Letter From: Ward Dean, M.D.
www.warddeanmd.com

31 July 2003

Foreman, Grand Jury
c/o Clerk of the Court
U.S. Courthouse
Northern District of Florida
One North Palafox Street
Pensacola, Florida 32501

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the brief but prematurely truncated opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury on 15 July--although I realize that that appearance was "staged" by Assistant U.S. Attorney Beard for you to observe my "refusal" to provide handwriting exemplars.

My reason for refusing to provide the exemplars, as I hope I made clear during my brief appearance, was due to Mr. Beard's failure to provide proof that he has authority to do what he was doing, and that the Grand Jury has been properly impaneled with regard to my case.

During my appearance, I cited the Supreme Court case of Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill (Ex 1). In this case, which has never been overturned, the Supreme Court warned the citizens of America that in any encounter with the government, we "take a risk" that the agents are acting within the scope of their authority. I do not want to take that risk.

Consequently, I requested that Mr. Beard and SA Burgess provide me with proof of the scope of their authority, as the Supreme Court has cautioned us to do. Such proof includes their oaths of office, job descriptions, and delegation orders. They have refused to comply with this simple request. Why are they so reluctant to provide these presumably readily-available public records?

As you can see from the 11-page letter and supporting exhibits that I provided to you on 15 July, there is a serious question regarding whether Special Agents have any authority to investigate internal revenue matters other than alcohol, tobacco, or firearms violations. Likewise, as you can see from Section 6-4.270 from the DOJ's Criminal Tax Manual (Ex 2), the Criminal Division has "limited responsibility for the prosecution of offenses investigated by the IRS:"

Those offenses are: excise violations involving liquor tax, narcotics, stamp tax, firearms, wagering, and coin-operated gambling and amusement machines; malfeasance offenses committed by IRS personnel; forcible rescue of seized property; corrupt or forcible interference with an officer or employee acting under the internal revenue laws; and unauthorized mutilation, removal, or misuse of stamps. See 28 CFR Section 0.70

Although this manual is dated 1994, I am unaware of a more recent edition, or any interim changes to this guidance. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Beard and Ms. Burgess to advise me of what laws I am suspected of violating. I doubt that they fall within the above categories.

In addition, I have asked repeatedly for a criminal investigation conference as authorized by 26 CFR 601.107 (Ex 3). Although this regulation states that "the subject of a criminal recommendation will be afforded a district Criminal Investigation conference when he requests one…," [emphasis added] both Ms. Burgess and Mr. Beard have repeatedly denied me that right.

During my brief presentation before you, I also mentioned the requirement that a Form 9131 (Request for Grand Jury Investigation) be properly completed and processed in order for the Grand Jury to be properly impaneled and for the investigation to be within the scope of the delegation of authority. This is clearly specified by Section 6-4.120 of the Criminal Tax Manual (Ex 4, plus parts 1-4). IRS Handbook 9.5, The Investigative Process, Chapter 2, "Grand Jury Investigations" (Ex 5) also confirms the requirement for a properly completed and processed Form 9131. Has Form 9131 been completed as required? I have requested from Mr. Beard to see the Form 9131, as well as requested a copy via the Freedom of Information Act. I have received no response in either case.

Within a short time after my appearance before the Grand Jury, a Hearing was held before Chief Judge Roger Vinson, regarding a Motion to Show [Cause] from Mr. Beard (Ex 6). A transcript of the Hearing is inclosed (Ex 7), and the two Motions that I filed (which were denied by Judge Vinson) are also inclosed (Exhibits 8 and 9). (Judge Vinson did allow the letter and exhibits I presented to you to be entered into the record).

In his Motion to Show [Cause], Mr. Beard made a number of incorrect or inflammatory statements and allegations. To correct these mis-statements for the record, I faxed him a letter on 29 July (Ex 10).

In the case of U.S. v Mara (410 U.S. 19, 93 S. Ct. 774, 35 L.Ed. 2d 99), Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, in his dissent, quoted Judge William Campbell (who had been on the District Court in Chicago for over 32 years) that "This great institution [the Grand Jury] of the past has long ceased to be the guardian of the people for which purpose it was created at Runnymeade. Today it is but a convenient tool for the prosecutor--too often used solely for publicity. Any experienced prosecutor will admit that he can indict anybody at any time for almost anything before any grand jury."

Thus, I again respectfully request the opportunity to appear before you to answer whatever questions the Grand Jury may have regarding the case in question, and to restore the Grand Jury to its original, Constitutional role.

Sincerely,

Ward Dean, M.D.