 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
20 March 2002
Joel Gold
Legal Counsel, PNC Bank
Mail Stop: P7-PFSC-02-F
500 First Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
(412) 762-2801
(412) 705-2583
Dear Mr. Gold,
Ref our fonecon today regarding PNC Bank File #2002-297, in which you stated that it was PNC's bank policy to respond to IRS Summons for records by turning over the requested records, and to respond to IRS Notices of Levy by turning over funds in depositors' accounts, despite the fact that there has been no court order to do so.
Which bank officer bears the responsibility for having disclosed my records to the IRS in the absence of a court order?
Please send me a copy of the bank policy that you cited. Also, please send me a copy of the bylaws and charter of the bank.
Yours truly,
Ward Dean, M.D.
cc: Sandra L. Scarpati-Hostetler (412-768-1088)
---------------------------------------------------------------
26 February, 2002
PNC Bank
ATTN: Legal Process
500 1st Avenue
Suite 02-F
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Sir,
Ref the "Summons" from the IRS, dated 21 February, 2002, signed by Internal Revenue Agent Wayne Jackson and Group Manager George Poole.
This is to Notice you that you are under no obligation to comply with this fraudulent "Summons." It is not a court order. It is a phony document sent by a "Revenue Agent" who has no authority to send a lawful summons to anyone.
Note that IRS Code Section 7602 (a) (Incl 1) only authorizes the Secretary (or his delegate) to send summonses. Also, note that Code Section 7608 (Incl 2) authorizes only Special Agents to send summonses to enforce Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms.
Mr. Jackson has no Delegation Order from the Secretary of the Treasury (or anyone else, for that matter) authorizing him to send summonses. If he claims he has one, ask him to show it to you.
Mr. Jackson, is not a Special Agent (he is a Revenue Agent). Only Special Agents are authorized to send summonses--and even then, only with regard to violations of Liquor, Tobacco or Firearms laws (Section 7608).
Please see the attached job description of an IRS Revenue Agent. Nowhere in this job description does it say anything regarding sending summonses.
Furthermore, note that the privacy act statement (attached) in the 1040 booklet states that “You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number.” [emphasis added]
This is a restatement of Title 44, Section 3512, which states, in pertinent part:
Title 44, USC, Sec. 3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that is subject to this chapter if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number
assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection
of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection
of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form
of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency
administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Note that the summons did not display a valid OMB control number. Therefore, it appears that pursuant to Title 44, Section 3512, and the Privacy Act Statement from the IRS’ 1040 booklet, you are not required to respond to this bogus “summons.”
In the case of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. A. A. Merrill (332 US 380, 384) (Incl 3), the Supreme Court noted that “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority” [emphasis mine], and “…the agent himself may [be] unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
In other words, the Supreme Court warned the American public that in dealings with the government, we take a risk that the agents are acting within the scope of their authority. Well, I don’t want to take that risk.
Pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Case, I suggest that before any disclosure is made, you obtain from Revenue Agent Jackson copies of a delegation order authorizing him to issue summonses and to examine my books and records, as well as a copy of an enforcement commission (he has neither).
I demand that my records not be released to anyone without proper judicial authority. This is your Notice that I will hold anyone who releases these records in response to this "summons" personally liable for any such unauthorized disclosure. Please let me know your intentions in this matter.
Thank you,
Yours truly,
Ward Dean, M.D.
--------------------------------------------------------
26 February, 2002
First Union National Bank
ATTN: Judicial Processing
Mail Code PA 4418
P.O. Box 8667
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101-8867
Dear Sir,
Ref the "Summons" from the IRS, dated 21 February, 2002, signed by Internal Revenue Agent Wayne Jackson and Group Manager George Poole.
This is to Notice you that you are under no obligation to comply with this fraudulent "Summons." It is not a court order. It is a phony document sent by a "Revenue Agent" who has no authority to send a lawful summons to anyone.
Note that IRS Code Section 7602 (a) (Incl 1) only authorizes the Secretary (or his delegate) to send summonses. Also, note that Code Section 7608 (Incl 2) authorizes only Special Agents to send summonses to enforce Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms.
Mr. Jackson has no Delegation Order from the Secretary of the Treasury (or anyone else, for that matter) authorizing him to send summonses. If he claims he has one, ask him to show it to you.
Mr. Jackson, is not a Special Agent (he is a Revenue Agent). Only Special Agents are authorized to send summonses--and even then, only with regard to violations of Liquor, Tobacco or Firearms laws (Section 7608).
Please see the attached job description of an IRS Revenue Agent. Nowhere in this job description does it say anything regarding sending summonses.
Furthermore, note that the privacy act statement (attached) in the 1040 booklet states that “You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number.” [emphasis added]
This is a restatement of Title 44, Section 3512, which states, in pertinent part:
Title 44, USC, Sec. 3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that is subject to this chapter if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number
assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection
of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection
of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form
of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency
administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Note that the summons did not display a valid OMB control number. Therefore, it appears that pursuant to Title 44, Section 3512, and the Privacy Act Statement from the IRS’ 1040 booklet, you are not required to respond to this bogus “summons.”
In the case of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. A. A. Merrill (332 US 380, 384) (Incl 3), the Supreme Court noted that “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority” [emphasis mine], and “…the agent himself may [be] unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
In other words, the Supreme Court warned the American public that in dealings with the government, we take a risk that the agents are acting within the scope of their authority. Well, I don’t want to take that risk.
Pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Case, I suggest that before any disclosure is made, you obtain from Revenue Agent Jackson copies of a delegation order authorizing him to issue summonses and to examine my books and records, as well as a copy of an enforcement commission (he has neither).
I demand that my records not be released to anyone without proper judicial authority. This is your Notice that I will hold anyone who releases these records in response to this "summons" personally liable for any such unauthorized disclosure. Please let me know your intentions in this matter.
Thank you,
Yours truly,
Ward Dean, M.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------
26 February, 2002
MBNA
Attn: Custodian of Records
1100 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19884
Dear Sir,
Ref the "Summons" from the IRS, dated 21 February, 2002, signed by Internal Revenue Agent Wayne Jackson and Group Manager George Poole.
This is to Notice you that you are under no obligation to comply with this fraudulent "Summons." It is not a court order. It is a phony document sent by a "Revenue Agent" who has no authority to send a lawful summons to anyone.
Note that IRS Code Section 7602 (a) (Incl 1) only authorizes the Secretary (or his delegate) to send summonses. Also, note that Code Section 7608 (Incl 2) authorizes only Special Agents to send summonses to enforce Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms.
Mr. Jackson has no Delegation Order from the Secretary of the Treasury (or anyone else, for that matter) authorizing him to send summonses. If he claims he has one, ask him to show it to you.
Mr. Jackson, is not a Special Agent (he is a Revenue Agent). Only Special Agents are authorized to send summonses--and even then, only with regard to violations of Liquor, Tobacco or Firearms laws (Section 7608).
Please see the attached job description of an IRS Revenue Agent. Nowhere in this job description does it say anything regarding sending summonses.
Furthermore, note that the privacy act statement (attached) in the 1040 booklet states that “You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number.” [emphasis added]
This is a restatement of Title 44, Section 3512, which states, in pertinent part:
Title 44, USC, Sec. 3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that is subject to this chapter if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number
assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection
of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection
of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form
of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency
administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Note that the summons did not display a valid OMB control number. Therefore, it appears that pursuant to Title 44, Section 3512, and the Privacy Act Statement from the IRS’ 1040 booklet, you are not required to respond to this bogus “summons.”
In the case of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. A. A. Merrill (332 US 380, 384) (Incl 3), the Supreme Court noted that “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority” [emphasis mine], and “…the agent himself may [be] unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
In other words, the Supreme Court warned the American public that in dealings with the government, we take a risk that the agents are acting within the scope of their authority. Well, I don’t want to take that risk.
Pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Case, I suggest that before any disclosure is made, you obtain from Revenue Agent Jackson copies of a delegation order authorizing him to issue summonses and to examine my books and records, as well as a copy of an enforcement commission (he has neither).
I demand that my records not be released to anyone without proper judicial authority. This is your Notice that I will hold anyone who releases these records in response to this "summons" personally liable for any such unauthorized disclosure. Please let me know your intentions in this matter.
Thank you,
Yours truly,
Ward Dean, M.D.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |