Archive for December, 2015

Representing myself, Pro se, can be quite challenging and a little unnerving at times, but, I have experience in Tax Court (2006), Federal District Court in Houston, Texas (2008), and now, in my current case, in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia (August 2015).

In this case, I am blessed to have Michael Ellis as an advisor.  Michael has amazing legal research and writing skills, extensive knowledge of court procedures, and is a skilled legal strategist.  We make a great team!

And, of course, knowing we are under God’s protection helps lessen the stress and boosts our confidence as we continue on offense.  After all, that’s what Plaintiff’s do.  Always push the case forward.

So, that’s what I did on December 9, 2015, when I filed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes” (52 pages 5.3MB).  Here is the link to that document on my website:

http://www.ram-v-irs.com/CV-Docs/010-20151209-McNeil-USDC-Motion-to-Resolve-Fact-Disputes.pdf

In the Motion, I request the Court to do two things:

First Resolve two fact controversies: (1.) whether IRS actually performs substitute income tax returns at all, or, as Plaintiff complains, IRS falsifies its records to infer substitute income tax returns are executed (on certain dates) shown in an IMF, then commits multiple “illegal” and criminal steps to conceal the initial fraud, and (2.) whether, and why, the DoJ, in its Memorandum, contradicts multiple published claims by the Defendant Commissioner that 6020(b) provides authority to perform substitute returns only in “excise, employment and partnership matters”, due to “constitutional issues”,

Second: if the Court finds, as it should, that IRS commits both “illegal” acts, and acts Congress has explicitly recognized as criminal (falsifying federal records), while enforcing the income tax on “non-filers”, the Court is requested to make the purely legal determination of whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) strips courts of the ability to hear complaints the IRS commits CRIMINAL acts in a surreptitious scheme to create the appearance of liabilities owed the Treasury, and deceive United States courts.

The motion requests an evidentiary hearing, with IRS employees as witnesses to be examined under oath.  In addition to the SFR fraud, I discovered another layer of fraud IRS commits in the preparation of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien.  I want to examine the employee(s) who allegedly prepared the NOFTL.  As evidence, I retrieved two documents from my extensive correspondence library and attached them to the Motion as Exhibit L and Exhibit M.

In one respect, this is a case of first impression.

Merely illegal acts by the IRS are shielded by the AIA; but there has never been a legal determination that acts by IRS, which Congress has made criminal, are shielded by the AIA.  Since the sequence of acts IRS commits in enforcing the income tax are either merely illegal, or illegal and also crimes Congress has explicitly recognized, i.e.: falsifying federal records, and knowing use thereof, the Court is required to make the purely legal determination whether the AIA has application to both types of acts.

It was only recently that I truly grasped the enormity of this case.  Think about it.  It is clear the IRS falsifies records and knowingly uses them to enforce the income tax against so-called “non-filers”.  If the Court rules the AIA does NOT shield them from these criminal acts, and enjoins (stops) the fraudulent enforcement scheme, the IRS’ entire enforcement mechanism against “non-filers” collapses.

I have heard many ordinary Americans say, “I’d like to send a strong message to Congress that I’m sick and tired of the waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington, D.C.  I wish I could just stop paying income taxes, but, I’m afraid of what the IRS will do to me.”

Imagine the economic boom that would take place if ALL working Americans changed their Form W-4 to read “EXEMPT” and began bringing home the 15% to 39% of their pay currently being confiscated and sent to the IRS.

W-4 Form - EXEMPT

And, imagine the revolution in this country when hundreds of millions of Americans rise up and say to Washington, D.C. “We will not comply!” by refusing to file tax returns.  There aren’t enough lawyers and courts in the world to prosecute all the “non-filers”.  And, even if they tried, this case will have removed the IRS’ ability to use the falsified documents in the prosecution.

The Judge’s ruling on the Motion will determine what happens next.

Stay tuned.

In liberty,

Bob McNeil
21st Century American Revolutionary
Founder/President – American Citizen Party

Bob McNeil For President -150 x 147

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, the “Safe Harbor Letter” and “Opposition to DoJ Motion to Dismiss” I sent to the DoJ had one desired effect.  Ms. Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper and Mr. Ryan McMonagle responded before the December 4th deadline with a document entitled “United States’ Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss”.

See Document 009 at the following link: (9 pages 594kb)

http://www.ram-v-irs.com/CV-Docs/009-20151130-DoJ-United-States-Reply-Memorandum-In-Support-Of-Motion-To-Dismiss.pdf

As expected, they failed to address any of the core factual issues of this case and opened with this statement in the “Introduction”:

“Once the Opposition’s inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks are stripped away, very little remains for discussion. The plaintiff does not present any legal authority that would allow him to challenge the IRS’s preparation of returns or the use of such returns in proceedings to collect taxes. The plaintiff does not show that he has standing to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes from him. Nor does the plaintiff identify any legal authority lending even an iota of legitimacy to his constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Most importantly, neither the Opposition nor the Complaint establishes any facts showing that the IRS violated the law in any way.”

Further, in the “Argument” section, they state this:

“This action must be dismissed for two reasons: (1) the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims because the injunctive relief he seeks is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, and he lacks standing; and (2) the plaintiff cannot state plausible claims under the Fifth Amendment or the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiff has not meaningfully opposed either point.”

For your information, the Anti-Injunction Act, written and passed by the very people we elected to represent us in the House and Senate, withdraws jurisdiction from the Courts to hear a lawsuit of this nature because it is a suit “for the purpose of restraining the assessment of a tax”.

According to the DoJ, if a plaintiff seeks to challenge the “lawfulness” of the tax assessments, he has one option: he must pay the disputed tax, file a refund claim, and sue in Court for a refund under 26 U.S.C. § 7422.

However, since the assessment of the income tax for a “non-filer” is based on falsified and fraudulently prepared documents (a criminal violation), my argument is that the Anti-Injunction Act cannot shield ANY government employee, or agency, from criminal acts, and, therefore, is “inapposite” (not apt or pertinent).

Ms. Ciraolo-Klepper and Mr. McGonagle go on to further obfuscate my claims, which is a continuation of their previously noted behavior, and will add more evidence when I file a “Motion for Sanctions”, up to, and including, disbarment.

Please read this latest document in its entirety and spread this blog far and wide.

No born-free American should live under this tyranny.

In liberty,

Bob McNeil
21st Century American Revolutionary
Founder/President – American Citizen Party

ACP-RAM-flag-small

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,