V.

E. THE TRIAL COURT'S COMMENTS WERE FAIR
AND PROPER.....

F. THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMENTS CONCERNING
APPELLANT'S LATE PRODUCTION OF FOREIGN
BANK RECORDS WAS ENTIRELY PROPER....

38

40

G. THE INVESTIGATING AGENT'S TESTIMONY WAS
NOT HEARSAY...

CONCLUSION..

ii

47

49

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities

I.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED WITHIN THE SIX YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

A.

B.

The Government May Not Suspend The Statute
of Limitations Period By Engaging In
Unnecessary Summons Enforcement Proceedings.

The Statute Of Limitations Is Not
Suspended By Hypothetical Appeals.

II.

III.

THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTION REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION

THE EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF
A TAX DEFICIENCY.

A.

The Government's Failure To Show Any
Investigation Into Appellant's Foreign
Assets Constitutes A Failure To Satisfy
Its Burden of Proof.

1. The government has the burden to
investigate all leads which are
inconsistent with the taxpayer's
guilt, whether supplied by the
taxpayer or uncovered by the
government's own investigation.

PAGE

-iii

1

2

4

6

7

burden to conduct a thorough investigation
into Appellant's foreign accounts by
claiming that the Appellant had kept the
accounts secret.

3.

The government may not avoid its burden
to conduct a thorough investigation by
claiming that Appellant's foreign accounts
were not reasonably succeptible of
investigation.

8

4.

The government may not avoid its duty to
investigate Appellant's foreign assets by
claiming it had no burden to anticipate
defenses first raised at trial.

11

-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

B.

The Government's Opening Net Worth Was
Not Reasonably Certain And Is Not Made
Certain Merely Because It Was Accepted
By The Jury.

13

C.

The Government Failed To Introduce Evidence
Sufficient to Meet Its Burden To Show A
Taxable Source For The Alleged Increase In
The Appellant's Net Worth.

15

IV.

APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED PREJUDICE
FLOWING DIRECTLY FROM HIS INABILITY TO
PREPARE ADEQUATELY FOR TRIAL.

16

V.

THE TRIAL COURT'S COMMENTS DEMONSTRATED A
HOSTILITY TOWARDS APPELLANT'S POSITION
WHICH RESULTED IN TANGIBLE PREJUDICE.

18

VI.

THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN IT COMMENTED UPON
APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY INVOKED SILENCE.

CONCLUSION

To the Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives regarding Hearing on Taxpayers Safeguards. Following is my written statement for inclusion in the Printed Record: 1. That from August 1970 until the present time the I.R.S. has continually broke the law by violating my constitutional and civil rights. 2. Since August 1970 to the present I have been under criminal investigation by the I.R.S. for petitioning for Redress of Grievances. 3. The I.R.S. has never responded or answered to my petitions.

4. The I.R.S. has constantly harassed me by walking into my office unannounced on many occasions, with firearms and without a civil or criminal warrant threatening me and demanding information. Refusing to answer my questions and/or complete a public servants questionaire as required by the privacy notice.

5. The I.R.S. has harrassed my family and my friends of both the business and social communities.

6. The I.R.S. has embarrassed and belittled me on numerous occasions by their investigatory and inquisitory confrontations of my friends of the business and social community to my personal loss and irreparable damage.

7. The I.R.S. has made up assessments on three different occassions, out of thin air, without validity in total violation of Due Process of Law.

8. The I.R.S. has demanded sums of money that were not due and owing by me.

9. The I.R.S. has filed Judgements against me without said Judgements being lawfully gained under Due Process of Law and has entered judgement in the U.S. Federal Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in disregard of admitted facts and Court rules.

10. The I.R.S. is presently attempting to levy on property under my control without a lawful judgement secured by Due Process of Law as required by the Constitution.

Respectfully submitted by,

nd M. Hartman

Raymond M. Hartman,
201 Jefferson Street
Rochester, Pa. 15074
Phone (412) 775-2929