Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, )

! !
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 2 of 51

officers and employees of all the Defendants have an obligation under 26 U.S.C. §6103 not to disclose the name, home address, or any other return information as defined by law to a third party, in this case two media outlets. The leak to these outlets brought a virtual storm of negative publicity against Plaintiff containing information from the original leaks as more fully described below. Plaintiff also alleges that the disclosure of the above stated information was in violation of the Privacy Act.

!
2. Plaintiff believes the primary actors in the disclosure of his name, address, and the precise timing of the government’s 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.

!

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 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 4 of 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 Defendant’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 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 year’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 6 of 51

local time at the taxpayer’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 person’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 7 of 51

attorney for the government in conjunction with an investigation as required by IRS regulations.

!
16. Plaintiff had a properly formatted, executed and filed IRS Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, on file with the IRS as of October 13, 2011. The Form identifies attorneys Mark E. Matthews and T. Joshua Wu, both of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP in Washington DC as Plaintiff’s representative in tax matters, specifically any matters pertaining or related to income tax, Form 1040 for tax years 2002-2010. This includes the tax years the IRS employees asked Plaintiff about during the interview, as well as the years pertaining to the subpoenas.

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

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

!
19. Plaintiff further alleges that no determination was made by the IRS that Plaintiff hired Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP to delay or hinder an investigation. Plaintiff alleges that no

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 8 of 51

determination was made by the IRS that contacting Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 CI’s 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.

!

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

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

!
25. The IRS informed the Taxpayer Advocate Office that they would not abate penalties assessed to the Plaintiff for 2007 and 2010, and failed to provide written notice in violation of Internal Revenue Manual 20.1.1.3.5.3. This also prevents Plaintiff from filing an Appeal with the Appeals Office of the IRS. Plaintiff contacted Appeals by phone, spoke with

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 10 of 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 [Plaintiff’s] records, the first at his apartment at the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton [1414 S. Penn Sq. #9E]”. The print version of this story, printed the following day March 1, 2012 is attached See Exhibit 2. The story was online within hours of the taxpayer interview (11:52a.m.), and at that time, the only persons other than Plaintiff with knowledge of the investigation was agents of the Internal Revenue Service and two other federal agencies. Plaintiff did not speak with any reporters on February 29, 2012 and had no prior knowledge of the action the IRS and other federal agency was taking that morning. An IRS spokeswoman confirmed to another news outlet [www.washingtontimes.com], See Exhibit #3 that IRS criminal investigators were at the Residences of the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday [February 29, 2012] on official business. The media attention from the initial articles damaged Plaintiff’s 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 son’s 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 51

The Inquirer have original photos taken by the media outlet outside of Plaintiff’s 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 ABC’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 12 of 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.

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 Plaintiff’s reputation, specifically by contacting members of the media prior to, and after, the visit to Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 14 of 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 Plaintiff’s residence and offices at Two Logan Square, Philadelphia PA 19103 that morning in addition to Mr. Hille with respect to Plaintiff’s 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.

!

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, 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 Frye’s 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 taxpayer’s 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.

!

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 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 Plaintiff’s 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.

!

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 on philly.com on February 29, 2012 at 11:52a.m.. The story was titled “FBI seizes records of Rep. Fattah’s son”.

!
45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants communicated to media representatives that search warrants were executed, at Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s name, and other sensitive information such 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 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Fattah’s son.” The Philadelphia Tribune story is “Fed’s take docs from Fattah 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 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.

!

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 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 21 of 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 “Fattah’s [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 Inquirer’s logo. Plaintiff alleges that this essentially means it was the top or most important story on Sunday March 4, 2012.

!
61. Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 22 of 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 of safety for Plaintiff 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 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 RitzCarlton. 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 his’s safety remaining at the same apartment in old city. Plaintiff’s 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 accused’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Attorney’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 24 of 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Attorney’s 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 Plaintiff’s visits to the Criminal Justice Center. Plaintiff spent one day in July 2011 at the Criminal 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, 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 individual’s 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 51

economic or accounting expert may serve a similar purpose. These experts may be helpful in proving Plaintiff’s allegations and alleged common sense of damages in this matter.

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

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

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

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

!
71. Plaintiff has been an active member of the Philadelphia business and charitable community for many years. This aided Plaintiff in building his positive reputation by his

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 27 of 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. Komen’s 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 Plaintiff’s

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 28 of 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 Plaintiff’s creditors.

!
76. Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 29 of 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. Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s offices, specifically the disclosure of the location and time of arrival, was also Delaware Valley High School’s and Shulick Law’s offices. More specifically, 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 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 Plaintiff’s advice and work product the state of Delaware Valley High School’s business may be different. It is Plaintiff’s 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 DVHS’s 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 DVHS’s 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 DVHS’s 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 and 259 Strategies LLC. 259 Strategies LLC is a management consulting firm, whereas Legal Marketing Strategies LLC is focused on marketing, which was Plaintiff’s concentration at undergraduate school. Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 32 of 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 Plaintiff’s representatives at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. As stated above, they remained Plaintiff’s 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.

!

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 that Defendant Internal Revenue Service did ignore Plaintiff’s 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 Defendant’s questions so early in the morning, without reviewing his records, and without his computer, which was in the other room during the time the Internal Revenue Service agents were at his residence at the Ritz Carlton on February 29, 2012. In the alternative, if the Defendants allege any waiver of my rights on that day to my representative, I intend to request a hearing or oral argument to challenge that ridiculous allegation.

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

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

!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 34 of 51

86. The disclosure issues of Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s contract dated 9-19-11, and referenced throughout the complaint, a copy of Plaintiff’s billing statement showing the tuition charges at Drexel University, a copy of Plaintiff’s school schedule for January 2012 through March 2012, positive articles showing Plaintiff’s 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. Fattah’s son.” and the washingtontimes.com story (with the IRS spokeswoman confirmation) titled “ Lawmaker’s 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.

!

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 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 Plaintiff’s reputation and prevent discloses of Plaintiff’s “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 Plaintiff’s 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,

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 36 of 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Google’s support site, an individual is typing new

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 37 of 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.

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 38 of 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 organization’s 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 “There’s got to be the world’s 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 Plaintiff’s reputation. The link that goes along with the message in the same tweet, goes to Philebrity’s story, which contains a link to Politico’s story “Feds investigate Chaka Fattah’s inner circle” published online on March 1, 2012, one day after Defendants actions at Plaintiff’s 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.”

!

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 the existence of an investigation of Plaintiff’s 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 Service’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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.

!

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 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 41 of 51

alleged violations of law are “rouge employees” acting to further their own or some other individual or political interests, and not the best interests of the federal government. The federal government has a responsibility to “not chase headlines”. The federal government employees who are relevant in this matter cannot be allowed to shield their illegal conduct in the sphere of an investigation. If the law does not protect a citizen who is under investigation, the federal government could simply say that someone is under investigation anytime there is a violation of law by government employees. Law enforcement officials have a responsibility to not abuse their power. They have a responsibility to not abuse the authority given to them. I am hopeful that this lawsuit brings some real change, which would affect many more people than just myself. On October 16, 2013, billionaire NBA owner Mark Cuban gave an interview posted to youtube after prevailing in a 9 year long dispute with the Securities and Exchange Commission which has received nearly 80,000 views. He stated outside the courthouse, in the published video “there was no point in time when I sat there and listened to it and felt, you know what winning will feel good. That’s just not the way it should be.” and further “…those are the exact little people that [federal agency head] says she is going to pick on and send a message. Hopefully the start of this, is that people will start paying attention to how the [federal agency] does business. …I don’t need anything from them, want anything from the [federal agency] except them to act like American citizens and treat other American citizens the way they deserve to be treated because this is a horrific example of how government does work.” “When you take all these years of my life and try to prove a point. It’s personal and to try and play it off like this is just your job. Again, I don’t want to

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 42 of 51

say that’s 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, that’s just wrong.” “Like I said when this started, I won’t be bullied, I don't care if it’s the United States Government.” I think Mr. Cuban’s 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.

!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 43 of 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 Plaintiff’s 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 IRS’s 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

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 44 of 51

monetary loss related to the IRS’s 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.

!
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 Plaintiff’s 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

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 direct monetary loss related to the IRS’s reckless, intentional, or negligent actions in connection 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.

!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 46 of 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 IRS’s 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

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 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.

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 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):

!

Case 2:14-cv-01092-TJS Document 11 Filed 03/25/14 Page 49 of 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 Plaintiff’s actual damages (see below):

!
6. Issue a judgment against Defendants for any violation of the Privacy Act in the amount of the sum of Plaintiff’s 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 51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful