To begin, I want to thank all of you who are following this case, everyone who has offered kind words of support, and everyone who has offered various legal remedies.  This is the battle of my lifetime and I am fighting it on behalf of all Americans who suffer under the tyranny of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), so, please know that I appreciate all of you.

Next, it is important for everyone to understand that this is not a tax case.  It is a lawsuit seeking to enjoin 1) violations of criminal statutes by the IRS in the falsification of internal and public-facing documents related to the Substitute For Return (SFR) scheme, 2) the subsequent use of those falsified documents by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the prosecution of innocent Americans, and 3) the perpetration of fraud on the Courts.

From my April 21, 2016 blog, you know that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly dismissed my case on April 12, 2016, citing lack of jurisdiction because of the “Anti-Injunction Act“.

On May 2, 2016, I mailed to the Court my “Motion to Alter/Amend Dismissal and for Oral Argument with Brief in Support”.

Here is a link to Doc 016 (27 pages 616kb):

As the title suggests, the document consists of the “Motion” itself and the “Brief in Support”.

I am deeply indebted to Michael Ellis for his discovery of the excellent research and scholarship of Erin Morrow Hawley in her Article entitled The Equitable Anti-Injunction Act, Notre Dame Law Review, 2014, Volume 90:1, pg. 81.  That article forms the foundation of the Motion, and is properly referenced and cited at length in the Brief.

Here is the “Abstract” from Ms. Hawley’s article:

“The Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 (AIA or the Act) has never been more important. Originally enacted to expedite the collection of revenue-raising taxes, courts and scholars have for years assumed that the statute imposes a jurisdictional bar on any pre-enforcement challenge to a tax.  On this interpretation, taxpayers subject to an invalid tax have two choices only: comply or pay the tax and pursue a refund. Read this way, the Act is a marked departure from the general rule that pre-enforcement challenges are permissible so long as justiciability requirements are met.  And it imposes a marked burden on aggrieved taxpayers that grows all the more significant as the federal government regulates more and more activity through the tax code.

This Article argues that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Scholars—and courts—have too readily relied on the Supreme Court’s past permissive use of the term jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court has recently backed away from this jurisprudence, and more to the point, the traditional tools of statutory interpretation indicate that the AIA is not jurisdictional after all— at least, not in the traditional way.

This Article examines the text, structure, history, and early interpretation of the AIA and comes to a novel conclusion: the Act is not jurisdictional in the usual sense, but rather governs the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. While “equity jurisdiction” is now a term unfamiliar to us, it governed the exercise of extraordinary remedies like injunctions for over a century.  And it functioned much differently than jurisdiction does today. That the AIA refers to equity jurisdiction will change the landscape of tax litigation: contrary to the conventional wisdom, pre-enforcement tax challenges may go forward where the government waives or forfeits reliance on the AIA and in certain extraordinary circumstances.”

Here are a few excerpts from the Motion:

“Pursuant to Rule 59(e), Plaintiff respectfully submits for the Court’s candid consideration that it committed manifest error when holding that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) “strips” courts of jurisdiction in all cases related to the income tax.  The Court appears to have failed to account for its power founded in equity.”

“Equitable jurisdiction can be exercised when 1.) plaintiffs correctly relate exceptional or extraordinary facts, when 2.) no adequate remedy at law exists, 3.) when irreparable harm will result from failure of a Court to exercise that power, and when 4.) there is a 100% certainty a plaintiff will prevail.  If ever a case justified invocation of the Court’s equity jurisdiction, this one does.”

“The AIA is not the absolute barrier to suits such as the class action to which Plaintiff’s case belongs, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.  In fact, the traditional tools of statutory interpretation and holdings of the Supreme Court indicate the AIA is not “jurisdictional” at all, at least not in the traditional way held by this Court.  Equitable exceptions to the Act still exist, yet the Court inexplicably left its equity power unmentioned.”

The Brief in Support contains the following:

“To buttress Plaintiff’s claim that the Act did not “strip” courts of power to hear all causes related to assessment and collection of taxes, but merely conditioned the availability of equity to extraordinary circumstances such as those he and his Co-Class Representatives allege, Plaintiff will discuss (A.) his Class’s extraordinary factual allegations, (B.) the ground upon which the Court dismissed with its dispositive omissions, (C.) the Supreme Court’s recent retreat from the overly broad definition of “jurisdiction”, (D.) the text, structure and context of the 1867 enactment of the AIA, as well as early interpretations of the Act, and (E.) Supreme Court decisions proving equity still provides relief in extraordinary cases such as the Class presents.”

This case is one of national importance, potentially ending the IRS’ IMF/SFR record falsification scheme (which is a violation of 18 USC §1001 – falsifying government records), it’s subsequent concealment of IMF transaction codes (a violation of 18 USC §4 – misprision of felony), and the use of IRS’ falsified paper “certifications” by the fully complicit DoJ in criminal trials to prevent discovery by defendants, their counsel, their judges and juries of the underlying falsified IRS IMF records, and which certifications falsely claim multiple contradictory dates when an “SFR” was supposedly executed, although no substitute income tax return was ever executed (violations of both 18 USC §1001 and §4).

These violations of Federal criminal statutes have destroyed the lives of an untold number of Americans who have been classified by the IRS as so-called “non-filers”.  But, the end of tyranny is close at hand, I believe.

Please read the Motion and Brief in Support in order to fully understand the core issues of this case, and their larger implications, should the Court grant the Motion.

In liberty,

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

Bob McNeil For President -150 x 147

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

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 5:50 pm 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.

One comment


Bob, what’s the status of the case now? Are you appealing the dismissal?

May 6th, 2016 at 7:00 am

Leave a reply

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