Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 51UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN 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 (26U.S.C. 7433) for actual damages and (2) under 7431 of the Internal Revenue Code of1986 (26 U.S.C. 7431) for actual and punitive damages and (3) under the Privacy Actfor actual and punitive damages and (4) for the refund of civil penalties under 28 U.S.C1346(a)(1). The Internal Revenue Service, through the reckless, intentional, or negligentactions of its employees, has violated several provisions of the Internal Revenue Codeand/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 2 of 51officers and employees of all the Defendants have an obligation under 26 U.S.C. 6103not to disclose the name, home address, or any other return information as defined bylaw to a third party, in this case two media outlets. The leak to these outlets brought avirtual storm of negative publicity against Plaintiff containing information from theoriginal leaks as more fully described below. Plaintiff also alleges that the disclosure ofthe above stated information was in violation of the Privacy Act.!2. Plaintiff believes the primary actors in the disclosure of his name, address, and theprecise timing of the governments actions to the news media as described more fullybelow are employees or officers of Defendant Internal Revenue Service. However,Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice undoubtedlyhad employees or officers who were aware of the same information on a date prior toFebruary 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that employees or officer of those agencies also hadcontact with the news media regarding this matter.!PARTIES! 3. Plaintiff, CHAKA FATTAH, JR., is a citizen of the United States and resides at5783 Nassau Road, Philadelphia PA 19131.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 3 of 51 4. Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, maintains offices in Philadelphiathrough 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 inPhiladelphia, 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 PA19106.!!BASIS FOR JURISDICTION!! 8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7433, 26U.S.C. 7431, 26 U.S.C. 6103, 28 U.S.C 1346(a)(1) and the Privacy Act. This Court haspersonal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants maintain offices in this District.This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action with respect to the Internal

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 4 of 51Revenue Service and United States of America because Plaintiff has exhausted alladministrative remedies prior to filing this action. This court has subject matter jurisdictionover 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 employeesand officers and employees of the United States. This court has subject matter jurisdictionover this action with respect to Defendant United States of America under 26 U.S.C. 7433and 26 U.S.C. 7431. Plaintiff brings this action under waiver of Defendants sovereignimmunity 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 ofthe Defendants is the United States and the other Defendants are agencies of the UnitedStates. Venue in this District is also proper under the Privacy Act and pursuant to the UnitedStates Code of Judicial Procedure generally, 28 U.S.C. 1391.!!STATEMENT OF CLAIM!! 10. Two employees (special agents) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) visitedPlaintiffs residence on February 29, 2012 (1414 South Penn Square, Unit 9E, Philadelphia

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 5 of 51PA 19102). The IRS special agents arrived at approximately 6:20a.m. and left before7:00a.m.! 11. The IRS employees asked Plaintiff questions about alleged unpaid tax liabilitiesfrom tax years 2005-2010, including amounts that were already assessed. Plaintiff answeredvarious questions asked by the IRS employees. The agents for example asked (paraphrasingfrom 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 thereforehas 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 theirinterview with Plaintiff prior to leaving Plaintiffs residence. The subpoenas requestedmaterials 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 anunusual 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 thatin the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, the Secretary shall assumethat the convenient time for communicating with a taxpayer is after 8 a.m. and before 9 p.m.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 6 of 51local time at the taxpayers location. Plaintiff did not give prior consent to the Secretary andDefendants 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 withPlaintiff 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 Plaintiffsrepresentative who were at all relevant times authorized to practice before the InternalRevenue Service. 6304(2) states if the Secretary knows the taxpayer is represented by anyperson authorized to practice before the Internal Revenue Service with respect to such unpaidtax and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such persons name and address, unlesssuch person fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from theSecretary or unless such person consents to direct communication with the taxpayer. TheInternal Revenue Service processed IRS Form 2848 in October 2011, which clearly statedthe name, address, and contact information for the above representatives. The InternalRevenue Service did not make any attempt to contact Plaintiffs above representatives.Plaintiff did not give prior consent to direct communication between the Internal RevenueService 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 onFebruary 29, 2012. They did not inform Plaintiff that they were acting as assistants to the

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 7 of 51attorney for the government in conjunction with an investigation as required by IRSregulations.! 16. Plaintiff had a properly formatted, executed and filed IRS Form 2848, Power ofAttorney and Declaration of Representative, on file with the IRS as of October 13, 2011. TheForm 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 anymatters pertaining or related to income tax, Form 1040 for tax years 2002-2010. Thisincludes the tax years the IRS employees asked Plaintiff about during the interview, as wellas the years pertaining to the subpoenas.! 17. Plaintiff signed an engagement letter dated March 26, 2010 and deliveredpayment 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 goodstanding.! 18. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS employees made no attempt to contact the abovePlaintiffs representatives at Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP.! 19. Plaintiff further alleges that no determination was made by the IRS that Plaintiffhired Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP to delay or hinder an investigation. Plaintiff alleges that no

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 8 of 51determination was made by the IRS that contacting Plaintiffs representative instead ofPlaintiff directly would hinder or delay an investigation.

20. The IRS employees knew, or should have known, by a simple review ofPlaintiffs tax accounts anytime between approximately October 15, 2011 through February29, 2012 (the day of the interview) that Plaintiff had a valid, processed, power of attorney onfile with the IRS for all tax years in which Plaintiff had filed returns, as of the time of thepower of attorney.! 21. The above taxpayer interview on February 29, 2012 was in violation of InternalRevenue Manual 9.5.1.3.3, paragraph 2. The manual of IRS regulations clearly states it isCIs policy to honor powers of attorney so long as doing so would not hinder or delay aninvestigation.! 22. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS employees recklessly, intentionally, or negligentlydisregarded certain provisions of Title 26 and the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) inconnection with Federal tax collection activities against Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges thatall Defendants actions as described herein cause liability under 26 U.S.C. 7431. Plaintiffreasserts the averments of paragraphs 1-21 and 23-97 as though fully set forth herein.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 9 of 51 23. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS failed to provide the above Plaintiffs representativeswith copies of all notices or correspondence between the IRS and Plaintiff. This is a violationof Internal Revenue Manual 9.5.1.3.3 (09-27-2011), paragraph 4. This action was infurtherance of attempting to collect the allegedly owed Federal tax liabilities from2005-2010.! 24. Plaintiff, through the Taxpayer Advocate Office, in November 2013, filed a form843 request for abatement of penalties for tax year 2010. Plaintiff also filed a written requestfor abatement of penalties for tax year 2007. The requests for abatement of penalties werebased on IRS policies regarding reasonable cause and first-time abatement. Those policiesare 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, dueto undue financial financial harding, and reliance on a tax adviser advice, among others. TheDefendants are well aware of Plaintiffs deteriorated financial condition and have noreasonable basis to deny the refund of the penalties.! 25. The IRS informed the Taxpayer Advocate Office that they would not abatepenalties assessed to the Plaintiff for 2007 and 2010, and failed to provide written notice inviolation of Internal Revenue Manual 20.1.1.3.5.3. This also prevents Plaintiff from filing anAppeal with the Appeals Office of the IRS. Plaintiff contacted Appeals by phone, spoke with

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 10 of 51IRS Appeals employee Chellie Davis, and was told that the decision could not be appealed totheir office, leaving Plaintiff with no other administrative remedy.! 26. On February 29, 2012, the day of the above taxpayer interview by IRSemployees, philly.com published a story written by Martha Woodall, Mark Fazlollah, KristenGraham 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]. Theprint 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, theonly persons other than Plaintiff with knowledge of the investigation was agents of theInternal Revenue Service and two other federal agencies. Plaintiff did not speak with anyreporters on February 29, 2012 and had no prior knowledge of the action the IRS and otherfederal agency was taking that morning. An IRS spokeswoman confirmed to another newsoutlet [www.washingtontimes.com], See Exhibit #3 that IRS criminal investigators were atthe Residences of the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday [February 29, 2012] on official business.The media attention from the initial articles damaged Plaintiffs reputation and causedadditional negative media articles, which resulted in a loss of reputation. The online February29, 2012 philly.com article was printed in The Inquirer on March 1, 2012 under the headlineU.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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 11 of 51The Inquirer have original photos taken by the media outlet outside of Plaintiffsresidence[1414 South Penn Square, Philadelphia PA 19102] and office building [100 N. 18thStreet, Philadelphia PA 19103] early the morning of February 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges thatthe only way the media company would have sent a photographer to these locations early inthe morning on the above date is with advance notice, which only could have been given bythe Defendants.! 27. Prior to February 29, 2012 Plaintiff had several positive media articles regardinghis business acumen and success as an entrepreneur. These articles and other actions led to apositive reputation in the Philadelphia business community. The media include feature storieson Plaintiff in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Black Enterprise, Philadelphia Style, UrbanInfluence and ABCs FYI Philly television show. This prior public relations campaignresulted in millions of positive media impressions for Plaintiff and business opportunities.! 28. After February 29, 2012 Plaintiff did not receive any additional payments under acontract valued at $12,000 per month. Also, Plaintiff was unable to complete several collegecourses which he was enrolled in at the time.! 29. Internal Revenue Code 6304, Fair Tax Collection Practices, was added to theInternal Revenue Code (the Code) pursuant to section 3466 of the Internal RevenueService Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98"). Section 6304 makes certain

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 12 of 51provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applicable to the Service,placing restrictions on certain communications with taxpayers and prohibiting abuse andharassment of taxpayers and third parties. In particular, section 6304(a) provides in relevantpart that without prior consent of the taxpayer ... the Secretary may not communicate withthe taxpayer in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax ... (2) if the Secretary knowssuch person is represented by any person authorized to practice before the [IRS] unlesssuch person fails to respond within a reasonable period of time ... or unless such personconsents to direct communication with the taxpayer.! 30. The counterpart section in the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a), containscomparable language. The FDCPA defines communication as the conveying ofinformation regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. 15U.S.C. 1692a(2). The stated purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collectionpractices by debt collectors ... . 15 U.S.C. 1692(e).! 31. Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing this claim. Plaintiffprepared and filed a written administrative claim dated February 10, 2014 with the InternalRevenue Service. The administrative claim filed by Plaintiff provides the requiredinformation for a valid claim under 26 U.S.C. 7433. Plaintiff provided the Internal RevenueService copies of any available substantiating documentation or evidence as part of theadministrative claim.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 13 of 51! 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 bycontacting members of the media prior to, and after, the visit to Plaintiffs residence onFebruary 29, 2012. 6304(b) states that The Secretary may not engage in any conduct thenatural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection withthe collection of an unpaid tax. 6304(b) specifically states the general application of theforegoing, 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 actionunder 26 U.S.C. 7433, according to 26 U.S.C. 6304(c) [Civil action for violation ofsection].! 34. The media company, which owns philly.com and The Philadelphia Inquirer sentphotographer Ed Hille to Plaintiffs address to take photos between 6:00a.m.-8:00a.m. , asshown in the byline of published photos which portray plain clothes federal agents of theDefendant agencies arriving at the Plaintiffs residence at 1414 S. Penn Sq, Philadelphia PA19102, on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that the individuals in appearing the photos areall employees of Defendants. The media company identified the individuals as federalagents, in published reports, that is why I am providing these to the Court. The picturesremain online as of the date of this filing, therefore I do not believe Defendants would not

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 14 of 51have any objections to their posting. If Defendants make a motion to remove the photos fromthe 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 anotherphotographer to Plaintiffs residence and offices at Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA19103 that morning in addition to Mr. Hille with respect to Plaintiffs residence.! 36. Plaintiff alleges that individuals with knowledge of how major print and onlinemedia organizations assign photographers, at unusual times, to appear at locations to takephotos to appear in a story, will likely state that a 6:30a.m. photography assignment is notmere coincidence or happenstance.! 37. Plaintiff alleges that any photos taken by the media company and appearing onphilly.com, and in The Philadelphia Inquirer the following day and on other dates, were takenusing semi-professional or professional equipment. Plaintiff further contends that thesephotos could not have been taken using a mobile phone or similar device, which anindividual may have had if it was a spur of the moment photo opportunity. Plaintiffpreviously operated a professional photography company and states the contentions in thisparagraph based on the quality of the photographs, general knowledge of media operationsregarding photos, as well as the distance some photos appear to have been taken at.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 15 of 51 38. Plaintiff is alleging violations of 7433 with respect to IRS employees, includingthe special agents who interviewed Plaintiff on February 29, 2012. The identity of theseagents is known to Defendants and if they contend that they do not have their identities I canprovide them to the court. Plaintiff also alleges violations of 7433 with respect to IRSSpokeswoman Shauna Fryes communication via email or phone with Chuck Neubauer, areporter at the Washington Times. The Washington Times article, referenced in paragraph 23above, is still online and is attached as EXHIBIT 2. Plaintiff contends it is also possible thatShauna Frye spoke with a research assistant or colleague or Mr. Neubauer regardingPlaintiff.! 39. Plaintiff alleges that Shauna Frye, an employee of the United States as defined by26 U.S.C. 6103 verified the name and address, which are protected taxpayer returninformation as defined by 6103. 6103 states that a taxpayers identity is returninformation under the text in that section. 6103 further states that the term taxpayer identitymeans the name of a person with respect to whom a return is filed, his mailing addressor a combination thereof. In the alternative, Plaintiff contends that at the very least hisaddress was disclosed for confirmation purposes in their communication. Plaintiff furtheralleges that the two IRS special agents who interviewed Plaintiff on February 29, 2012, andtheir managers, are employees or officers as defined by 26 U.S.C. 6103.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 16 of 51 40. 6103 defines disclosure as means the making known to any person in anymanner whatever a return or return information.! 41. Plaintiff never confirmed any reporter at any media outlet, as a representative ordesignee of Plaintiff, of which the Internal Revenue Service could release my name oraddress to.! 42. Plaintiff alleges it would not be an undue burden on Defendants to determine howmany 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 InternalRevenue Service, and separately the arrival of special agents of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. The same is true that it would not be an undue burden to do the same regardingthe 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 havedocuments available to them, such as phone and email records, which can be matched againstpublicly available contact information of the media companies which own The WashingtonTimes and The Philadelphia Inquirer.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 17 of 51 44. Plaintiff was the subject of a media story referenced above, appearing onphilly.com on February 29, 2012 at 11:52a.m.. The story was titled FBI seizes records ofRep. Fattahs son.! 45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants communicated to media representatives thatsearch warrants were executed, at Plaintiffs residence at 1414 S. Penn Sq., Philadelphia PA19102 and Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA 19103. The media story referenced in theprevious paragraph states FBI and U.S. Treasury Department served two search warrantearlier Wednesday [February 29, 2012] Plaintiff contends that Defendants leaked thisinformation to the media company, as Plaintiff had no contact with the media, and had noprior knowledge of the agencies actions on that day.! 46. Plaintiff has prior to February 29, 2012, never had any correspondence withDefendant Internal Revenue Service other than two billing notices. Plaintiff has never beenaudited, whether by mail or in person, and had no reason to believe he was underinvestigation for alleged unpaid tax liabilities by Defendants.! 47. The media story referenced above in paragraph 42, created a virtual storm ofmedia interest and stories which contained Plaintiffs name, and other sensitive informationsuch as the existence of subpoenas and search warrants.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 18 of 51 48. Media stories appeared after the initial story on philly.com, in outlets such asabovethelaw.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, therebycontinuing to damage Plaintiffs reputation.

49. Plaintiff made a small, but by no means exhaustive list of news stories made on orwithin a few days of February 29, 2012 in paragraph 45 above. Plaintiff estimates thatbetween 25 and 100 news stories have appears as a direct or indirect result of Defendantsactions on February 29, 2012 as alleged. This has the practical effect of making it notdissimilar to Defendants contacting every news outlet which ran a story. This is alsocompounded by the fact that after a major news organization, such as The PhiladelphiaInquirer, and their website philly.com, make a serious claim in an article, with their factchecking and legal departments, that other news organizations would feel comfortable andwithin their rights to report the same details without much, if any, investigation on their ownpart.! 50. The newsworks.org story referenced in the previous paragraph is FBI conductsraid at home of Chaka Fattahs son. The Philadelphia Tribune story is Feds take docs fromFattah Jr. office.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 19 of 51 51. Plaintiff alleges that any authorization for a search warrant, subpoena, is part of aoften referred to as a secret or confidential process, which is not public. Plaintiff alleges thatthe information in this case, and in any other case under which that process is used, is notpublic for a very good reason.! 52. Plaintiff believes in the rule of law, and does not believe that there is any law orauthority which would allow the conduct alleged in this complaint. If Defendants had goodcause for their actions on February 29, 2012, they should have taken reasonable steps toensure the process was not known to the public due to the basic principle of the presumptionof innocence. Plaintiff has had no opportunity to date for a court review of the authorityunder which the action that day was taken. This includes all document requests, the searchwarrant, and the taxpayer interview, which Plaintiff alleges are all separate actions.! 53. Plaintiff has not been arrested charged with any crime including local, state andfederal criminal statutes other than minor traffic violations in his life.! 54. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice has oversight responsibilities overinvestigatory agencies, such as Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and InternalRevenue Service.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 20 of 51 55. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice has employees who possessed knowledgeof the Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service planned andexecuted 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 matterexplained in many paragraphs above was the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff alleges it isalso possible that employees or officers of the U.S. Department of Justice and/or FederalBureau of Investigation gave the same, additional, or supplemental information to the mediaoutlets, philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Times. Plaintiff allegesthat officers or employees from those agencies may also have confirmed information firstprovided by the Internal Revenue Service.! 57. Upon information and belief, there were multiple employees and/or officers ateach Defendants respective offices locally, which knew in advance that Plaintiff home andoffice would be visited on February 29, 2012.

58. Plaintiff suffered additional damage from Defendants actions, such as private civilmatters which were escalated to litigation because of the other parties in those mattersconcern about the existence of a publicized federal investigation. Plaintiff in some cases wasin payment agreement negotiations, and after Defendants actions negotiations turned hostile

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 21 of 51and less reasonable, and resulted in some cases lawsuits being filed against Plaintiff withoutany opportunity to settle them in advance. Another way to describe this issue would be to saythat some parties, including one bank, filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff out of an abundance ofcaution, 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 thefacade, troubles rose for Fattah son. As the headline suggests, the article is primarily aboutPlaintiff. It contains statements such as And the FBI was secretly digging into his [ChakaFattah Jr.s] finances. The article further states Chaka Fattah Jr. tried hard to keep up theimage of a rising young entrepreneur and Fattahs [Jr.] image crumbled for good onWednesday [February 29, 2012] when agents raided the Ritz-Carlton apartment and FattahJr.s space at a law office [Two Logan Square].! 60. The story Behind the facade, in its printed form, was the above the fold topnews story, below the Inquirers logo. Plaintiff alleges that this essentially means it was thetop or most important story on Sunday March 4, 2012.! 61. Plaintiffs claims under 7433 require an administrative claim, in proper form, tobe sent to the Internal Revenue Service before filing a suit in district court. See Exhibit 4, acopy of the administrative claim with the respective FedEx signatures, which confirm IRS

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 22 of 51receipt. Plaintiff sent via FedEx 2 day express service to Defendant Internal Revenue Serviceat two of their offices, both in Philadelphia and Kansas City, MO. Plaintiff was not surewhich address was proper under the Treasury Regulations cited below in this complaint, soPlaintiff had a copy delivered to both. Plaintiff notes that the Kansas City, MO address iswhere taxpayers who reside in Pennsylvania must send their return and other writtencorrespondence to the Internal Revenue Service. The only difference between the amountclaimed 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. Codeand were therefore not required to be requested on the administrative claim.! 62. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Employees John and Jane Does 1 through 100had access to information with the date, time, address and name of Plaintiff regarding thetaxpayer interview and other actions Defendants took as detailed extensively above. Plaintiffalleges that through the Discovery process the specific name, title, agency (amongDefendants), can be more readily determined. Plaintiff believes that upon information andbelief, it will be more clear if more or less government employees of the Defendants wereinvolved in the disclosures more specifically explained in the above paragraphs.! 63. Plaintiff alleges that there is an important issue regarding Defendants conductwhich is not mentioned in the previous paragraphs above. That is the issue of safety forPlaintiff and anyone who resides with him, in sharing his previously unpublished address

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 23 of 51with 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 jackingoutside of her parking space at the apartment early in the morning on a business day. Plaintiffwas a witness and technically a victim of the car jacking, since Plaintiff was an owner of thevehicle, a 2011 Audi A5. Plaintiff testified against the assailant at at least one hearing in 2011and had concerns about his girlfriend and hiss safety remaining at the same apartment in oldcity. Plaintiffs address in old city was known to the public, due to business filings that arepublished with the PA Department of State, and due to his business cards. The assailant in thecar 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 keyselling points such as their physical security, elevator key and floor security, discretion oftheir 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 aboveparagraphs, on February 29, 2012. As of that date, anyone with access to the Internet couldeasily determine the location of Plaintiffs address by searching the exact address of theResidences of Ritz Carlton. Plaintiff took precautions when testifying at the Criminal JusticeCenter in July 2011, as part of a subpoena issued at the time by the Philadelphia DistrictAttorneys office. Those precautions included staying generally out of sight in a closed roomwith members of the prosecution team and police offers in that matter. The precautions also

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 24 of 51included taking steps to do his best to ensure no one followed him or his girlfriend homeafter that visit, and any others. Unfortunately, it is well known that there have been manyoccasions where witnesses in local/state criminal cases have been assaulted and/or otherwiseviolently hurt before or after testifying against career criminals. It is important to note thatthe assailant in that matter, C. C. Sims, was a career criminal who had somehow escaped thesystem of justice in Philadelphia. If Plaintiffs recollection of his research at the time iscorrect, C. C. Sims had a history of charges of various kinds since approximately 1982, theyear Plaintiff was born. The assailant had spent time incarcerated, but in several other casesescaped justice due to witnesses not showing up for the prosecutions case which led to theirultimate dismissal. It is possible other circumstances not in the public record also wereadditional reasons the assailant escaped justice. Plaintiff was not injured in any way afterFebruary 29, 2012, but that does not mean it could not have happened. The governmentemployees and officers at the Defendant agencies knew or should have known that it wascompletely inappropriate to disclose where someone lives under these circumstances.Although Plaintiff has had virtually no contact with the Philadelphia District AttorneysOffice since C. C. Sims plead guilty and accepted a significant jail sentence, I am confidentthey will verify the accuracy of the fact that Plaintiff was a witness, and the exact number ofPlaintiffs visits to the Criminal Justice Center. Plaintiff spent one day in July 2011 at theCriminal Justice Center from early morning until later afternoon.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 25 of 51 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, includingthe 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 atall of a federal law enforcement investigation can easily serve to heighten condemnation ofthe 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 publicitywithout the due process of a trial.! 65. Any violation by Defendants of 26 U.S.C. 6103 [Confidentiality and disclosureof 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 offact in this matter in determining the impact of negative publicity, specifically as it relates tothe Plaintiff. The expert may be helpful to assess the true nature of negative publicity andhow in this media age Plaintiff correctly alleges that since all media remains online virtuallyindefinitely, negative media can have a more lasting impact that any time in the past prior tothe wide spread use of the Internet. This potential assistance could be in the form of experttestimony or a report prepared to introduce as evidence during trial. A similar expert withknowledge of calculating an individuals income over a period of time in future, such as an

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 26 of 51economic or accounting expert may serve a similar purpose. These experts may be helpful inproving Plaintiffs allegations and alleged common sense of damages in this matter.! 67. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an agency of the UnitedStates Department of Justice, a Department of the Executive Branch of the United StatesGovernment.! 68. Defendant United States of America is named in that the actions of the InternalRevenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Department ofJustice described herein are the responsibility of the United States Government.! 69. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is a Department of the Executive Branch ofthe United States Government. This Defendant is named in this action because of theiroversight responsibilities and involvement in the alleged conduct of all Defendants.! 70. Defendant Internal Revenue Service is a Department of The United StatesDepartment of The Treasury, which is a Department of the Executive Branch of the UnitedState Government.! 71. Plaintiff has been an active member of the Philadelphia business and charitablecommunity for many years. This aided Plaintiff in building his positive reputation by his

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 27 of 51actions, which helped the community. Plaintiff was a volunteer on the Pink Tie Ball planningcommittee for the Philadelphia affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Plaintiff alsoserved as a panelist for Susan G. Komens 2009 Philanthropy, Insights, and Networkingevent, held at Union Trust steakhouse. Plaintiff also served as a speaker for The EnterpriseCenter in 2010, on the topic of marketing and how to best prepare quality responses torequests for proposals (RFPs). For example, at The Enterprise Center event Plaintiff spokefor one hour to about 40 small business owners, which was a good audience for an 8am starttime. Plaintiff also spent countless hours attended board meetings for organizations such asOperation Understanding, fulfilling an obligation a previous client had to attend and work ontheir fundraising activities.! 72. No lawful exception authorized the damaging disclosures of informationdescribed herein.! 73. Upon information and belief, the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department ofJustice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation knew or should have know their actions wereimproper, 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 28 of 51information 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, includingbut not limited to emotional distress, loss of income, loss of contract income, loss of tuitioncosts, significant and actual economic harm to his reputation, inconvenience. Plaintiff is alsorequesting this Court order a judgment for punitive damages with regard to any finding ofDefendants liability under 26 U.S.C. 7431 or the Privacy Act. Also, Plaintiff has deniedDefendant the refund of civil penalties in the amount of $18,001, which would result in arefund to Plaintiff thereby denying Plaintiff to lawful right to use those funds for livingexpenses 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 Plaintiffto perform the following services. Plaintiffs contract states he shall implement, pursue, andmanage the marketing and development program for Shulick Law, DVHS and the Judith B.Shulick Memorial Foundation. Plaintiff was further required to prepare all marketingplans, manifest all marketing plans, working collaboratively with David Shulick to developshort and long term growth plans. The contract makes reference to processing, managingand achieving result for Shulick Law Clients, as required by David Shulick. The only Shulick

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 29 of 51Law 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, DavidShulick, owned an alternative education company which performed educational services forthe Philadelphia, Reading, and other school district in Bucks county. As of the date February29, 2012, DVHS, which is a doing business as, abbreviated name for, Delaware Valley HighSchool, the full name of the education entity. The entity has few other doing business asnames, and a legal name Unique Educational Experience, Inc. The Judith B. ShulickMemorial 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 contractalso had a non-competition provision, which prevented Plaintiff from working for anotherclient in the field where he had earned significant and valuable experience. This is importantbecause Plaintiff believes it is reasonable to think that he would still be working under thiscontract, should Defendants actions above not have happened. Defendants may respond thatchallenges and decisions that happened after February 29, 2012 may have resulted in mycontract being terminated. However, quite to the contrary, even some of those issues can beeasily traced to the bad publicity resulting from Defendants conduct. It is important to noteDefendants actions at Plaintiffs offices, specifically the disclosure of the location and timeof arrival, was also Delaware Valley High Schools and Shulick Laws offices. Morespecifically, Plaintiff office which was searched by federal agents, was a sublease of an office

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 30 of 51and a cubicle in the offices used by DVHS, Shulick Law, and the Judith B. Shulick MemorialFoundation. Also, since Plaintiff was in an executive capacity through this consultingcontract, reasonable people could agree that with the added benefit of Plaintiffs advice andwork product the state of Delaware Valley High Schools business may be different. It isPlaintiffs 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 schooldistricts, such as Philadelphia, which represented more than half of DVHSs revenue andcontracts, do not often take negative publicity about one of their vendors, and even publicityabout their vendors staff or consultants lightly. Plaintiff alleges that non-compete clauses ingeneral are designed to prevent the release of strategic business information and tradesecrets, and are widely used to keep key staff and consultants (as in this case) from usingtheir skills and experience to work for competitors.! 78. Plaintiff also notes that he presented DVHSs service offering to a school districtin York, PA the week prior to February 29, 2012 and without the publicity caused byDefendants unlawful disclosures described above, DVHS would likely have been awarded anadditional seven figure contract. This could have added additional revenue to offset anylosses DVHS experienced or made resources available that would have provided reassuranceto DVHSs clients in 2012 in their staffing levels and ability to operate.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 31 of 51 79. Plaintiff is the controlling and sole owner of Legal Marketing Strategies LLC and259 Strategies LLC. 259 Strategies LLC is a management consulting firm, whereas LegalMarketing Strategies LLC is focused on marketing, which was Plaintiffs concentration atundergraduate school. Plaintiffs major was business administration.! 80. Plaintiff has obtained his tax account transcripts for the years 2005-2011. The2005 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service, withTracking Number 100184918450 and dated 2-27-2014, has an entry code 960, with anexplanation of transaction Appointed representative, dated 01-09-2012. The 2006 taxaccount transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue, Tracking Number100184918418, dated 2-27-2014, has the same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated01-09-2012. The 2007 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant InternalRevenue Service, Tracking Number 100186063344, date 3-07-2014, shows the same entrynoted above for the year 2005, dated 01-09-2012. The 2008 tax account transcript forPlaintiff, 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 in2005, dated 10-13-11. The 2010 tax account transcript for Plaintiff, issued by DefendantInternal Revenue Service, Tracking Number 100186063352, dated 3-07-2014, shows thesame entry noted above for the year 2005, dated 10-13-11. The 2011 tax account transcript

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 32 of 51for Plaintiff, issued by Defendant Internal Revenue Service, Tracking Number100186063335, dated 3-7-2014, shows the same entry noted above for the year 2005, dated10-13-2011. These entries are all acknowledgement by Defendant Internal Revenue Serviceon official documents, which Plaintiff can easily produce, that Plaintiff had a power ofattorney, IRS Form 2848 (See Paragraph 11 above). This is a clear acknowledgement thatPlaintiff has a valid power of attorney on file which the Defendants accepted. It is importantto note that the power of attorney form has contact information such as name, mailingaddress, 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 through2010, and income as the type of tax.! 81. It is important to note that in paragraph 78 Plaintiff is using the most recentrecords he has obtained, and kept on his computer, but that Plaintiff has obtained severaltranscript for the above tax years since February 29, 2012. This is to say, that thesetranscripts are not an anomaly or new development, and the references to the appointedrepresentative are not a glitch. That is also to say, I had this information prior to the originalcomplaint filing on February 21, 2014 with this Court. Plaintiff will produce the recordsduring trial and Discovery, and any other time if requested by this Court.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 33 of 51 82. Paragraph 78 is all to say Plaintiff is ready to prove to this court and jury thatDefendant Internal Revenue Service did ignore Plaintiffs power of attorney and theirobligations 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 RevenueService speak with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP prior to contacting him. I would also notethat Defendants woke Plaintiff up and he was not fully prepared to respond to Defendantsquestions 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 hisresidence at the Ritz Carlton on February 29, 2012. In the alternative, if the Defendantsallege any waiver of my rights on that day to my representative, I intend to request a hearingor oral argument to challenge that ridiculous allegation.! 84. Plaintiff also notes that the above transcripts referenced above for tax years 2005through 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 questionsabout 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 InternalRevenue Service policies prior to February 29, 2012.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 34 of 51 86. The disclosure issues of Plaintiffs name, address, and time of arrival of thefederal 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 DefendantInternal Revenue Service should have contacted them. This would likely have preventedPlaintiff from answering questions likely developed in a way to generate questions which theDefendants 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 acopy of Plaintiffs contract dated 9-19-11, and referenced throughout the complaint, a copyof Plaintiffs billing statement showing the tuition charges at Drexel University, a copy ofPlaintiffs school schedule for January 2012 through March 2012, positive articles showingPlaintiffs good reputation such as the above referenced Black Enterprise article,Philadelphia Business Journal, Philadelphia Style feature story as well copies of thephilly.com story FBI seizes records of Rep. Fattahs son. and the washingtontimes.comstory (with the IRS spokeswoman confirmation) titled Lawmakers son target of federalsearch. Both stories appeared online early morning or afternoon (in the case of theWashington Times) and remain online as of the date of this filing. Plaintiff alleges he fullysatisfied the requirements of providing all available documentation substantiating damagesto Defendant Internal Revenue Service under 7433.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 35 of 51 88. Plaintiff alleges that, upon information and belief, should Defendants allege thethe Washington Times articles referenced in the previous paragraph and throughout thiscomplaint somehow did not accurately portray the communication between IRS employeeShauna Frye and their reporters or research assistant, that Defendants produce anycommunication between their public relations employees and the Washington Times sinceFebruary 29, 2012 that was made in an attempt to correct the story, to reflect that Ms. Fryedid not say only that criminal investigators were at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton onWednesday on official business. In other words, if the outlet got it wrong, did they try tocorrect it at any time to prevent damage to Plaintiffs reputation and prevent discloses ofPlaintiffs 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 disclosingthe Plaintiffs name and address under 6103, which are undoubtedly return information asdefined by law. In the alternative, should some expert or legal analysis prove otherwise, thecommunication between Shauna Frye definitely violates the spirit of the law regardingdisclosure of return information under 6103. Plaintiff alleges that the person or persons whocontacted Ms. Frye from the Washington Times likely told her the subject of the story, in thiscase 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 waspreviously involved in a multi-year public relations campaign. During the Discovery process,

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 36 of 51upon information and belief, Plaintiff will prove these allegations, or at the very least bepresented with a variance of a defense of not recalling, or failure to keep notes based on thecommunication between their offices (Ms. Frye and Washington Times).

90. The Privacy Act expressly requires the federal government to protect individualsagain disclosures which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, orunfairness. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct as described fully throughout thiscomplaint 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 privacyand 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 anotherpoint of concern that caused damage to Plaintiffs reputation. Google, Inc., is Fortune 500company that operates www.google.com, one of the most polar search engines. The Googlesearch engine has a feature called autocomplete. Google defines the autocomplete feature onits support website as As you type in the search box, you can find information quickly byseeing 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 theexample photo showing how this works on Googles support site, an individual is typing new

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 37 of 51york and has not click any buttons yet and the cursor is placed after the last letter and a dropdown 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 anindividual has or were to do research on Plaintiff for the purposes of a potential contract forconsulting services or a potential employment offer, if they were to type in Chaka FattahJr, the second line below reads chaka fattah jr fbi. According to common knowledge and avast amount of published reports on this issue, a significant factor Google uses to determinewhat 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 themillions of users, simply due to their frequently changing content and relevance. If it werenot for Defendants unlawful disclosure which resulted is a large quantity of high rankingmedia 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, chakafattah jr fbi as the second most popular search term since February 29, 2012, through thedate of this complaint being filed. To be clear, Plaintiff never had any news story containingfbi to his knowledge prior to Defendants actions on February 29, 2012 and their unlawfuldisclosure of return information and timing information in violation of the laws referenced inthis paragraph. See Photo at Exhibit 5.

92. The Safeguarding responsibilities of federal law enforcement agencies arediscussed in Section 5.12 of Internal Revenue Service Publication 1075, See Exhibit 6.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 38 of 51Defendants are all responsible for the requirement in that section to protect a taxpayerspersonal, private information, including the taxpayers name, address, and the existence of aninvestigation to the news media as alleged throughout the complaint. Plaintiff alleges thatDefendants U.S.A., United States Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigationare 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 thatwrites 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 asdescribed more fully above. The message reads Theres got to be the worlds most amazingknock-knock joke in this whole [Chaka]Fattah [Jr.] Thing. Plaintiff alleges this tweet sentvia Twitter to 19,000 plus followers caused damage to Plaintiffs reputation. The link thatgoes along with the message in the same tweet, goes to Philebritys story, which contains alink to Politicos story Feds investigate Chaka Fattahs inner circle published online onMarch 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 unlawfuldisclosures regarding their actions on February 29, 2012 as alleged throughout thiscomplaint. The Politico story states The FBI searched the home and office of the youngerFattah The reference is to the Plaintiff. The story also states that Chaka Fattah Jr. - nowunder investigation by the Justice Department.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 39 of 51 94. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated 6103 in their disclosure to the media of theexistence of an investigation of Plaintiffs tax liabilities with Defendant Internal RevenueService. 6103 states that return information includes whether a return was filed, is or willbe examined or subject to other investigation or processing, including collection activity. Itis clear from media reports made on February 29, 2012 and key facts repeated in other mediaafter that date as described more fully throughout this complaint that the media was madeaware in multiple reports that Plaintiff is under investigation by Federal authorities forincome tax issues. Plaintiff also alleges , as done more full throughout the complaint thatDefendant Internal Revenue Services interview fits into the definition of collection activitiesbecause 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. Theviolations are the disclosure of the existence of an investigation, and well as separately theexistence of collection activities regarding the IRS agents visit to Plaintiffs residence onFebruary 29, 2012.! 95. Plaintiff states that any authority granted under 6103(i) does not shieldDefendants from liability for disclosing the return information the the media outlets forpublication on February 29, 2012 or any other date as described more fully throughout thiscomplaint.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 40 of 51 96. In the Behind the facade, troubles rose for Fattah son article published by TheInquirer the article states Federal authorities are investigating why a company owned by theson of U.S. Rep Chaka Fattah was paid $450,000 by an education firm. The $450,000contract the article references is dated October 6, 2010 and is an agreement betweenPlaintiffs entity, 259 Strategies LLC and Unique Educational Experience Inc doing businessas DVHS. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that the Defendants employees orofficers 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 consultingservices.. 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 thecontract Plaintiff received for management consulting services was not a guess by thereporters 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 Defendantsactions as alleged throughout this complaint. It is Plaintiffs belief that the alleged violationsof law fully described above are the result of individual actions. In this action, due to manyconsiderations, Plaintiff is seeking a monetary judgment and an apology from the Defendantagencies, not the individual employees. The Defendants have a responsibility to superviseand oversee their employees. This is even more important with the employees at federal lawenforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff firmly believes the

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 41 of 51alleged violations of law are rouge employees acting to further their own or some otherindividual or political interests, and not the best interests of the federal government. Thefederal government has a responsibility to not chase headlines. The federal governmentemployees who are relevant in this matter cannot be allowed to shield their illegal conduct inthe 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 isa violation of law by government employees. Law enforcement officials have a responsibilityto 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 morepeople than just myself. On October 16, 2013, billionaire NBA owner Mark Cuban gave aninterview posted to youtube after prevailing in a 9 year long dispute with the Securities andExchange Commission which has received nearly 80,000 views. He stated outside thecourthouse, in the published video there was no point in time when I sat there and listenedto 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 topick on and send a message. Hopefully the start of this, is that people will start payingattention to how the [federal agency] does business. I dont need anything from them, wantanything from the [federal agency] except them to act like American citizens and treat otherAmerican citizens the way they deserve to be treated because this is a horrific example ofhow government does work. When you take all these years of my life and try to prove apoint. Its personal and to try and play it off like this is just your job. Again, I dont want to

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 42 of 51say thats the way the all the [federal agency] works but the people who are in this case couldof said something and didn't say anything, thats just wrong. Like I said when this started, Iwont be bullied, I don't care if its the United States Government. I think Mr. Cubans pointof 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 someonewho once had a chance to meet and talk to him at a charitable event in Philadelphiaapproximately 10 years ago. He had a team of lawyers since he has vast resources due to hissuccess as an entrepreneur. My business success was interrupted due to violations of the lawby Defendants, I am filing this pro se amended complaint and look forward to the finaljudgement by the finders of fact in this matter. The government has vast resources andhopefully with this lawsuit someone in authority will take a long hard look at the Defendantsactions as alleged throughout the complaint. Plaintiff looks forward to a trail on the meritsbefore this Court.

!INJURIES!! 98. Plaintiff reasserts the averments of paragraphs 1-97 as though fully set forthherein.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 43 of 51EMOTIONAL 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 LawOffices, Legal Marketing Strategies LLC, and Plaintiff Chaka Fattah Jr. Plaintiff is soleowner of Legal Marketing Strategies LLC and income from that contract from was the solesource 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 directmonetary loss related to the IRSs reckless, intentional, or negligent actions in connectionwith the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as emotional distress can be paidunder 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according toTreasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An award for actual damages can be paid under26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actual damages. With regard to any claim under7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. Anaward 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 wasbilled. Plaintiff attempted to withdraw or otherwise make arrangements to finish course workat a later time, but was unable to do so regarding the amount of this claim. The cost of theseclasses is $10,000 and that is the request for damages under this claim. This is a direct

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 44 of 51monetary loss related to the IRSs reckless, intentional, or negligent actions in connectionwith the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as emotional distress can be paidunder 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according toTreasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. An award for actual damages can be paid under26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actual damages. With regard to any claim under7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. Anaward for actual damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.! 101. Plaintiff sought and received physical therapy on a regular basis in 2012, andother treatment in 2013, related to the emotional distress caused by Defendants actions inviolation of 26 U.S.C. 7433. Plaintiff was unable to obtain certain treatment required due tolack of discretionary funds.!LOSS OF REPUTATION! 102. As stated above in paragraph 22, Plaintiff had a positive reputation in thePhiladelphia business community through hard work, and building relationships based on thequality of work and advice, which led to substantial value for the Plaintiffs clientele andsubstantial income for Plaintiff. This reputation was often rewarded with more substantiveand lucrative work assignments, and resulted in over $625,000 in combined revenue in 2010and 2011 and substantial profits in those years as well. Plaintiff had business income of

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 45 of 51$174,634 in 2011, and $160,580 in 2010. This claim for damages is $500,000. This is a directmonetary loss related to the IRSs reckless, intentional, or negligent actions in connectionwith the collection of a tax. An award for injuries such as loss of reputation can be paid under26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injury results in a direct monetary loss according to TreasuryRegulation 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 Plaintiffalleges the damages described in this paragraph are actual damages. An award for actualdamages 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 asalleged. It is not clear when Plaintiff will be able to continue to earn income, and Plaintiffalleges that any expert that appears before this Court in accounting and/or economics withrespect to earning potential and projections of income, based on previous years of incomeand growth rates, would contend that the damages amount is significant and in the millionsof dollars. This claim for damages is $4,100,000 in punitive damages. This claim is madeunder 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. Anaward for actual and punitive damages can be paid under the Privacy Act.!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 46 of 51INCONVENIENCE! 104. Plaintiff has suffered numerous inconveniences as a result of the Defendantsactions as stated above. Plaintiff has lost numerous business opportunities due to Defendantsactions including contract opportunities. This includes a success bonus Plaintiff was eligiblefor in the contract with Shulick Law Offices, which was valued at over $100,000. The claimfor 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 forinjuries such as inconvenience can be paid under 26 U.S.C. 7433 as long as the injuryresults in a direct monetary loss according to Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.7433-1. Anaward for actual damages can be paid under 26 U.S.C. 7431 equal to the amount of actualdamages. With regard to any claim under 7431 Plaintiff alleges the damages described inthis paragraph are actual damages. An award for actual and punitive damages can be paidunder the Privacy Act.!CIVIL PENALTIES! 105. The IRS improperly denied the abatement of civil penalties in violation of theirown guidelines as stated above. The IRS then denied Plaintiff appeal rights, which is anotherviolation of the Internal Revenue Code and taxpayer rights. The total of the five penaltiesthat should have been abated under IRS guidelines is $18,001. This claim for damages is

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 47 of 51$18,001. I am requesting an impartial review of whether the penalties should be abated underIRS 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 andUnited States of America under 26 U.S.C. 7433 whereby a taxpayer may recover the lesserof $1,000,000 ($100,000 for negligence) or the sum of the actual, direct economic damagessuffered by the taxpayer as the proximate result of the reckless, intentional or negligentaction, plus the cost of the action. An award for injuries such as inconvenience, emotionaldistress 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 againstDefendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice is permittedunder 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 ofunauthorized disclosure of a return or return information, or the sum of the actualdamages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such unauthorized disclosure, plus - in thecase of a willful disclosure or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence, punitivedamages.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 48 of 51

Plaintiff is also seeking the award of actual and punitive damages pursuant to anyviolation by Defendants of the Privacy Act.! Plaintiff is seeking only actual damages from one of the Defendants, and not seekingactual damages in an amount greater than $928,001 in total, even if more than one Defendantis found liable in this matter before the Court. Plaintiff is seeking the total punitive damagesfrom any combination of the Defendants should a liability under 7431 be found by thisCourt.!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 dateswhich caused actual economic damages (see below):!2. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any other violation of 26 U.S.C. 6304 (seebelow):!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 49 of 513. Issue a judgment against Defendants for the Violation of 26 U.S.C. 7433 regarding thefailure to provide Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP with copies of all notices andcorrespondence to Plaintiff which caused actual economic damages (see below):!4. Issue a judgment against Defendants for the refund of the assessed civil penalties under28 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 amountof 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!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 50 of 517. 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 ofthis 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 taxpayerrights under 26 U.S.C. 6304, 28 U.S.C 1346 and disclosure of his name and address inviolation of 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 26 U.S.C. 7431. Order Defendants to issue a formalapology for violations of his rights under the Privacy Act.!11. Order Defendants to pay all Court costs incurred for any court appointed experts underFederal Rule of Evidence 706, if applicable.!12. Direct that all officer and employees of the United States who have violated the PrivacyAct, 26 U.S.C. 6103, 26 U.S.C. 7431, 26 U.S.C. 7433 or any other provision of theInternal Revenue Code or related Treasury Regulations as alleged by Plaintiff be referred

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 51 of 51