Fattah v. IRS, FBI, DOJ Amended Complaint

8/12/2019 Fattah v. IRS, FBI, DOJ Amended Complaint

1/51

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


2/51

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.



3/51

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



4/51

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



5/51

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.



6/51

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



7/51


8/51

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.



9/51


10/51

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 attachedSee 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 #3that 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



11/51

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



12/51

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.



13/51

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 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



14/51

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.



15/51

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.



16/51

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.



17/51

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.



18/51

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.



19/51

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.



20/51

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



21/51

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



22/51

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 ofsafetyfor

Plaintiff and anyone who resides with him, in sharing his previously unpublished address



23/51

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



24/51

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.



25/51

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, 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



26/51


27/51

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



28/51

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



29/51

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



30/51

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.



31/51

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



32/51

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.



33/51

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 policiespriorto February 29, 2012.



34/51

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.



35/51

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,



36/51

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



37/51

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.



38/51

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.



39/51

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.



40/51

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



41/51


42/51

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.



43/51

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



44/51


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



45/51

$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.



46/51

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



47/51

$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.



48/51

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):



49/51

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



50/51

7. Issue a judgment against Defendants forPunitive Damagesin 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



51/51


Documents

Fattah v. IRS, FBI, DOJ Amended Complaint