The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'neill, J.
Defendant Michael J. Amabile has admitted that he "was a nontaxpayer" "with respect to years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, inclusive" and asserts that during those years he was not obligated to pay taxes. As a result of his nonpayment of taxes, he was served with Internal Revenue Service summonses on May 11, 2011. He failed to comply with the summonses and the Government filed the above-captioned summons enforcement actions. "A summons should be enforced if it was issued in good faith (i.e., not solely in order to gain evidence for a criminal prosecution) and prior to any IRS recommendation for prosecution." United States v. Harper, 397 F. Supp. 983, 991 (E.D. Pa. 1975). The Government established that its investigation of Mr. Amabile's income and tax payments would be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose -- collection of any outstanding tax liabilities owed by Mr. Amabile, that its inquiry would be relevant to that purpose, that it did not already possess the information sought and that it had followed the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57--58 (1964); see also United States v. Garden State Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1979) ("The requisite showing is generally made by affidavit of the agent who issued the summons and who is seeking enforcement."); United States v. Lawn Bldrs. of New Eng., 856 F.2d 388, 392 (1st Cir. 1988) ("Assertions by affidavit of the investigating agent that the requirements are satisfied are sufficient to make the prima facie case.").
On December 20, 2011, at a show cause hearing, the Court rejected Mr. Amabile's arguments that he need not comply with the IRS summonses because : (1) he is not "a person liable for tax," (2) he is not a citizen of the United States for purposes of the tax laws and/or that he lives on non federal land, and (3) that any income he makes is not subject to tax and/or that the income tax is unconstitutional, finding such arguments to be frivolous, without merit, and uniformly rejected by the Courts. After the hearing, an Order was entered requiring Mr. Amabile to compile all responsive documents, to produce to IRS officer Matthew Lopes all documents that Mr. Amabile believed to be non-privileged and to produce to the Court for in camera review a log describing each document that Mr. Amabile believed to be protected by the Fifth Amendment along with the documents claimed to be privileged so that the Court could make a determination as to whether Mr. Amabile must provide to the Government any or all of the documents claimed to be privileged. The Order was read in open court while Mr. Amabile was present and Mr. Amabile received a copy of the Order.
Mr. Amabile requested extensions of time to produce the logs and documents on two occasions. The Court granted Mr. Amabile's requests for extensions on two occasions, granting him until March 12, 2012 to comply with the Court's Order of December 20, 2011. Mr. Amabile was advised that no further extensions would be granted.
Instead of producing the documents as required by the Court's Order, Mr. Amabile filed a number of pleadings in which he continued to challenge the authority of the IRS to tax any of his income. The Court considered the arguments in Mr. Amabile's pleadings and found them to be without merit. On April 12, 2012, the Court entered an Order that required Mr. Amabile to comply with the terms of the Court's prior Order on or before April 20, 2012 and warned him that his failure to comply with the Court's Order could lead to a finding of civil contempt. Mr. Amabile has stipulated that he received a copy of the Court's Order of April 12, 2012.
Mr. Amabile did not comply with the Court's Order within the allotted time. Instead, he filed the following three pleadings that were docketed on April 20, 2012: (1) Defendant's 2nd Affidavit and Verification Regarding His Verified Demand For Proof of IRS' Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 41); (2) Defendant's April 10, 2010 Letter Addressed to the Court Requesting that the Court Disclose to the Defendant All Facts That the Court Has Taken Silent Judicial Notice of, and the Day and Month When Said Silent Judicial Notice Was Taken By the Court (Dkt. No. 39); and (3) Defendant's Request for the Court's Clarification Regarding the Term "United States of America" and the Term "United States." (Dkt. No. 40.)
On May 14, 2012, the Government filed a Motion to Enforce a Court Order, asking the Court to exercise its power pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b), which allows the Court, when faced with a person who has not complied with an IRS summons, "to issue an attachment . . . for the arrest of such person, and upon his being brought before him to proceed to a hearing of the case . . . to enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons and to punish such person for his default and disobedience." 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b). The Government's motion attached as exhibits both Orders now at issue and was served on Mr. Amabile via federal express overnight mail and first class mail.
In pleadings he filed on May 29, subsequent to the Government's filing of its Motion to Enforce a Court Order, Mr. Amabile reasserted arguments consistent with those that the Court had rejected in its prior Orders including, inter alia: (1) that the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who represent the Government lack "lawful delegated authority to appear on behalf of Lopes and the IRS" (Dkt. No. 49 at 3); (2) that his "constitutional right to pursue his personal liberty and happiness, by entering into private contracts to sell his private labor, in order to support his family, cannot be impaired taxed or abrogated by the Plaintiffs, their alleged attorneys, or by the Court" (Dkt. No. 45 at 26); (3) that the Court lacks jurisdiction because he "was domiciled without the federal territory that comprises the judicial district for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania" (Dkt. No. 45 at 3); and (4) that he did not receive proper prior notice that his non-lawyer "Power of Attorney" could not speak on his behalf at the show cause hearing in this matter. (Dkt. No. 49 at 4.)
On June 4, 2012, the Court found that Mr. Amabile's arguments did not provide him with a legitimate basis for failing to comply with the Court's Orders or the IRS's summonses,denied Mr. Amabile's various pleadings, granted the Government's motion and ordered Mr. Amabile to appear for a hearing to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt of the Court, incarcerated and/or ordered to pay a daily fine until he complies with the Court's December 20, 2011 and April 12, 2012 Orders. The Court warned Mr. Amabile that if, at the hearing, he was unable to provide the Court with a valid basis for failing to comply with the Court's Orders and for not producing the information required by the IRS's summonses, the Court will have no choice but to order that Mr. Amabile be held in civil contempt. Counsel for the Government sent the Court's June 4, 2012 order to Mr. Amabile on June 5, 2012 by federal express overnight mail along with copies of the Court's Orders of December 20, 2011 and April 12, 2012.
On June 18, 2012, Mr. Amabile filed with the Court a letter in which he claimed that he did not possess any documents responsive to the IRS summonses. His letter explains that:
All of the documents sought by the summons [in case 11-06591], makes [sic] the assumption that I had a tax liability imposed on me by some as yet, unidentified law and that I am a taxpayer. Since I have been unable to identify any law and implementing regulation that makes me a "taxpayer" liable for paying subtitles A & C income taxes, and the IRS and Mr. Lopes have steadfastly refused to identify the law and implementing regulations published in the Federal Register and in 26 CFR, that supposedly imposed a legal liability on me to make and sign IRS Form 1040 and pay subtitles A & C income taxes; it necessarily follows that I do not possess or have any documents responsive to the IRS summonses.
Dkt. No. 52 at 3, ¶ 10. Likewise, his letter argues that with respect to the summons related to civil case 11-06592, it requests "All documents and records in your possession or control reflecting the receipt of taxable income by you for the years . . . 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 . . . " The operative phrase here is "taxable income". I do not have knowledge of any statute and related implementing regulation that was published in the Federal Register and in 26 CFR, which imposed an income tax liability on me. Therefore, I did not have any "taxable income". Consequently, I do not have, possess or control any documents responsive to the IRS summons in civil case 11-06592.
On June 21, 2012, Mr. Amabile had a meeting with Revenue Officer Matthew Lopes. At the meeting Mr. Amabile asserted, inter alia, that he was excused from compliance with the summonses under his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As the Court has already recognized in these matters, it is not enough for Mr. Amabile to set forth a blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights. See United States v. Allshouse, 622 F.2d 53, 57 (3d Cir. 1980). He must assert his claimed privilege on a document-by-document or question-by-question basis. Id. at 56. This requirement serves a dual purpose: "First, it helps the court in making an assessment of whether the privilege is justified with respect ...