U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CASE #17-CV-2602-RC
McNEIL, et al v. BROWN, et al
Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras
Date Filed: 11/29/2017
Consolidated with:
17-cv-01720 McNEIL, et al v. HARVEY, et al
On November 29, 2017, Robert A. McNeil, along with twelve (12) other Plaintiffs, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Defendants are Ms. Janice Rogers Brown, Mr. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Mr. Robert L. Wilkins (all Appellate judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit), and one (1) unknown-named Government employee in the Court of Appeals. The four (4) Defendants are sued in personal capacity only. (See Original Complaint).
[Note: Due to the cost of serving four (4) summonses on the Defendants (@ $225.00 each), Plaintiffs only served Ms. Brown, which was sufficient to initiate the lawsuit. It is important to note that Ms. Brown failed to respond to her summons within sixty (60) days and, therefore, defaulted.]
Case #17-2602 was assigned to the notoriously corrupt U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who acted extra-judicially to conspire with the Department of Justice to dismiss case #17-1720. Also making his unauthorized appearance (as in 17-1720) representing the Defendants is Department of Justice attorney James Yu, a serial filer of false and misleading documents into the record of every case he entered, who has a provable record of committing fraud on the Court.
[Note: As explained in 17-1720, Judge Contreras (to whose bench both 17-1720 and 17-2602 were assigned), issued an Order on March 16, 2018 in 17-1720 requesting the Department of Justice to “explain its position” regarding representing the defaulted Defendants, despite the fact Mr. Contreras knew Plaintiffs sued the defaulted attorneys in 17-1720 solely in personal capacity for falsifying federal records of Class cases. Hence, Mr. Contreras knew, or should have known, the United States has no legitimate interest in representing the personal capacity defaulted attorneys. Plaintiffs contend Mr. Contreras issued his order to improperly procure representation by, and insertion of, the United States as substitutes for his fellow (defaulted) attorneys.]
This case, and others, were filed to elicit, document and terminate the outrageous program whereby lawyers enforce the income tax while surreptitiously circumventing/destroying victims’ rights to due process of law, and to meaningful access to courts.
In the recently filed D.C.D.C. cause 17-1720, McNeil, et al., v. Harvey, et al., Plaintiffs identified and detailed the uniform falsification of the record by federal judges in each of TEN cases filed at the District level by Class victims. That falsification included allegations fabricated and attributed to the plaintiffs, which they did not make, as well as relief fabricated and attributed to them, which they did not seek.
In 17-1720, Plaintiffs sued the attorneys/judges solely in personal capacity for acts immunity does not shield, i.e., colluding with other attorneys to uniformly obstruct justice and victims’ rights to access courts by falsifying the record of the cases with respect to both the allegations made and relief sought. [Explicit details are provided in the live Complaint in that case.]
Also in 17-1720, Plaintiffs alleged that by falsifying the records of federal cases, the attorneys enabled themselves to avoid determining whether the Anti-Injunction Act and its equitable exception applied to their victims’ actual allegations and relief sought, and enabled themselves to base dismissal, instead, on their fabrications, which made it appear the cases fell within the prohibitions of the AIA.[1] That is, Plaintiffs claim, in 17-1720, that attorneys in district courts dismissed TEN Class cases without reference to the actual allegations and relief sought in the complaints filed in each case.
But, by so doing, Plaintiffs claim the attorneys appointed to District benches to adjudicate Class cases violated Plaintiffs’ rights to a.) due process of law and to b.) access adequate, effective and meaningful judicial relief from the underlying IRS/DoJ record falsification program.
The scheme did not end in the district court.
After the outrageous dismissals, eight victims timely appealed, paying the full cost for appellate relief. But, from the unpublished “Orders” denying appellate relief before this Court, it cannot be determined that a Circuit judicial officer was ever involved.
Bluntly, even though the Circuit doors are open, and its Clerk accepts full payment from litigants whose property has already been stolen by the Government, it appears there is no appellate relief available to litigants challenging the failure by IRS to prepare substitute income tax returns, and the refusal of attorneys in the district court to litigate the IRS failure.
The three named Defendants in this case (and others unnamed, and one unknown) summarily dismissed all EIGHT fully paid appeals without stating which standard of review was used to justify dismissal.
Further, the Defendants failed to state how the Anti-Injunction Act supposedly applied to the ACTUAL allegations and relief sought by Plaintiffs, and failed, as well, to explain how the equitable exception to the Act supposedly does not apply to their cases.
Plaintiffs allege that no Circuit judge wrote such Orders, but that the unknown-named Defendant wrote the orders, then affixed the named Defendants surnames thereto.
Plaintiffs further allege that the author of the unpublished Orders refused to clearly identify the standard used or explain how the Anti-Injunction Act (and its equitable exception) applied to Plaintiffs’ cases, to conceal the fact that he relied upon the falsification of the case records by the attorneys in the courts below, and judicially noticed “facts” that were not resolved, and remain contested between Plaintiffs and the Government, (such as whether §6020(b) applies to income taxes).
Plaintiffs further allege that the deliberately opaque, incomprehensible, unpublished denials were constructed to obstruct justice, i.e., to prevent Plaintiffs from being able to understand/contest the standard upon which their appeals were denied, to conceal the fact that the Anti-Injunction Act does NOT apply to their allegations and that the equitable exception DOES apply, to prevent victims’ from contesting in the Supreme Court the denials, and, ultimately, to provide government attorneys the appearance of claim preclusive precedent to defeat Class cases, without ever having adjudicated Plaintiffs’ actual cases, at any level of United States courts.
Thus, the Defendants eviscerated Plaintiffs’ rights to access courts for appellate relief from the underlying record falsification program, the existence of which has never been adjudicated to the date of this filing.
Plaintiffs contend that the scheme, as played out in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is part of the systematic violation by federal bar attorneys of Plaintiffs’ due process rights and to meaningful access to courts.
In 17-2602, Plaintiffs seek seven (7) narrow declaratory judgments:
A. Was appellate relief denied in EIGHT appeals filed by Class Plaintiffs without clearly identifying the standard of review used, without providing any explanation how the Anti-Injunction Act supposedly applied to the actual allegations and relief the litigants sought below, and without explaining how the equitable exception to the AIA supposedly did not apply to those allegations and relief sought? Suggested declaration: Affirmative.
B. From the four unpublished denial “orders” presented on pretty Circuit letterhead, is it possible that a single source who is NOT a United States Circuit Judge authored them? Suggested declaration: Affirmative.
C. Is it possible that the author of the “orders” concealed the standard of review utilized because he used the “clearly erroneous” standard, despite the fact the trial court judges resolved no contested issues of fact, but instead fabricated, then attributed to plaintiffs, allegations they did not make, and relief they did not seek? Suggested declaration: Affirmative.
D. Based on the orders before the Court, since a clear error standard is repeatedly inferred, (“Appellant has not shown that....”) is it possible that the author applied the Anti-Injunction Act to the allegations and relief fabricated by attorneys in the district court, then attributed to Plaintiffs, in utter derogation of the appellants’ complaint on appeal of those fabrications? Suggested declaration: Affirmative, i.e., it is possible.
E. Based on the four unsigned, unpublished Orders now before this Court, did the author resolve de novo the contested dispositive legal controversy whether 28 U.S.C. §6020(b) grants power to create substitute returns in income tax matters, despite the Commissioner’s repeated public concessions 6020(b) does NOT? Suggested declaration: Negative, the contested issue was not resolved.
F. Did the denial of the EIGHT appeals in such fashion violate the litigants’ rights to adequate, effective and meaningful access to courts and prove that ACTUAL appellate relief does not exist in cases alleging that IRS attorneys have approved the use of systematically falsified government records, and that government attorneys falsify the record of litigation to prevent successful appeals? Suggested declaration: Affirmative.
G. Are Americans’ rights to meaningful appellate relief from the underlying alleged IRS record falsification program constantly being violated by the Defendants’ collusion to prevent their victims’ from exercising their rights to secure meaningful appellate remedy, which collusion will continue indefinitely unless the requested declaratory judgments issue? Suggested declaration: Affirmative.
Please review the Docket Sheet, below, which contains links to all the documents filed in this case. I think you will find the same pattern of judicial misconduct in this case as has been evident in all other lawsuits.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia