented, while stubbornly continuing to refuse to offer any substantive answers to his questions. The government finally gave a pretense of allowing Dr. Dean to testify before the grand jury, but cut him off before he had an opportunity to discuss the law. Ten minutes after being escorted from the federal courthouse Dr. Dean was ambushed and arrested at gun point by M-16-bearing officers consisting of a multi-jurisdictional task force made up of Florida Highway Patrol officers, Escambia County Sheriff’s deputies and IRS agents.

From his arraignment by the magistrate and continuing on to the end of his trial, the government never once cited a single specific statute that Dr. Dean allegedly violated other than a penalty statute.

The IRS’s own manual requires that they submit a Form 9131 before they can legally call for a grand jury investigation. Dr. Dean submitted a FOIA request for the required Form 9131, but it was denied. He appealed and that was denied. He finally sued them and got the document, but everything on it was redacted - except for his name! To this date, IRS has refused to comply with the law and supply him with that document.

Suspecting irregularities in the selection of the petit jury and grand jury Dr. Dean requested to inspect the grand and petit jury lists. The government finally allowed the inspection a couple days before trial. He sent two private investigators to Tallahassee, Florida. The investigators were not given any selection records for the grand jury. Finally, on the morning of the trial, the judge called Tallahassee. People from the clerk’s office said they gave the investigators the lists, and that Dr. Dean’s agents were telling a bold-faced lie. The judge had the lists e-mailed to the courthouse and they were given to Dr. Dean and his attorneys. The lists revealed that the foreperson of the grand jury who signed the indictment wasn’t even on the list, and many of the questionnaires filled out by the jurors were incomplete. Some questionnaires reflected the names of persons born overseas, some did not even bear a checkmark in the citizenship box, and some did not show that the potential jurors were residents of the district long enough to qualify.

Despite these obvious flaws in the grand jury records the judge ignored the issue and proceeded with the trial. The lead defense attorney and the judge had some discussion about this, but when the transcript finally came out, that conversation was omitted. At the conclusion of the trial Dr. Dean was handcuffed, shackled and dragged off to jail, while the clerk scooped up the jury records, even though the Supreme Court case of Test v. United States declared that the defendant had an “unqualified right” to inspect, copy and use those records in his defense.

The prosecution portrayed Dr. Dean as a belligerent, greedy, anti-government radical. The (now retired) IRS agent lied under oath and the DOJ and IRS knew he was lying, as they had access to the transcript of the meeting that the IRS agent lied about during his testimony. In closing arguments, the AUSA asked the jurors if they were going to believe the testimony of a dedicated IRS agent, or the lying Defendant (in so many words). Moreover, they claimed that Dr. Dean promoted an illegal drug, even after Dr. Dean supplied the government with written proof that the substance was an FDA-approved Schedule III substance and was perfectly legal.

Although the judge quoted portions of the Supreme Court case of Cheek v. United States, in the Court’s final jury instructions, the instructions were actually opposite to what the Cheek decision required, and came as close to a directed verdict as anything we’ve ever seen.

Dr. Dean was denied bond and has been in jail awaiting sentencing ever since his conviction. This case stinks to high heaven. The indictment and arrest warrant were sealed, even though Dr. Dean was open and above board from the beginning. Dr. Dean was charged with six counts of income tax evasion and one count of impeding the IRS, the first six being felonies. The last charge was particularly bizarre. The IRS issued a summons to his bank for books and records. Dr. Dean wrote a letter to the bank and told them that if they released his personal information without first making sure that the agent had the proper, legal authority to issue the summons that he would sue the bank. For writing that letter, Dr. Dean was tried and convicted of a crime. The IRS never took any positive, lawful steps by civil procedures to collect any supposed taxes owed, but went straight to criminal prosecution. No assessment was ever produced, no delinquent tax was ever verified and no law was ever quoted imposing any obligation on Dr. Dean.

In the end this fine man was railroaded into jail by fraud and deception.

Billy Bass
Pensacola, FL

On December 7th, 2005, a well-meaning but ill-informed jury convicted Dr. Ward Dean of six counts of tax evasion (1997 – 2002) and one count of “corruptly impeding the IRS in the collection of the tax.”

Help a Fellow Freedom Fighter

Arthur Farnsworth, a former Congressional candidate in Pennsylvania and tax honesty veteran goes on trial on Monday, November 28, 2005, 11:00 AM, at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, in Courtroom 17-B.

Grand Jury Appearance - Read Transcript

At 9 AM on 15 July, in accordance with the subpoena from the grand jury, I appeared at the federal courthouse in Pensacola, prepared to testify. While outside of the grand jury room, Special Agent (SA) Burgess, and Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Benjamin Beard asked me if I was prepared to give them an exemplar of my handwriting. I told them that as soon as they established their lawful authority by providing the documents I previously requested (oaths of office, delegation orders, and Form 9131 [Request for Grand Jury Investigation], etc), I would do so. Before Mr. Beard dismissed me from the room. I presented a document to the grand jury foreman that provided evidence that IRS special agents have no enforcement authority whatsoever with regard to income tax--and that their authority is only with regard to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Beard presented me with a Motion for Order to Show, (Cause) requesting that the Judge order me to provide the handwriting exemplars, or be incarcerated.

During the hearing, I introduced a motion to compel the government to produce the documents that I had requested, to verify whether the grand jury had been properly impaneled and whether the AUSA and SA Burgess had the authority to do what they were trying to do. Judge Vinson summarily dismissed my motion.

Nevertheless, Judge Vinson did allow me to enter into the record a copy of the exhibit I had presented to the grand jury foreman. regarding the lack of authority of special agents with regard to income taxes. He then asked whether I would comply with his order to provide the handwriting exemplars, or go to jail. I told him that I would do whatever he ordered me to do, but I would do it only under threat, duress and coercion.

I then spent the next hour filling out a number of forms in the presence of Ms. Burgess and Wayne Jackson.

Click here to see the complete transcript of the hearing.

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

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

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

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

Government Moves to Stay Civil Lawsuit

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

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

My Discovery Requests are enumerated below:

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

On the 5th of September, 2003, the government filed a Motion to File a Second and Third Declaration of Tanya Burgess. In this motion, the government requested the judge to prohibit me from posting the second declaration, a document of public record, on my website, and from distributing or disseminating it to others. Furthermore, the government requested that the third declaration by Special Agent Burgess be under seal, ex parte, and in camera! That means that it would have been a secret declaration, to be seen only by the judge! Folks, we’re talking about Star Chamber, secret tribunals here.

Due to the failure of the government to respond to my Requests for Admission, on September 15th, I filed a Motion to Deem my Requests for Admissions as “Admitted,” as well as a Memorandum in Opposition to the Government’s Motions.

These Motions were filed for Two Reasons:

On 26 September, Mr. Cooper filed a Response to my Motion for the Court to Deem my Requests for Admissions as “Admitted.” It was interesting that he included a copy of my lawsuit against Escambia County, Florida (and a plethora of “public servants”) as an exhibit. Although Mr. Cooper probably included this exhibit as an attempt to demonstrate that I am some kind of wild-eyed "nutcase", it is actually further evidence that government corruption is not limited to the IRS or other federal agencies (see the “Property Rights” section of my website for the complete story—still ongoing)—but is endemic at all levels of government.

On the 30 of September, Judge Collier GRANTED the government’s Motion to File the Second (with restrictions) and Third (in camera and ex parte) Declarations of Tanya Burgess.

On the 9th of October, I filed motions to Compel the government to respond to my Requests for Production of Documents, and to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and to Deem the Requests for Admissions as Admitted.

Government Does Not Have to Comply with Discovery

On the 14th of October, Judge Collier Ordered that the government does not have to comply with discovery!

This was followed two days later by the most voluminous amount of paperwork yet. Mr. Cooper filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Memorandum in Support, a Statement of Material Facts to this material, and a Fourth Declaration by Tanya Burgess, all replete with an assortment of exhibits. Over 88 pages (including exhibits) in all!

On the 27th of October, I filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and a Motion and Memorandum for Reconsideration of the Judge’s Denial of my Motion to Compel Discovery.

On the same day, Judge Collier issued an Order and Notice that he would be taking the Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement on November 19th.

Two days later (October 29th) Judge Collier Denied my Motion to Compel Discovery and my Motion to Deem Admissions as Admitted, and on the 31st of October, Denied my Motion and Memorandum for Reconsideration.

The day after Judge Collier took the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement (19 November, 2003), he retired. On December 16th 2003, my case was transferred to his replacement, Judge M. Casey Rodgers.

On April 30th, 2004, the Federal Grand Jury investigating me was dismissed -- apparently without taking any actions towards me.

On May 15th, 2004, I received Magistrate Judge Miles Davis’ Report and Recommendation to the Court with regard to the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to my 7431 lawsuit, recommending that the Court grant the government’s motion. Although Magistrate Davis took nearly six months to prepare his report, I had only ten days in which to object to his proposed findings.

Nevertheless, I filed my Objection timely on May 25th. In my objection, I pointed out that Agent Burgess, in her fourth declaration, claimed she made her unlawful disclosures about me in “good faith” and that she based this alleged “good faith” on a memo from IRS national headquarters issued in December, 2002. Magistrate Davis had apparently failed to notice that the summonses which triggered my lawsuit were sent by Agent Burgess in October and November, 2002, prior to the issuance of the memo she claims to have read as the basis for her “good faith”!

Thus, Agent Burgess was clearly NOT acting in “good faith.” She broke the law and she knew it. She just thought she wouldn’t get caught—or I wouldn’t do anything about it.

Just one day after I filed my Objection, Judge Rogers made a “de novo” determination of the merits of my objections, and ORDERED the adoption of the Magistrate’s report, and GRANTED the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (De novo means a new, complete review of the case, from the beginning).

On 1 June, 2004, I filed a Notice of Appeal to the 11th Circuit, and timely filed my Appeal on the 14th of July.

On September 10th, 2004, the government countered with their Brief for the Appellee. The government’s argument, in essence, was that even if Agent Burgess broke the law (which they conceded, she had done), she acted in “good faith,” and that her illegal actions were “necessary” (they spent five pages redefining the word necessary to mean “appropriate and helpful”).

On October 25th, 2004, I filed a Reply Brief, bringing the argument back on track. From this brief, it is clear that Agent Burgess broke the law; it wasn't in "good faith;" and her actions were not "necessary" to obtain the information she was seeking.

On January 10th, 2005, the 11th Circuit issued a Per Curiam decision (“let it stand”), upholding the District Court’s grant of Summary Judgement in favor of the government.

The 11th Circuit based it’s decision on a number of erroneous assumptions and false statements. The 11th Circuit stated that I was “attempting to use civil discovery to obtain information not otherwise available regarding the government’s criminal investigation,” and claimed that I had “merely raise[d] unsubstantiated questions regarding Burgess’s and the IRS’s authority.”

Of course, the reason the questions were “unsubstantiated” was because the government denied my discovery requests, (below) to prove whether or not the government was acting in accordance with the law and with its own procedures (instead of accepting, without question, the government’s prima facie allegations).

If the government had actually done what it was required to do, they could have responded to my Discovery requests within days, and proved that I had no case.

But they didn’t.

IRS Form 9131

IRS Form 9131 is a Request for Grand Jury Investigation. This form is required to be completed and sent by overnight courier service to the IRS General Counsel to bring a case before the Grand Jury. If this form is not properly completed and processed, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Criminal Tax Manual, the Grand Jury is not acting within the scope of their delegation of authority! Since I had been unable to obtain a copy of this document via the Freedom of Information Act or through discovery, on May 17th, 2004, I sued the government again, in a second lawsuit, to get them to produce a copy of the Form 9131.

In response to my lawsuit, the IRS changed their mind and sent me a redacted copy. Note, however, that the Form 9131 which they released had even redacted the date that the Form was allegedly created. In addition, two of the required signatures were missing.

I submitted Freedom of Information Act requests (FOIA) to obtain (1) an unredacted (uncensored) copy of this form indicating the date it was signed, and (2) a copy of the receipt from the overnight courier service by which the Form 9131 was required to be submitted to IRS’ General Counsel.

Meanwhile, in response to my 7431 lawsuit, the 11th Circuit responded to my Appeal from the Summary Judgement of the District Court, on January 10th, 2005. The 11th Circuit panel of judges claimed Agent Burgess’ actions were “necessary” because I had allegedly “failed to cooperate with the investigation.”

That is, or course, absolutely false. I requested, on numerous occasions, to appear before the Grand Jury. They never responded to my requests. (Request two, Request three.) I also requested--twice-- a Criminal Investigation Conference with SA Burgess and AUSA Beard. These requests were denied.

(SA Burgess and the AUSA told me the time was not yet “right” to have a CI Conference, despite the clear words of 26 CFR, 601.107 (2)(b) that I could have one at any time!

Now, who is not being cooperative?

In an interesting and relevant development in another case, on January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers can't be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, without a federal court order.

Now, that's exactly what I said in my letters to my banks. SA Burgess claimed that I had "contacted and discouraged third-parties from cooperating with the investigation," and that I had "attempted to intimidate or influence potential witnesses," referring to my letters. My letters were in no way a threat or intimidation to anyone. I was, of course, trying to influence the witnesses to comply with the law — as has now been made very clear by the 2nd Appellate Court.

Despite the fact that the Grand Jury that originally investigated me had been released on April 30th, 2004 (presumably, having voted not to indict [i.e., No True Bill], in January, 2005 I learned that the government had sent out several Grand Jury Subpoenaes to third parties for my records, and was resuming the "investigation" by a new Grand Jury.

On February 14th, 2005, I again requested to appear before the Grand Jury, and again requested a Criminal Investigation Conference. I also requested a copy of Mr. Davies‘ (the current AUSA) oath of office and other documents. I have still not received copies of Ms. Burgess’, or Mr. Beard’s (the previous AUSA) oaths of office, which are required by Article 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as by 5 USC 3331.

On February 25th, 2005, I submitted a Petition for Rehearing en banc to the 11th Circuit, with regard to the Appeal of my 7431 Lawsuit.

Ambushed and Arrested

Robert G. Davies, the AUSA, responded to my request to appear before the Grand Jury on February 28th, 2005. I believed that he had granted my request in good faith, and that I would be allowed to make a brief statement, and answer questions from the grand jurors.

I appeared on the 17th, as scheduled. After introducing myself, but before I had an opportunity to even mention my beliefs regarding my situation or the tax laws, I was cut off by the foreperson and escorted from the room by two U.S. Marshals.

On the drive home, as we (my wife and a friend) neared my neighborhood, we passed two parked sheriff’s vehicles. As it turned out, I realized we had entered the kill zone of a well-executed ambush. We were pulled over, and immediately surrounded by about a half dozen law enforcement vehicles from at least 3 agencies. Several M-16 bearing sheriff’s deputies reinforced the fact that this was not a routine traffic stop. I was pulled from the vehicle, handcuffed and read my rights by an IRS special agent, and transported back to the courthouse from which I had just left.

After 2 hours in a cell, I was processed and taken before Magistrate Judge Miles Davis. I was indicted on six counts of tax evasion (26 USC 7201) and one count of “corruptly impeding the IRS” (26 USC 7212[a]) (that was for writing letters to my banks regarding the IRS summonses).

AUSA Davies had clearly set me up with a sham appearance before the grand jury. Because of the date/time stamp (11:02 AM) on the documents, it was obvious that the Indictment and other documents (Motion to Seal the Indictment and Motion to Seal the Arrest Warrant) had already been prepared prior to my appearance, and that the arrest on the street by M-16-bearing sheriff’s deputies was an attempt to intimidate me and my wife. Had the goal been merely to arrest me, they could have done that in the courthouse, where I had been surrounded by U.S. Marshals and IRS special agents.

Because of the distortions of the truth and misstatements made by Mr. Davies in his motions, I filed a Declaration to the Court, to correct these erroneous statements, and to request additional time prior to arraignment to seek assistance of counsel. I subsequently filed a Notice regarding my desire to appear on my own behalf, but with assistance of counsel to help me with procedural matters.

I was arraigned on April 13th, 2005, and trial was originally set for June 6th, 2005, although it is currently docketed for September, 6th, 2005.

In the meantime, on April 1, while all of the above was going on, the 11 Circuit issued a Per Curiam decision in my 7431 lawsuit, denying a rehearing. Although the court in the Northern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta apparently condone blatant law-breaking by IRS agents, such is not the case everywhere. In a Missouri lawsuit, under circumstances similar to those in my case, on July 26th, 2005, the Court found that the IRS agents had broken the law by disclosing confidential return information, and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, to the tune of damages totaling $260,000!

Larken Rose, another highly visible individual in the tax honesty movement (larken@taxableincome.net), recently sent an email to his subscribers that appears to be very relevant to what I have experienced so far. Mr. Rose stated:

Larken, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Court Docket and Filings Now Available

Due to the pressures of preparing for trial, I haven't been able to keep this site up to date. Here is the complete docket, with links to most of the significant briefs. I'll try to keep this up to date, and hope it's of help to anyone else in a similar situation.

Trial is currently set for October 3rd.

See Also: Background History
in IRS Intro Section