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)

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


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

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 7:50 am and is filed under 115-cv-01288, IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 comments so far

Bill McGarvin

Hello! Bob, I want to thank you for your effort to expose the unlawful actions of wayward government agents .

I have battled them ( IRS ) for 35 years and have not had any success in the area of remedy in the “courts” .

I endured for three years receiving a paycheck with all 0000’s on them and much Real property stolen.

I am now looking at and their work in the area of the Unified Grand Jury ……whereas the Grand Jury issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to wayward government to come in and show just why your verified claims are invalid.

Of course they will not come in and now they are in Default. ( This procedure is expedient )

All of what NLA is doing in supported by what the Supreme Court has outlined as a remedy and NLA has the information on their website.

Please keep me informed of your case.

Let me know if you check out NLA……..Thanks, Bill

PS …..Most likely you know about the “Dr. Bailey case” in

Cal. and he also raises some of the issues you put forth in your pleadings. ( I have his pleadings if you want them )

December 11th, 2015 at 7:39 am
Bill McGarvin

If possible please keep this correspondence on the private side. Thanks, Bill

December 11th, 2015 at 7:41 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)