Chaka Fattah Jr. vs. United States of America, IRS, FBI, USDOJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHAKA FATTAH, JR. )
Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION
)
v. )
) No. 2:14-cv-01092 (TJS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE )
Defendants ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Chaka Fattah, Jr., brings this action and respectfully alleges:
1. This is an action arising under (1) 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26
U.S.C. 7433) for actual damages and (2) under 7431 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 7431) for actual and punitive damages and (3) under the Privacy Act
for actual and punitive damages and (4) for the refund of civil penalties under 28 U.S.C
1346(a)(1). The Internal Revenue Service, through the reckless, intentional, or negligent
actions of its employees, has violated several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
and/or related Treasury Regulations, in connection with the collection of a tax. The
Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 51
officers and employees of all the Defendants have an obligation under 26 U.S.C. 6103
not to disclose the name, home address, or any other return information as defined by
law to a third party, in this case two media outlets. The leak to these outlets brought a
virtual storm of negative publicity against Plaintiff containing information from the
original leaks as more fully described below. Plaintiff also alleges that the disclosure of
the above stated information was in violation of the Privacy Act.

2. Plaintiff believes the primary actors in the disclosure of his name, address, and the
precise timing of the governments actions to the news media as described more fully
below are employees or officers of Defendant Internal Revenue Service. However,
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice undoubtedly
had employees or officers who were aware of the same information on a date prior to
February 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that employees or officer of those agencies also had
contact with the news media regarding this matter.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, CHAKA FATTAH, JR., is a citizen of the United States and resides at
5783 Nassau Road, Philadelphia PA 19131.

4. Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, maintains offices in Philadelphia
through the U.S. Attorney at 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia PA 19106.

5. Defendant, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, maintains offices in Philadelphia,
including 600 Arch Street #1507, Philadelphia PA 19106.

6. Defendant, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, maintains offices in
Philadelphia, including 600 Arch Street, 8th Floor, Philadelphia PA 19106.

7. Defendant, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, maintains offices in Philadelphia,
including through the U.S. Attorney at 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia PA
19106.

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7433, 26
U.S.C. 7431, 26 U.S.C. 6103, 28 U.S.C 1346(a)(1) and the Privacy Act. This Court has
personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants maintain offices in this District.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action with respect to the Internal
Revenue Service and United States of America because Plaintiff has exhausted all
administrative remedies prior to filing this action. This court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action with respect to Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S.
Department of Justice under 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 26 U.S.C. 7431, since their employees
and officers and employees of the United States. This court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action with respect to Defendant United States of America under 26 U.S.C. 7433
and 26 U.S.C. 7431. Plaintiff brings this action under waiver of Defendants sovereign
immunity under 26 U.S.C. 7433, 28 U.S.C 1346(a)(1), 26 U.S.C. 7431.

9. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e), because one of
the Defendants is the United States and the other Defendants are agencies of the United
States. Venue in this District is also proper under the Privacy Act and pursuant to the United
States Code of Judicial Procedure generally, 28 U.S.C. 1391.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

10. Two employees (special agents) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) visited
Plaintiffs residence on February 29, 2012 (1414 South Penn Square, Unit 9E, Philadelphia
PA 19102). The IRS special agents arrived at approximately 6:20a.m. and left before
7:00a.m.

11. The IRS employees asked Plaintiff questions about alleged unpaid tax liabilities
from tax years 2005-2010, including amounts that were already assessed. Plaintiff answered
various questions asked by the IRS employees. The agents for example asked (paraphrasing
from memory) if any payments had been made on the 2010 tax years income tax liability.
These oral questions are communication in connection with the collection of an unpaid tax
(at the time). As stated below, Plaintiff has fully paid the 2010 tax assessment and therefore
has a $0 balance for that year as of prior to filing this action.

12. The IRS employees served two subpoenas to Plaintiff at the conclusion of their
interview with Plaintiff prior to leaving Plaintiffs residence. The subpoenas requested
materials to assist the IRS in connection with the collection of an unpaid tax.

13. The IRS employees violated [Fair Tax Collection Practices] 26 U.S.C. 6304(a)
by communicating with Plaintiff in connection with the collection of an unpaid tax at an
unusual time which should have been known to be inconvenient to the taxpayer (Plaintiff),
specifically by communicating with the taxpayer prior to 8 a.m. local time. 6304 states that
in the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, the Secretary shall assume
that the convenient time for communicating with a taxpayer is after 8 a.m. and before 9 p.m.
local time at the taxpayers location. Plaintiff did not give prior consent to the Secretary and
Defendants did not have express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction.

14. The IRS employees violated 26 U.S.C. 6304(a)(2) by communicating with
Plaintiff by disregarding that Plaintiff was represented by attorneys Mark E. Matthews and T.
Joshua Wu, both of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP in Washington DC as Plaintiffs
representative who were at all relevant times authorized to practice before the Internal
Revenue Service. 6304(2) states if the Secretary knows the taxpayer is represented by any
person authorized to practice before the Internal Revenue Service with respect to such unpaid
tax and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such persons name and address, unless
such person fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the
Secretary or unless such person consents to direct communication with the taxpayer. The
Internal Revenue Service processed IRS Form 2848 in October 2011, which clearly stated
the name, address, and contact information for the above representatives. The Internal
Revenue Service did not make any attempt to contact Plaintiffs above representatives.
Plaintiff did not give prior consent to direct communication between the Internal Revenue
Service and Plaintiff.

15. The IRS employees violated Internal Revenue Manual section 9.5.2.5.3
(04-04-2006) regarding the use of their IRS credentials to identify themselves to Plaintiff on
February 29, 2012. They did not inform Plaintiff that they were acting as assistants to the
attorney for the government in conjunction with an investigation as required by IRS
regulations.

16. Plaintiff had a properly formatted, executed and filed IRS Form 2848, Power of
Attorney and Declaration of Representative, on file with the IRS as of October 13, 2011. The
Form identifies attorneys Mark E. Matthews and T. Joshua Wu, both of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP in Washington DC as Plaintiffs representative in tax matters, specifically any
matters pertaining or related to income tax, Form 1040 for tax years 2002-2010. This
includes the tax years the IRS employees asked Plaintiff about during the interview, as well
as the years pertaining to the subpoenas.

17. Plaintiff signed an engagement letter dated March 26, 2010 and delivered
payment of a retainer check on 5-17-10 to Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP regarding the same.
As of February 29, 2012, Plaintiff remained a client of Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP in good
standing.

18. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS employees made no attempt to contact the above
Plaintiffs representatives at Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP.

19. Plaintiff further alleges that no determination was made by the IRS that Plaintiff
hired Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP to delay or hinder an investigation. Plaintiff alleges that no
determination was made by the IRS that contacting Plaintiffs representative instead of
Plaintiff directly would hinder or delay an investigation.

20. The IRS employees knew, or should have known, by a simple review of
Plaintiffs tax accounts anytime between approximately October 15, 2011 through February
29, 2012 (the day of the interview) that Plaintiff had a valid, processed, power of attorney on
file with the IRS for all tax years in which Plaintiff had filed returns, as of the time of the
power of attorney.

21. The above taxpayer interview on February 29, 2012 was in violation of Internal
Revenue Manual 9.5.1.3.3, paragraph 2. The manual of IRS regulations clearly states it is
CIs policy to honor powers of attorney so long as doing so would not hinder or delay an
investigation.

22. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS employees recklessly, intentionally, or negligently
disregarded certain provisions of Title 26 and the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) in
connection with Federal tax collection activities against Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that
all Defendants actions as described herein cause liability under 26 U.S.C. 7431. Plaintiff
reasserts the averments of paragraphs 1-21 and 23-97 as though fully set forth herein.

23. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS failed to provide the above Plaintiffs representatives
with copies of all notices or correspondence between the IRS and Plaintiff. This is a violation
of Internal Revenue Manual 9.5.1.3.3 (09-27-2011), paragraph 4. This action was in
furtherance of attempting to collect the allegedly owed Federal tax liabilities from
2005-2010.

24. Plaintiff, through the Taxpayer Advocate Office, in November 2013, filed a form
843 request for abatement of penalties for tax year 2010. Plaintiff also filed a written request
for abatement of penalties for tax year 2007. The requests for abatement of penalties were
based on IRS policies regarding reasonable cause and first-time abatement. Those policies
are published IRS regulations in Internal Revenue Manual 20.1.1.3.5.2 and 20.1.1.3.6.1.
Plaintiff alleges that the tax assessments owing for years 2007 and 2010 have been fully paid.
There is reasonable cause to refund or abate all of the penalties under the IRS guidelines, due
to undue financial financial harding, and reliance on a tax adviser advice, among others. The
Defendants are well aware of Plaintiffs deteriorated financial condition and have no
reasonable basis to deny the refund of the penalties.

25. The IRS informed the Taxpayer Advocate Office that they would not abate
penalties assessed to the Plaintiff for 2007 and 2010, and failed to provide written notice in
violation of Internal Revenue Manual 20.1.1.3.5.3. This also prevents Plaintiff from filing an
Appeal with the Appeals Office of the IRS. Plaintiff contacted Appeals by phone, spoke with
IRS Appeals employee Chellie Davis, and was told that the decision could not be appealed to
their office, leaving Plaintiff with no other administrative remedy.

26. On February 29, 2012, the day of the above taxpayer interview by IRS
employees, philly.com published a story written by Martha Woodall, Mark Fazlollah, Kristen
Graham and another writer, which stated Agents from the [other federal agency] and U.S.
Treasury Department served two search warrants early Wednesday for [Plaintiffs] records,
the first at his apartment at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton [1414 S. Penn Sq. #9E]. The
print version of this story, printed the following day March 1, 2012 is attached See Exhibit 2.
The story was online within hours of the taxpayer interview (11:52a.m.), and at that time, the
only persons other than Plaintiff with knowledge of the investigation was agents of the
Internal Revenue Service and two other federal agencies. Plaintiff did not speak with any
reporters on February 29, 2012 and had no prior knowledge of the action the IRS and other
federal agency was taking that morning. An IRS spokeswoman confirmed to another news
outlet [www.washingtontimes.com], See Exhibit #3 that IRS criminal investigators were at
the Residences of the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday [February 29, 2012] on official business.
The media attention from the initial articles damaged Plaintiffs reputation and caused
additional negative media articles, which resulted in a loss of reputation. The online February
29, 2012 philly.com article was printed in The Inquirer on March 1, 2012 under the headline
U.S. probe said to focus on Fattah sons company, paid by firm with ties to Philly schools.
Plaintiff also did not speak with any reporter prior to that story. The stories by philly.com and
The Inquirer have original photos taken by the media outlet outside of Plaintiffs
residence[1414 South Penn Square, Philadelphia PA 19102] and office building [100 N. 18th
Street, Philadelphia PA 19103] early the morning of February 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that
the only way the media company would have sent a photographer to these locations early in
the morning on the above date is with advance notice, which only could have been given by
the Defendants.

27. Prior to February 29, 2012 Plaintiff had several positive media articles regarding
his business acumen and success as an entrepreneur. These articles and other actions led to a
positive reputation in the Philadelphia business community. The media include feature stories
on Plaintiff in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Black Enterprise, Philadelphia Style, Urban
Influence and ABCs FYI Philly television show. This prior public relations campaign
resulted in millions of positive media impressions for Plaintiff and business opportunities.

28. After February 29, 2012 Plaintiff did not receive any additional payments under a
contract valued at $12,000 per month. Also, Plaintiff was unable to complete several college
courses which he was enrolled in at the time.

29. Internal Revenue Code 6304, Fair Tax Collection Practices, was added to the
Internal Revenue Code (the Code) pursuant to section 3466 of the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98"). Section 6304 makes certain
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applicable to the Service,
placing restrictions on certain communications with taxpayers and prohibiting abuse and
harassment of taxpayers and third parties. In particular, section 6304(a) provides in relevant
part that without prior consent of the taxpayer ... the Secretary may not communicate with
the taxpayer in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax ... (2) if the Secretary knows
such person is represented by any person authorized to practice before the [IRS] unless
such person fails to respond within a reasonable period of time ... or unless such person
consents to direct communication with the taxpayer.

30. The counterpart section in the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a), contains
comparable language. The FDCPA defines communication as the conveying of
information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. 15
U.S.C. 1692a(2). The stated purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection
practices by debt collectors ... . 15 U.S.C. 1692(e).

31. Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this claim. Plaintiff
prepared and filed a written administrative claim dated February 10, 2014 with the Internal
Revenue Service. The administrative claim filed by Plaintiff provides the required
information for a valid claim under 26 U.S.C. 7433. Plaintiff provided the Internal Revenue
Service copies of any available substantiating documentation or evidence as part of the
administrative claim.

32. Upon information and belief, employees of the IRS violated 26 U.S.C. 6304(b)
by engaging in conduct which caused harm to Plaintiffs reputation, specifically by
contacting members of the media prior to, and after, the visit to Plaintiffs residence on
February 29, 2012. 6304(b) states that The Secretary may not engage in any conduct the
natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with
the collection of an unpaid tax. 6304(b) specifically states the general application of the
foregoing, and gives examples of the type of conduct the statute is intended to prohibit.

33. Any violation by Defendants of 26 U.S.C. 6304 can be the basis of civil action
under 26 U.S.C. 7433, according to 26 U.S.C. 6304(c) [Civil action for violation of
section].

34. The media company, which owns philly.com and The Philadelphia Inquirer sent
photographer Ed Hille to Plaintiffs address to take photos between 6:00a.m.-8:00a.m. , as
shown in the byline of published photos which portray plain clothes federal agents of the
Defendant agencies arriving at the Plaintiffs residence at 1414 S. Penn Sq, Philadelphia PA
19102, on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that the individuals in appearing the photos are
all employees of Defendants. The media company identified the individuals as federal
agents, in published reports, that is why I am providing these to the Court. The pictures
remain online as of the date of this filing, therefore I do not believe Defendants would not
have any objections to their posting. If Defendants make a motion to remove the photos from
the public docket, I do not and will not oppose it for any reason. See Photos at Exhibit #1.

35. Plaintiff alleges it is possible that the media company may have sent another
photographer to Plaintiffs residence and offices at Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA
19103 that morning in addition to Mr. Hille with respect to Plaintiffs residence.

36. Plaintiff alleges that individuals with knowledge of how major print and online
media organizations assign photographers, at unusual times, to appear at locations to take
photos to appear in a story, will likely state that a 6:30a.m. photography assignment is not
mere coincidence or happenstance.

37. Plaintiff alleges that any photos taken by the media company and appearing on
philly.com, and in The Philadelphia Inquirer the following day and on other dates, were taken
using semi-professional or professional equipment. Plaintiff further contends that these
photos could not have been taken using a mobile phone or similar device, which an
individual may have had if it was a spur of the moment photo opportunity. Plaintiff
previously operated a professional photography company and states the contentions in this
paragraph based on the quality of the photographs, general knowledge of media operations
regarding photos, as well as the distance some photos appear to have been taken at.

38. Plaintiff is alleging violations of 7433 with respect to IRS employees, including
the special agents who interviewed Plaintiff on February 29, 2012. The identity of these
agents is known to Defendants and if they contend that they do not have their identities I can
provide them to the court. Plaintiff also alleges violations of 7433 with respect to IRS
Spokeswoman Shauna Fryes communication via email or phone with Chuck Neubauer, a
reporter at the Washington Times. The Washington Times article, referenced in paragraph 23
above, is still online and is attached as EXHIBIT 2. Plaintiff contends it is also possible that
Shauna Frye spoke with a research assistant or colleague or Mr. Neubauer regarding
Plaintiff.

39. Plaintiff alleges that Shauna Frye, an employee of the United States as defined by
26 U.S.C. 6103 verified the name and address, which are protected taxpayer return
information as defined by 6103. 6103 states that a taxpayers identity is return
information under the text in that section. 6103 further states that the term taxpayer identity
means the name of a person with respect to whom a return is filed, his mailing address
or a combination thereof. In the alternative, Plaintiff contends that at the very least his
address was disclosed for confirmation purposes in their communication. Plaintiff further
alleges that the two IRS special agents who interviewed Plaintiff on February 29, 2012, and
their managers, are employees or officers as defined by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

40. 6103 defines disclosure as means the making known to any person in any
manner whatever a return or return information.

41. Plaintiff never confirmed any reporter at any media outlet, as a representative or
designee of Plaintiff, of which the Internal Revenue Service could release my name or
address to.

42. Plaintiff alleges it would not be an undue burden on Defendants to determine how
many employees or officers of their respective entities were made aware of the time and date,
February 29, 2012 between 6:00am-7:00am of the arrival of special agents of the Internal
Revenue Service, and separately the arrival of special agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The same is true that it would not be an undue burden to do the same regarding
the federal agents visit later that morning to Plaintiffs office at Two Logan Square,
Philadelphia PA 19103.

43. Plaintiff alleges that through the normal Discovery process, Defendants have
documents available to them, such as phone and email records, which can be matched against
publicly available contact information of the media companies which own The Washington
Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer.

44. Plaintiff was the subject of a media story referenced above, appearing on
philly.com on February 29, 2012 at 11:52a.m.. The story was titled FBI seizes records of
Rep. Fattahs son.

45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants communicated to media representatives that
search warrants were executed, at Plaintiffs residence at 1414 S. Penn Sq., Philadelphia PA
19102 and Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA 19103. The media story referenced in the
previous paragraph states FBI and U.S. Treasury Department served two search warrant
earlier Wednesday [February 29, 2012] Plaintiff contends that Defendants leaked this
information to the media company, as Plaintiff had no contact with the media, and had no
prior knowledge of the agencies actions on that day.

46. Plaintiff has prior to February 29, 2012, never had any correspondence with
Defendant Internal Revenue Service other than two billing notices. Plaintiff has never been
audited, whether by mail or in person, and had no reason to believe he was under
investigation for alleged unpaid tax liabilities by Defendants.

47. The media story referenced above in paragraph 42, created a virtual storm of
media interest and stories which contained Plaintiffs name, and other sensitive information
such as the existence of subpoenas and search warrants.

48. Media stories appeared after the initial story on philly.com, in outlets such as
abovethelaw.com, freerepublic.com, skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com, americanthinker.com,
nbcphiladelphia.com, politico.com, cbslocal.com, freebeacon.com, metro.us, phillytrib.com,
newsworks.org. These stories remain available online, as of the date of this filing, thereby
continuing to damage Plaintiffs reputation.

49. Plaintiff made a small, but by no means exhaustive list of news stories made on or
within a few days of February 29, 2012 in paragraph 45 above. Plaintiff estimates that
between 25 and 100 news stories have appears as a direct or indirect result of Defendants
actions on February 29, 2012 as alleged. This has the practical effect of making it not
dissimilar to Defendants contacting every news outlet which ran a story. This is also
compounded by the fact that after a major news organization, such as The Philadelphia
Inquirer, and their website philly.com, make a serious claim in an article, with their fact
checking and legal departments, that other news organizations would feel comfortable and
within their rights to report the same details without much, if any, investigation on their own
part.

50. The newsworks.org story referenced in the previous paragraph is FBI conducts
raid at home of Chaka Fattahs son. The Philadelphia Tribune story is Feds take docs from
Fattah Jr. office.

51. Plaintiff alleges that any authorization for a search warrant, subpoena, is part of a
often referred to as a secret or confidential process, which is not public. Plaintiff alleges that
the information in this case, and in any other case under which that process is used, is not
public for a very good reason.

52. Plaintiff believes in the rule of law, and does not believe that there is any law or
authority which would allow the conduct alleged in this complaint. If Defendants had good
cause for their actions on February 29, 2012, they should have taken reasonable steps to
ensure the process was not known to the public due to the basic principle of the presumption
of innocence. Plaintiff has had no opportunity to date for a court review of the authority
under which the action that day was taken. This includes all document requests, the search
warrant, and the taxpayer interview, which Plaintiff alleges are all separate actions.

53. Plaintiff has not been arrested charged with any crime including local, state and
federal criminal statutes other than minor traffic violations in his life.

54. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice has oversight responsibilities over
investigatory agencies, such as Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal
Revenue Service.

55. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice has employees who possessed knowledge
of the Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service planned and
executed on February 29, 2012. Furthermore, upon information and belief, at least one U.S.
Department of Justice employee had knowledge of the investigatory agencies actions.

56. Plaintiff alleges that the primary source of the information leak in the matter
explained in many paragraphs above was the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff alleges it is
also possible that employees or officers of the U.S. Department of Justice and/or Federal
Bureau of Investigation gave the same, additional, or supplemental information to the media
outlets, philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Times. Plaintiff alleges
that officers or employees from those agencies may also have confirmed information first
provided by the Internal Revenue Service.

57. Upon information and belief, there were multiple employees and/or officers at
each Defendants respective offices locally, which knew in advance that Plaintiff home and
office would be visited on February 29, 2012.

58. Plaintiff suffered additional damage from Defendants actions, such as private civil
matters which were escalated to litigation because of the other parties in those matters
concern about the existence of a publicized federal investigation. Plaintiff in some cases was
in payment agreement negotiations, and after Defendants actions negotiations turned hostile
and less reasonable, and resulted in some cases lawsuits being filed against Plaintiff without
any opportunity to settle them in advance. Another way to describe this issue would be to say
that some parties, including one bank, filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff out of an abundance of
caution, as they are a regulated federal entity.

59. Plaintiff was the subject of an Philadelphia Inquirer new story on March 4th,
2012, just days after the reported incident on February 29, 2012. The article, Behind the
facade, troubles rose for Fattah son. As the headline suggests, the article is primarily about
Plaintiff. It contains statements such as And the FBI was secretly digging into his [Chaka
Fattah Jr.s] finances. The article further states Chaka Fattah Jr. tried hard to keep up the
image of a rising young entrepreneur and Fattahs [Jr.] image crumbled for good on
Wednesday [February 29, 2012] when agents raided the Ritz-Carlton apartment and Fattah
Jr.s space at a law office [Two Logan Square].

60. The story Behind the facade, in its printed form, was the above the fold top
news story, below the Inquirers logo. Plaintiff alleges that this essentially means it was the
top or most important story on Sunday March 4, 2012.

61. Plaintiffs claims under 7433 require an administrative claim, in proper form, to
be sent to the Internal Revenue Service before filing a suit in district court. See Exhibit 4, a
copy of the administrative claim with the respective FedEx signatures, which confirm IRS
receipt. Plaintiff sent via FedEx 2 day express service to Defendant Internal Revenue Service
at two of their offices, both in Philadelphia and Kansas City, MO. Plaintiff was not sure
which address was proper under the Treasury Regulations cited below in this complaint, so
Plaintiff had a copy delivered to both. Plaintiff notes that the Kansas City, MO address is
where taxpayers who reside in Pennsylvania must send their return and other written
correspondence to the Internal Revenue Service. The only difference between the amount
claimed as actual damages on the administrative claim, and the amount request below is the
$18,001 in civil penalties which are being brought under a different section of the U.S. Code
and were therefore not required to be requested on the administrative claim.

62. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Employees John and Jane Does 1 through 100
had access to information with the date, time, address and name of Plaintiff regarding the
taxpayer interview and other actions Defendants took as detailed extensively above. Plaintiff
alleges that through the Discovery process the specific name, title, agency (among
Defendants), can be more readily determined. Plaintiff believes that upon information and
belief, it will be more clear if more or less government employees of the Defendants were
involved in the disclosures more specifically explained in the above paragraphs.

63. Plaintiff alleges that there is an important issue regarding Defendants conduct
which is not mentioned in the previous paragraphs above. That is the issue of safety for
Plaintiff and anyone who resides with him, in sharing his previously unpublished address
with the media. In 2011, Plaintiff resided in old city Philadelphia at 15-6 South Bank Street,
Philadelphia PA 19106 until December 1, 2011 when he moved to the Residences at the Ritz-
Carlton. On or around April 2011, my girlfriend (at the time) was the victim of a car jacking
outside of her parking space at the apartment early in the morning on a business day. Plaintiff
was a witness and technically a victim of the car jacking, since Plaintiff was an owner of the
vehicle, a 2011 Audi A5. Plaintiff testified against the assailant at at least one hearing in 2011
and had concerns about his girlfriend and hiss safety remaining at the same apartment in old
city. Plaintiffs address in old city was known to the public, due to business filings that are
published with the PA Department of State, and due to his business cards. The assailant in the
car jacking ultimately plead guilty and received a significant jail term of more than 5 years,
however when Plaintiff testified, several of the accuseds family and friends were present.
One of the primary reasons Plaintiff moved to the Residences at the Ritz Carlton, were key
selling points such as their physical security, elevator key and floor security, discretion of
their employees, and privacy afforded their residents in the normal course of their business.
When, due to Defendants conduct in leaking information to the media as alleged in the above
paragraphs, on February 29, 2012. As of that date, anyone with access to the Internet could
easily determine the location of Plaintiffs address by searching the exact address of the
Residences of Ritz Carlton. Plaintiff took precautions when testifying at the Criminal Justice
Center in July 2011, as part of a subpoena issued at the time by the Philadelphia District
Attorneys office. Those precautions included staying generally out of sight in a closed room
with members of the prosecution team and police offers in that matter. The precautions also
included taking steps to do his best to ensure no one followed him or his girlfriend home
after that visit, and any others. Unfortunately, it is well known that there have been many
occasions where witnesses in local/state criminal cases have been assaulted and/or otherwise
violently hurt before or after testifying against career criminals. It is important to note that
the assailant in that matter, C. C. Sims, was a career criminal who had somehow escaped the
system of justice in Philadelphia. If Plaintiffs recollection of his research at the time is
correct, C. C. Sims had a history of charges of various kinds since approximately 1982, the
year Plaintiff was born. The assailant had spent time incarcerated, but in several other cases
escaped justice due to witnesses not showing up for the prosecutions case which led to their
ultimate dismissal. It is possible other circumstances not in the public record also were
additional reasons the assailant escaped justice. Plaintiff was not injured in any way after
February 29, 2012, but that does not mean it could not have happened. The government
employees and officers at the Defendant agencies knew or should have known that it was
completely inappropriate to disclose where someone lives under these circumstances.
Although Plaintiff has had virtually no contact with the Philadelphia District Attorneys
Office since C. C. Sims plead guilty and accepted a significant jail sentence, I am confident
they will verify the accuracy of the fact that Plaintiff was a witness, and the exact number of
Plaintiffs visits to the Criminal Justice Center. Plaintiff spent one day in July 2011 at the
Criminal Justice Center from early morning until later afternoon.

64. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct regarding the interview on February 29,
2012 and the disclosure of the fact it was going to happen to media representatives, including
the disclosure of his name and address did not serve any legitimate law enforcement purpose.
As Defendants should know, pretrial publicity, or in this case, publicity without any trial at
all of a federal law enforcement investigation can easily serve to heighten condemnation of
the targeted person. It is not appropriate for any member of federal law enforcement,
including the agents who enforce tax laws, to punish an uncharged individual using publicity
without the due process of a trial.

65. Any violation by Defendants of 26 U.S.C. 6103 [Confidentiality and disclosure
of returns and return information] can be the basis of a civil action under 26 U.S.C. 7431,
according to 26 U.S.C. 6103

66. Plaintiff alleges that it is likely a public relations expert could assist the finders of
fact in this matter in determining the impact of negative publicity, specifically as it relates to
the Plaintiff. The expert may be helpful to assess the true nature of negative publicity and
how in this media age Plaintiff correctly alleges that since all media remains online virtually
indefinitely, negative media can have a more lasting impact that any time in the past prior to
the wide spread use of the Internet. This potential assistance could be in the form of expert
testimony or a report prepared to introduce as evidence during trial. A similar expert with
knowledge of calculating an individuals income over a period of time in future, such as an
economic or accounting expert may serve a similar purpose. These experts may be helpful in
proving Plaintiffs allegations and alleged common sense of damages in this matter.

67. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an agency of the United
States Department of Justice, a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States
Government.

68. Defendant United States of America is named in that the actions of the Internal
Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Department of
Justice described herein are the responsibility of the United States Government.

69. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is a Department of the Executive Branch of
the United States Government. This Defendant is named in this action because of their
oversight responsibilities and involvement in the alleged conduct of all Defendants.

70. Defendant Internal Revenue Service is a Department of The United States
Department of The Treasury, which is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United
State Government.

71. Plaintiff has been an active member of the Philadelphia business and charitable
community for many years. This aided Plaintiff in building his positive reputation by his
actions, which helped the community. Plaintiff was a volunteer on the Pink Tie Ball planning
committee for the Philadelphia affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Plaintiff also
served as a panelist for Susan G. Komens 2009 Philanthropy, Insights, and Networking
event, held at Union Trust steakhouse. Plaintiff also served as a speaker for The Enterprise
Center in 2010, on the topic of marketing and how to best prepare quality responses to
requests for proposals (RFPs). For example, at The Enterprise Center event Plaintiff spoke
for one hour to about 40 small business owners, which was a good audience for an 8am start
time. Plaintiff also spent countless hours attended board meetings for organizations such as
Operation Understanding, fulfilling an obligation a previous client had to attend and work on
their fundraising activities.

72. No lawful exception authorized the damaging disclosures of information
described herein.

73. Upon information and belief, the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of
Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation knew or should have know their actions were
improper, unlawful and in violation of the U.S. Codes described herein.

74. Upon information and belief, the Defendants acted willfully, recklessly,
intentionally or with gross negligence with regard to their disclosure of Plaintiffs
information and the date and time of Defendants action on February 29, 2012 at 1414 S.
Penn Sq. Philadelphia PA 19102 and Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA 19103.

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violations of the various U.S.
Codes described herein and the Privacy Act, Plaintiff has suffer serious injuries, including
but not limited to emotional distress, loss of income, loss of contract income, loss of tuition
costs, significant and actual economic harm to his reputation, inconvenience. Plaintiff is also
requesting this Court order a judgment for punitive damages with regard to any finding of
Defendants liability under 26 U.S.C. 7431 or the Privacy Act. Also, Plaintiff has denied
Defendant the refund of civil penalties in the amount of $18,001, which would result in a
refund to Plaintiff thereby denying Plaintiff to lawful right to use those funds for living
expenses or to compensate Plaintiffs creditors.

76. Plaintiffs contract dated 9-19-11 between Legal Marketing Strategies LLC,
Chaka Fattah, Jr., and Shulick Law Offices, valued at $12,000 per month, required Plaintiff
to perform the following services. Plaintiffs contract states he shall implement, pursue, and
manage the marketing and development program for Shulick Law, DVHS and the Judith B.
Shulick Memorial Foundation. Plaintiff was further required to prepare all marketing
plans, manifest all marketing plans, working collaboratively with David Shulick to develop
short and long term growth plans. The contract makes reference to processing, managing
and achieving result for Shulick Law Clients, as required by David Shulick. The only Shulick
Law Firm client Plaintiff performed work for was DVHS or Delaware Valley High School.
Plaintiff did not perform an legal work, since Plaintiff is not an attorney. The client, David
Shulick, owned an alternative education company which performed educational services for
the Philadelphia, Reading, and other school district in Bucks county. As of the date February
29, 2012, DVHS, which is a doing business as, abbreviated name for, Delaware Valley High
School, the full name of the education entity. The entity has few other doing business as
names, and a legal name Unique Educational Experience, Inc. The Judith B. Shulick
Memorial Foundation was a charitable arm of the for-profit DVHS.

77. Plaintiffs contract dated 9-19-11 between Legal Marketing Strategies LLC,
Chaka Fattah, Jr., and Shulick Law Offices notably did not have an end date. The contract
also had a non-competition provision, which prevented Plaintiff from working for another
client in the field where he had earned significant and valuable experience. This is important
because Plaintiff believes it is reasonable to think that he would still be working under this
contract, should Defendants actions above not have happened. Defendants may respond that
challenges and decisions that happened after February 29, 2012 may have resulted in my
contract being terminated. However, quite to the contrary, even some of those issues can be
easily traced to the bad publicity resulting from Defendants conduct. It is important to note
Defendants actions at Plaintiffs offices, specifically the disclosure of the location and time
of arrival, was also Delaware Valley High Schools and Shulick Laws offices. More
specifically, Plaintiff office which was searched by federal agents, was a sublease of an office
and a cubicle in the offices used by DVHS, Shulick Law, and the Judith B. Shulick Memorial
Foundation. Also, since Plaintiff was in an executive capacity through this consulting
contract, reasonable people could agree that with the added benefit of Plaintiffs advice and
work product the state of Delaware Valley High Schools business may be different. It is
Plaintiffs understanding from media reports that DVHS operated one school as of this filing,
as opposed to 4 at the time of Defendants actions. Plaintiff also would note that school
districts, such as Philadelphia, which represented more than half of DVHSs revenue and
contracts, do not often take negative publicity about one of their vendors, and even publicity
about their vendors staff or consultants lightly. Plaintiff alleges that non-compete clauses in
general are designed to prevent the release of strategic business information and trade
secrets, and are widely used to keep key staff and consultants (as in this case) from using
their skills and experience to work for competitors.

78. Plaintiff also notes that he presented DVHSs service offering to a school district
in York, PA the week prior to February 29, 2012 and without the publicity caused by
Defendants unlawful disclosures described above, DVHS would likely have been awarded an
additional seven figure contract. This could have added additional revenue to offset any
losses DVHS experienced or made resources available that would have provided reassurance
to DVHSs clients in 2012 in their staffing levels and ability to operate.

79. Plaintiff is the controlling and sole owner of Legal Marketing Strategies LLC and
259 Strategies LLC. 259 Strategies LLC is a management consulting firm, whereas Legal
Marketing Strategies LLC is focused on marketing, which was Plaintiffs concentration at
undergraduate school. Plaintiffs major was business administration.

80. Plaintiff has obtained his tax account transcripts for the years 2005-2011. The
2005 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service, with
Tracking Number 100184918450 and dated 2-27-2014, has an entry code 960, with an
explanation of transaction Appointed representative, dated 01-09-2012. The 2006 tax
account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue, Tracking Number
100184918418, dated 2-27-2014, has the same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated
01-09-2012. The 2007 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal
Revenue Service, Tracking Number 100186063344, date 3-07-2014, shows the same entry
noted above for the year 2005, dated 01-09-2012. The 2008 tax account transcript for
Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service, Tracking Number 100184918344,
dated 2-27-2014, shows the same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated 10-13-2011.
The 2009 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service,
Tracking Number 100184918317, dated 2-27-2014, shows the same entry noted above in
2005, dated 10-13-11. The 2010 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant
Internal Revenue Service, Tracking Number 100186063352, dated 3-07-2014, shows the
same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated 10-13-11. The 2011 tax account transcript
for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service, Tracking Number
100186063335, dated 3-7-2014, shows the same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated
10-13-2011. These entries are all acknowledgement by Defendant Internal Revenue Service
on official documents, which Plaintiff can easily produce, that Plaintiff had a power of
attorney, IRS Form 2848 (See Paragraph 11 above). This is a clear acknowledgement that
Plaintiff has a valid power of attorney on file which the Defendants accepted. It is important
to note that the power of attorney form has contact information such as name, mailing
address, telephone number and fax numbers for Plaintiffs representatives at Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP. As stated above, they remained Plaintiffs representatives as of February 29,
2012. The Form 2848 in this matter specifies tax form number 1040, years 2002 through
2010, and income as the type of tax.

81. It is important to note that in paragraph 78 Plaintiff is using the most recent
records he has obtained, and kept on his computer, but that Plaintiff has obtained several
transcript for the above tax years since February 29, 2012. This is to say, that these
transcripts are not an anomaly or new development, and the references to the appointed
representative are not a glitch. That is also to say, I had this information prior to the original
complaint filing on February 21, 2014 with this Court. Plaintiff will produce the records
during trial and Discovery, and any other time if requested by this Court.

82. Paragraph 78 is all to say Plaintiff is ready to prove to this court and jury that
Defendant Internal Revenue Service did ignore Plaintiffs power of attorney and their
obligations under the law as more fully described throughout this complaint.

83. Plaintiff did not in any way waive his rights orally to have the Internal Revenue
Service speak with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP prior to contacting him. I would also note
that Defendants woke Plaintiff up and he was not fully prepared to respond to Defendants
questions so early in the morning, without reviewing his records, and without his computer,
which was in the other room during the time the Internal Revenue Service agents were at his
residence at the Ritz Carlton on February 29, 2012. In the alternative, if the Defendants
allege any waiver of my rights on that day to my representative, I intend to request a hearing
or oral argument to challenge that ridiculous allegation.

84. Plaintiff also notes that the above transcripts referenced above for tax years 2005
through 2011 show Plaintiff owes no taxes at this time for any of those years.

85. Plaintiff alleges that the Internal Revenue Service only asked Plaintiff questions
about Form 1040, including Schedule C, for tax years 2005 through 2011 on February 29,
2012. In other words, Plaintiff had an appointed representative in accordance with Internal
Revenue Service policies prior to February 29, 2012.

86. The disclosure issues of Plaintiffs name, address, and time of arrival of the
federal agents at two locations discussed above are violations of the above referenced laws,
regardless of the fact the Plaintiff had lawyers covering all tax matters, and Defendant
Internal Revenue Service should have contacted them. This would likely have prevented
Plaintiff from answering questions likely developed in a way to generate questions which the
Defendants believe to be incriminating.

87. The substantiating documentation for Plaintiff administrative claim under 7433,
referenced above in Paragraph 28 sent to Defendant Internal Revenue Service, included a
copy of Plaintiffs contract dated 9-19-11, and referenced throughout the complaint, a copy
of Plaintiffs billing statement showing the tuition charges at Drexel University, a copy of
Plaintiffs school schedule for January 2012 through March 2012, positive articles showing
Plaintiffs good reputation such as the above referenced Black Enterprise article,
Philadelphia Business Journal, Philadelphia Style feature story as well copies of the
philly.com story FBI seizes records of Rep. Fattahs son. and the washingtontimes.com
story (with the IRS spokeswoman confirmation) titled Lawmakers son target of federal
search. Both stories appeared online early morning or afternoon (in the case of the
Washington Times) and remain online as of the date of this filing. Plaintiff alleges he fully
satisfied the requirements of providing all available documentation substantiating damages
to Defendant Internal Revenue Service under 7433.

88. Plaintiff alleges that, upon information and belief, should Defendants allege the
the Washington Times articles referenced in the previous paragraph and throughout this
complaint somehow did not accurately portray the communication between IRS employee
Shauna Frye and their reporters or research assistant, that Defendants produce any
communication between their public relations employees and the Washington Times since
February 29, 2012 that was made in an attempt to correct the story, to reflect that Ms. Frye
did not say only that criminal investigators were at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton on
Wednesday on official business. In other words, if the outlet got it wrong, did they try to
correct it at any time to prevent damage to Plaintiffs reputation and prevent discloses of
Plaintiffs return information as defined by 6103, thereby creating liability under 7431.

89. Plaintiff contends that the Paragraph 86 disclosure that criminal investigators,
both IRS employees, were at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton is tantamount to disclosing
the Plaintiffs name and address under 6103, which are undoubtedly return information as
defined by law. In the alternative, should some expert or legal analysis prove otherwise, the
communication between Shauna Frye definitely violates the spirit of the law regarding
disclosure of return information under 6103. Plaintiff alleges that the person or persons who
contacted Ms. Frye from the Washington Times likely told her the subject of the story, in this
case Plaintiff. Plaintiff makes that allegation based on his experience dealing with reporters,
when they are looking to confirm something. As noted in Paragraph 24, Plaintiff was
previously involved in a multi-year public relations campaign. During the Discovery process,
upon information and belief, Plaintiff will prove these allegations, or at the very least be
presented with a variance of a defense of not recalling, or failure to keep notes based on the
communication between their offices (Ms. Frye and Washington Times).

90. The Privacy Act expressly requires the federal government to protect individuals
again disclosures which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or
unfairness. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct as described fully throughout this
complaint has resulted in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, and unfairness.
U.S. Citizens, even those who fall under a so-called investigation, are entitled to their privacy
and against unreasonable actions by the federal government.

91. Defendants actions in violation of The Privacy Act, 26 U.S.C. 7433, 26 U.S.C.
7431 with respect to the release of Plaintiffs name, home address, and time of their arrival,
and details of the government service as alleged in the above paragraphs caused another
point of concern that caused damage to Plaintiffs reputation. Google, Inc., is Fortune 500
company that operates www.google.com, one of the most polar search engines. The Google
search engine has a feature called autocomplete. Google defines the autocomplete feature on
its support website as As you type in the search box, you can find information quickly by
seeing searches that might be similar to the one your typing. For example, as you start to type
[new york], you may see searches for other popular New York related searches. In the
example photo showing how this works on Googles support site, an individual is typing new
york and has not click any buttons yet and the cursor is placed after the last letter and a drop
down menu appears below the search box containing the words new york times, new york,
new york and company each on separate lines. This is important because when an
individual has or were to do research on Plaintiff for the purposes of a potential contract for
consulting services or a potential employment offer, if they were to type in Chaka Fattah
Jr, the second line below reads chaka fattah jr fbi. According to common knowledge and a
vast amount of published reports on this issue, a significant factor Google uses to determine
what sites are popular, is their traffic. The news websites, such as philly.com,
nbcphiladelphia.com, and other more fully described above, have significant traffic in the
millions of users, simply due to their frequently changing content and relevance. If it were
not for Defendants unlawful disclosure which resulted is a large quantity of high ranking
media websites that chose to put the words fbi in their respective stories and/or headlines,
Plaintiff alleges that the autocomplete feature would never show, or have shown, chaka
fattah jr fbi as the second most popular search term since February 29, 2012, through the
date of this complaint being filed. To be clear, Plaintiff never had any news story containing
fbi to his knowledge prior to Defendants actions on February 29, 2012 and their unlawful
disclosure of return information and timing information in violation of the laws referenced in
this paragraph. See Photo at Exhibit 5.

92. The Safeguarding responsibilities of federal law enforcement agencies are
discussed in Section 5.12 of Internal Revenue Service Publication 1075, See Exhibit 6.
Defendants are all responsible for the requirement in that section to protect a taxpayers
personal, private information, including the taxpayers name, address, and the existence of an
investigation to the news media as alleged throughout the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants U.S.A., United States Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation
are all subject to IRS safeguarding requirements and reviews. See Exhibit 7.

93. philebrity.com a.k.a. Philebrity is an online news outlet based in Philadelphia that
writes about Politics and Gossip among other topics. The organizations Twitter account
@philebrity sent a tweet on March 2, 2012. This was two days after Defendants conduct as
described more fully above. The message reads Theres got to be the worlds most amazing
knock-knock joke in this whole [Chaka]Fattah [Jr.] Thing. Plaintiff alleges this tweet sent
via Twitter to 19,000 plus followers caused damage to Plaintiffs reputation. The link that
goes along with the message in the same tweet, goes to Philebritys story, which contains a
link to Politicos story Feds investigate Chaka Fattahs inner circle published online on
March 1, 2012, one day after Defendants actions at Plaintiffs residence and office. Notably,
the Philebrity article contains the word FBI, which was a result of Defendants unlawful
disclosures regarding their actions on February 29, 2012 as alleged throughout this
complaint. The Politico story states The FBI searched the home and office of the younger
Fattah The reference is to the Plaintiff. The story also states that Chaka Fattah Jr. - now
under investigation by the Justice Department.

94. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated 6103 in their disclosure to the media of the
existence of an investigation of Plaintiffs tax liabilities with Defendant Internal Revenue
Service. 6103 states that return information includes whether a return was filed, is or will
be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, including collection activity. It
is clear from media reports made on February 29, 2012 and key facts repeated in other media
after that date as described more fully throughout this complaint that the media was made
aware in multiple reports that Plaintiff is under investigation by Federal authorities for
income tax issues. Plaintiff also alleges , as done more full throughout the complaint that
Defendant Internal Revenue Services interview fits into the definition of collection activities
because of the IRS agents questions Plaintiff describes in Paragraph 11 above. Hence,
Plaintiff alleges there are two violations of 6103 as detailed in this paragraph. The
violations are the disclosure of the existence of an investigation, and well as separately the
existence of collection activities regarding the IRS agents visit to Plaintiffs residence on
February 29, 2012.

95. Plaintiff states that any authority granted under 6103(i) does not shield
Defendants from liability for disclosing the return information the the media outlets for
publication on February 29, 2012 or any other date as described more fully throughout this
complaint.

96. In the Behind the facade, troubles rose for Fattah son article published by The
Inquirer the article states Federal authorities are investigating why a company owned by the
son of U.S. Rep Chaka Fattah was paid $450,000 by an education firm. The $450,000
contract the article references is dated October 6, 2010 and is an agreement between
Plaintiffs entity, 259 Strategies LLC and Unique Educational Experience Inc doing business
as DVHS. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that the Defendants employees or
officers John and Jane Doe 1 through 100 violated 6103 by disclosing the contract value of
$450,000, as well as the nature of that income, small business receipt for consulting
services.. 6103 defines return information as the nature, source, or amount of his
[taxpayers] income. The accuracy of the media reports regarding the exact value of the
contract Plaintiff received for management consulting services was not a guess by the
reporters in their respective stories, it was the exact amount of Plaintiffs contract income
(before expenses) for that agreement.

97. Plaintiff has a great deal of respect for the federal government, despite Defendants
actions as alleged throughout this complaint. It is Plaintiffs belief that the alleged violations
of law fully described above are the result of individual actions. In this action, due to many
considerations, Plaintiff is seeking a monetary judgment and an apology from the Defendant
agencies, not the individual employees. The Defendants have a responsibility to supervise
and oversee their employees. This is even more important with the employees at federal law
enforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff firmly believes the
alleged violations of law are rouge employees acting to further their own or some other
individual or political interests, and not the best interests of the federal government. The
federal government has a responsibility to not chase headlines. The federal government
employees who are relevant in this matter cannot be allowed to shield their illegal conduct in
the sphere of an investigation. If the law does not protect a citizen who is under investigation,
the federal government could simply say that someone is under investigation anytime there is
a violation of law by government employees. Law enforcement officials have a responsibility
to not abuse their power. They have a responsibility to not abuse the authority given to them.
I am hopeful that this lawsuit brings some real change, which would affect many more
people than just myself. On October 16, 2013, billionaire NBA owner Mark Cuban gave an
interview posted to youtube after prevailing in a 9 year long dispute with the Securities and
Exchange Commission which has received nearly 80,000 views. He stated outside the
courthouse, in the published video there was no point in time when I sat there and listened
to it and felt, you know what winning will feel good. Thats just not the way it should be.
and further those are the exact little people that [federal agency head] says she is going to
pick on and send a message. Hopefully the start of this, is that people will start paying
attention to how the [federal agency] does business. I dont need anything from them, want
anything from the [federal agency] except them to act like American citizens and treat other
American citizens the way they deserve to be treated because this is a horrific example of
how government does work. When you take all these years of my life and try to prove a
point. Its personal and to try and play it off like this is just your job. Again, I dont want to
say thats the way the all the [federal agency] works but the people who are in this case could
of said something and didn't say anything, thats just wrong. Like I said when this started, I
wont be bullied, I don't care if its the United States Government. I think Mr. Cubans point
of view is extremely prescient in my life at this point. It interests me what happened to Mr.
Cuban as a business owner, a fan of the ABC business show, Shark Tank, and as someone
who once had a chance to meet and talk to him at a charitable event in Philadelphia
approximately 10 years ago. He had a team of lawyers since he has vast resources due to his
success as an entrepreneur. My business success was interrupted due to violations of the law
by Defendants, I am filing this pro se amended complaint and look forward to the final
judgement by the finders of fact in this matter. The government has vast resources and
hopefully with this lawsuit someone in authority will take a long hard look at the Defendants
actions as alleged throughout the complaint. Plaintiff looks forward to a trail on the merits
before this Court.

INJURIES

98. Plaintiff reasserts the averments of paragraphs 1-97 as though fully set forth
herein.

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

99. Due to the emotional distress caused by Defendants actions set forth above,
Plaintiff was unable to continue work under a contract dated 9-19-11 between Shulick Law
Offices, Legal Marketing Strategies LLC, and Plaintiff Chaka Fattah Jr. Plaintiff is sole
owner of Legal Marketing Strategies LLC and income from that contract from was the sole
source of Plaintiffs income at the time of the alleged above violations by the Defendants.
The damages for this claim is $300,000 (25 months multiplied by $12,000). This is a direct
monetary loss related to the IRSs reckless, intentional, or negligent actions in connection
with the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as emotional distress can be paid
under 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according to
Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An award for actual damages can be paid under
26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actual damages. With regard to any claim under
7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. An
award for actual damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.

100. Due to the emotional distress caused by Defendants actions set forth above,
Plaintiff was unable to complete some course work and attend classes for which he was
billed. Plaintiff attempted to withdraw or otherwise make arrangements to finish course work
at a later time, but was unable to do so regarding the amount of this claim. The cost of these
classes is $10,000 and that is the request for damages under this claim. This is a direct
with the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as emotional distress can be paid
under 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according to
Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An award for actual damages can be paid under
26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actual damages. With regard to any claim under
7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. An
award for actual damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.

101. Plaintiff sought and received physical therapy on a regular basis in 2012, and
other treatment in 2013, related to the emotional distress caused by Defendants actions in
violation of 26 U.S.C. 7433. Plaintiff was unable to obtain certain treatment required due to
lack of discretionary funds.

LOSS OF REPUTATION

102. As stated above in paragraph 22, Plaintiff had a positive reputation in the
Philadelphia business community through hard work, and building relationships based on the
quality of work and advice, which led to substantial value for the Plaintiffs clientele and
substantial income for Plaintiff. This reputation was often rewarded with more substantive
and lucrative work assignments, and resulted in over $625,000 in combined revenue in 2010
and 2011 and substantial profits in those years as well. Plaintiff had business income of
$174,634 in 2011, and $160,580 in 2010. This claim for damages is $500,000. This is a direct
with the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as loss of reputation can be paid under
26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according to Treasury
Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An award for actual damages can be paid under 26 U.S.C.
7431 equal to the amount of actual damages. With regard to any claim under 7431 Plaintiff
alleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. An award for actual
damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and LOSS OF REPUTATION

103. This is likely the most significant long term impact of Defendants actions as
alleged. It is not clear when Plaintiff will be able to continue to earn income, and Plaintiff
alleges that any expert that appears before this Court in accounting and/or economics with
respect to earning potential and projections of income, based on previous years of income
and growth rates, would contend that the damages amount is significant and in the millions
of dollars. This claim for damages is $4,100,000 in punitive damages. This claim is made
under 7431. An award for injuries such as punitive damages can be paid under 26 U.S.C.
7431 in the case of a willful disclosure or which is the result of gross negligence. An
award for actual and punitive damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.

INCONVENIENCE

104. Plaintiff has suffered numerous inconveniences as a result of the Defendants
actions as stated above. Plaintiff has lost numerous business opportunities due to Defendants
actions including contract opportunities. This includes a success bonus Plaintiff was eligible
for in the contract with Shulick Law Offices, which was valued at over $100,000. The claim
for damages is $100,000. This is a direct monetary loss related to the IRSs reckless,
intentional, or negligent actions in connection with the collection of a tax. An award for
injuries such as inconvenience can be paid under 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury
results in a direct monetary loss according to Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An
award for actual damages can be paid under 26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actual
damages. With regard to any claim under 7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described in
this paragraph are actual damages. An award for actual and punitive damages can be paid
under the Privacy Act.

CIVIL PENALTIES

105. The IRS improperly denied the abatement of civil penalties in violation of their
own guidelines as stated above. The IRS then denied Plaintiff appeal rights, which is another
violation of the Internal Revenue Code and taxpayer rights. The total of the five penalties
that should have been abated under IRS guidelines is $18,001. This claim for damages is
$18,001. I am requesting an impartial review of whether the penalties should be abated under
IRS regulations. I allege that any review will show penalties should be abated or refunded.

RELIEF

The below requested relief is permitted against the Internal Revenue Service and
United States of America under 26 U.S.C. 7433 whereby a taxpayer may recover the lesser
of $1,000,000 ($100,000 for negligence) or the sum of the actual, direct economic damages
suffered by the taxpayer as the proximate result of the reckless, intentional or negligent
action, plus the cost of the action. An award for injuries such as inconvenience, emotional
distress and loss of reputation can be paid only if the injury results in a direct monetary loss.

With respect to the requested relief for actual and punitive damages against
Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice is permitted
under 26 U.S.C. 7431 which states that upon a finding of liability on the part of Defendant,
defendant shall pay be liable to pay plaintiff the sum of, the greater of $1,000 for each act of
unauthorized disclosure of a return or return information, or the sum of the actual
damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such unauthorized disclosure, plus - in the
case of a willful disclosure or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence, punitive
damages.

Plaintiff is also seeking the award of actual and punitive damages pursuant to any
violation by Defendants of the Privacy Act.

Plaintiff is seeking only actual damages from one of the Defendants, and not seeking
actual damages in an amount greater than $928,001 in total, even if more than one Defendant
is found liable in this matter before the Court. Plaintiff is seeking the total punitive damages
from any combination of the Defendants should a liability under 7431 be found by this
Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chaka Fattah, Jr. respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Issue a judgment against Defendants for the Violation of 26 U.S.C. 7433 and 26 U.S.C.
6304 regarding the taxpayer communication(s) on February 29, 2012 and other dates
which caused actual economic damages (see below):

2. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any other violation of 26 U.S.C. 6304 (see
below):

3. Issue a judgment against Defendants for the Violation of 26 U.S.C. 7433 regarding the
failure to provide Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP with copies of all notices and
correspondence to Plaintiff which caused actual economic damages (see below):

4. Issue a judgment against Defendants for the refund of the assessed civil penalties under
28 U.S.C 1346(a)(1) in the amount of $18,001 (see below):

5. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any violation of 26 U.S.C. 7431 and 26 U.S.C.
6103 in the amount of the total of Plaintiffs actual damages (see below):

6. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any violation of the Privacy Act in the amount
of the sum of Plaintiffs actual damages (see below) and punitive damages (see below)
incurred by Plaintiff under the Privacy Act:

$300,000 - Emotional Distress (Direct Economic Damages, Contract Value)
$10,000 - Emotional Distress (Direct Economic Damages, Tuition Fees)
$500,000 - Loss of Reputation
$100,000 - Inconvenience
$18,001 - Refund of Civil Penalties
$928,001 Actual Damages and Requested Judgment against Defendants

7. Issue a judgment against Defendants for Punitive Damages in the amount of
$9,075,000 under 26 U.S.C. 7431 to deter such egregious conduct in the future.

8. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any fees for printing and witnesses as part of
this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. 7430 and 26 U.S.C. 7431.

9. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any experts and the cost of any study, analysis,
or expert report prepared for this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. 7430 and 26 U.S.C.
7431.

10. Order Defendants to issue a formal apology to Plaintiff for violations of his taxpayer
rights under 26 U.S.C. 6304, 28 U.S.C 1346 and disclosure of his name and address in
violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 26 U.S.C. 7431. Order Defendants to issue a formal
apology for violations of his rights under the Privacy Act.

11. Order Defendants to pay all Court costs incurred for any court appointed experts under
Federal Rule of Evidence 706, if applicable.

12. Direct that all officer and employees of the United States who have violated the Privacy
Act, 26 U.S.C. 6103, 26 U.S.C. 7431, 26 U.S.C. 7433 or any other provision of the
Internal Revenue Code or related Treasury Regulations as alleged by Plaintiff be referred

Chaka Fattah Jr. vs. United States of America, IRS, FBI, USDOJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaka Fattah Jr. vs. United States of America, IRS, FBI, USDOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

You might also like