 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
Dr. Dean's Response to Letter From the
U.S. Attorney
14 July, 2003
Benjamin W. Beard
Assistant U.S. Attorney
21 East Garden Street
Suite 400
Pensacola, Florida, 32501
Dear Mr. Beard,
This is in response to your letter July 9th, 2003.
I am aware that the grand jury investigation is not a "game." However, just because I know who you and Tanya Burgess are (presumably) does not mean that either of you have established to me that you have authority to do what you are trying to do. Pursuant to the admonition of the Supreme Court to the American public in the landmark Federal Crop Insurance case, which I have previously cited for you (U.S. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 [1947]), I have both a right and a duty to establish the limits of your authority before entering into an "arrangement" with you.
You stated that my need to see your oath of office has "little or nothing to do" with whether I must respond to the "lawfully issued grand jury subpoena" served upon me, and therefore refused to comply with my Freedom of Information Act request, in violation of Title 5, USC, Section 552. Mr. Beard, as an attorney, you must be aware of the provision of Article 6 of the Constitution for the United States, which requires that "all executive and judicial Officers…of the United States…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." In addition, such oath is prescribed by Title 5, Section 3331; and Title 5, Section 2906 requires that the oath of office is to be preserved by the "court to which the office pertains."
Please note that there is an important difference between real and apparent authority. Obviously, both you and SA Burgess have established your apparent authority. However, neither of you have been forthcoming with evidence to document the parameters of your real and lawful authority, about which I have legitimate questions.
Therefore, I again respectfully request that you provide me with the documents that I have requested in my letters of 6 and 8 July, 2003, pursuant to the law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Without these documents, I believe that I will be "taking the risk" that "he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority."
Furthermore, I am not "disassembling," as you implied--merely standing up for my unalienable "constitutional, statutory, and administrative rights."
You implied repeatedly in your letter (at least nine times) that I have given you some indication that I did not intend to comply with your subpoena. Please note that I have never indicated that I did not intend to appear in accordance with the subpoena, and to do all that the law requires me to do.
Furthermore, you advised me no less than three times in your letter that I could be incarcerated for failing to appear, when I have never given even a hint that I did not intend to appear and fully comply with a lawful subpoena--yet you then ingenously advise me "to not view this as a threat."
You questioned my "conduct to date," and appear to be under the impression that I "believe that the grand jury investigation is being conducted under [my] direction or control, in a manner of [my] choosing, both as to timing and scope," and that "the government must have your consent to investigate your activities." You are mistaken. That is not what I believe. Please note that my "conduct to date" has been to ask what I believe are relevant questions. I do believe that the government, like the people, must act in accordance with the law, and that agents of the government must act within the scope of their lawful authority.
With regard to my request for a Criminal Investigation Conference, you stated that the Conference "is a procedure adopted by the Department of Justice to insure that there is no misunderstanding as to what has occurred and to insure that if there is an explanation for your failure to pay taxes, before criminal proceedings are initiated," and that "the conference is held between your attorney or representative and members of the DOJ Criminal Tax Division after the investigation is completed, but before a decision on how to proceed is made." Furthermore, you stated that "the purpose of the conference is not to justify the initiation of a criminal investigation or to satisfy you that you are obligated to pay income taxes," but "to decide whether a criminal prosecution should go forward," and that "the time for such a meeting has not been reached."
I believe it is you who have misunderstood the purpose and timing of a criminal investigation conference. Please note that Title 26, CFR Section 601.107 (b) (2) states that "A taxpayer who may be the subject of a criminal recommendation will be afforded a district Criminal Investigation conference when he requests one…." and that "At the conference, the IRS representative will inform the taxpayer (note, this does not refer to the taxpayer's attorney) by a general oral statement of the alleged fraudulent features of the case…, and…making available to the taxpayer (not his attorney) sufficient facts and figures to acquaint him with the basis, nature, and other essential elements of the proposed criminal charges against him."
I hope this clarifies the misconceptions you raised in your letter,
Yours truly,
Ward Dean, M.D.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |