Cynthia L. Neun, Defendant, In Proper Person
PHONE:  702-385-6920
FAX:        702-385-6917                                                            



UNITED STATES,                                                          CASE NO:  CV - S-03-0281-LDG-RJJ



and LAWRENCE N. COHEN, a/k/a/                                MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
LARRY COHEN, individually and                                       OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
All doing business as FREEDOM                                   
www.isc <http://www.isc/>,      


COMES NOW, Cynthia Neun, Defendant in the above-entitled action, praying for relief from the ORDER of this Court on June 13, 2003, based upon the following:

1.             The Court, in adjudicating Defendant's pleadings based none of its ORDER on statutory law to establish a premise upon which the government brings this cause of action seeking relief.

2.             The Court dismissed Defendant's right to constructive notice of Government's contention that their teachings and advocacy activities allegedly fall within the provisions of IRC 6700 and 6701, and therefore 7408, by stating that a penalty need not be imposed  and that Defendants provided no "case law" to support their pleading that a procedural requirement is notification and burden of proof pursuant to IRC6751.

3.             The Court opined that Defendants could not reasonably believe that there is no statutory liability or law requiring individuals to pay the income tax, by ignoring the fact that there are no such mandatory provisions in the Internal Revenue Code; and, Defendant's testimony that the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Justice Attorneys had countless numbers of opportunities to dispel Defendants notion accordingly over the course of the past thirteen years since the book, THE FEDERAL MAFIA was published and especially over the course of the past five years where Defendants were constantly appearing before the IRS holding the law itself but where the government employees refused or neglected to do so.

4.             The Court, nor The Department of Justice proved their claims that Defendants "zero income" Form 1040's were false and fraudulent, by providing statutory law or even by supporting their claim upon "case law" as a basis for deeming them as such here in the instant case. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to be notified now before they end up in jail what the legal basis is for the Court's opinion that the "zero income" tax return is false and fraudulent when no Court, I.R.S. agent, D.O.J. Attorney, United States Attorney, Internal Revenue Service Attorney, Tax Court Judge, or District Court Judge has referred to it or "labeled" it as "false and fraudulent" before in the thousands of cases that have come before all of these governmental departments over the course of the past five years.

5.             The Court states that it is "cautious not to limit defendants' legitimate tax-related activities or advocacy", (page33- ORDER), which makes no sense whatsoever in light of the fact that the Court states again and again that Defendant's are knowingly defrauding the public with the position that the payment of income tax is voluntary absent a liability and requirement to pay the tax in the Internal Revenue Code. The Court does not mention what activities Defendant's engage in that the Court deems "legitimate", and, based upon all the language leading up to and surrounding this Court's statement, the words: "scam", "scheme", "false", "fraudulent", "bogus theories", "nonsense really", "unreasonableness", etc., Defendant's cannot find where this Court could reasonably deem that any of their activities are "legitimate" and not subject to contempt of this Court's libelous Order. Therefore, this Court needs to be specific about what the Defendants can say, for Defendants believe that their activities and teachings are based squarely on the law which is why they have not attempted to deny the fact that they counsel individuals to protect themselves from IRS abuses by using the Laws that Congress enacted.

6.             The Court wrote 35 pages in which it did not even address Defendant's proof that the 6700 and 6701 Code Sections apply only to Corporate Tax Shelters, (Committee of Taxation Exhibit in this Defendant's Post Hoc Brief), and for this Court to hold that Defendant's should have known that they were subject to these penalty statutes without ever being notified of such, with or without the imposition of the penalty, NOT receiving any determination letter of any kind, the Court is basically claiming that these Defendants should be clairvoyant.

7.             The Court needs to take notice of Defendant's Exhibit A, showing only a few of the pieces of correspondence being sent to her to this day from the Department of Treasury and The Internal Revenue Service, still recognizing her as Taxpayer Representative and Power of Attorney for various individuals, proving that the Internal Revenue Service has not disbarred her from being able to practice before that agency in examination functions. These correspondences bring with them a responsibility for me to contact the individuals named in the correspondence. Does the Court know how Defendant may fulfill this responsibility in light of the Court's Order?


           This Defendant has done nothing more than read the law out loud word for word disseminating the information that Congress wrote to protect the American taxpayer from illegal IRS practices and procedures.  As this Defendant argued in open Court, the Department of Justice's complaint is really one that should have been made to Congress, since Congress wrote those laws and published them in USC Title 26, not the Defendants.

           This Defendant, by attempting to comply with the Order as written, believes that she is trapped into making a "confession" that her activities are "knowingly false and fraudulent", and that her compliance could be used against her by the Government Attorneys on Appeal of this case and in all of the other cases working and pending concurrently. The way it is written, that Defendants must refrain from any activities that they know to be false and fraudulent, is the trap because the Defendants do nothing that they know to be false and fraudulent and the Government has never before claimed that they did. By complying, the Court is imposing subordination of perjury, since none of the activities or teachings shared with individuals are based on anything except the law and regulations and the government's own manuals and materials, Defendants do nothing that they know to be false or fraudulent.  So, Defendant asks this Court to Order that Compliance with the Court's Order of June 13, 2003, will not be used as an admission of the "knowingly false and fraudulent" language contained in that Order. The Order serves as Governmental entrapment as written, and Defendant feels it important to make this record for the Appellate Court at this time.

           This Defendant does not expect this Court to reverse its Order of June 13, 2003, but she does expect this Court to name what activities this Court deems to be legitimate, since all of the Court opinions used by this Court to weave a "justification" to enjoin her from using the law to help protect individuals from illegal IRS practices and procedures and further enjoining her from conducting her regular business, have nothing to do with the filing of a "zero income" Form 1040. 

           Defendant is acutely aware of the fact that the government has her under constant surveillance, (having no private conversations without the lurkers listening in), to "catch her" saying or doing something against the Court's Order in hope of locking her up and avoiding the trials the government brought against her.  Therefore, it is this Court's responsibility to make this Order clear. If all of the Court Decisions contained in this Court's Order bind this Defendant in one way or another, the Order needs to be more specific so that this Defendant has a chance to avoid an illegal prosecution and confinement for contempt based upon the vague and confusing Order of this Court.     

Date:  June 26, 2003

                                                                       Submitted by



                                                                       Cynthia L. Neun, Defendant in proper person




IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION has been made by placing a copy in United States mail on June 26, 2003 to Evan J. Davis, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, PO Box 7238 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC.  20044.