In response to my December 9, 2015 pleading to the Court, entitled “Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes“, Department of Justice attorneys Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper and Ryan McMonagle filed, on December 18th, a document entitled “United States’ Motion to Strike Improper Surreply and Memorandum in Opposition to Motion To Resolve Fact Disputes“.

See Document 011 at the following link: (9 pages 1.3MB)

http://www.ram-v-irs.com/CV-Docs/011-20151218-DoJ-Motion-to-Strike-Improper-Surreply-and-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Resolve-Fact-Disputes.pdf

As before, they failed to address any of the core factual issues of this case, opening with this statement:

The United States, in response to Plaintiff’s purported “Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes”, respectfully moves the Court for an order: 1) striking the Motion as an improper surreply filed without leave of court, or 2) in the alternative, denying Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing, or delaying consideration of the Motion pending the Court’s ruling on the United States’ motion to dismiss.”

It is clear the DoJ attorneys have no defense for the massive fraud committed by the IRS against millions of so-called “non-filers”, and are doing everything in their power to persuade the Judge to dismiss the case.

DoJ continues to pin its hopes of doing so on the Anti-Injunction Act, by stating the following:

Moreover, the sole inquiry under the Anti-Injunction Act is whether the plaintiff seeks to enjoin assessment or collections activities. If the preparation of a substitute return or the entry of a transaction code stating that a substitute return has been prepared are assessment or collections activities, then the Anti-Injunction Act bars an action to enjoin those activities, period. See generally Murphy v. I.R.S., 493 F.3d 170, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (noting “Congress has preserved the immunity of the United States from declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to all tax controversies except those pertaining to the classification of organizations under § 501(c) of the IRC.”)  …..Plaintiff’s oft-repeated claim that the IRS’s conduct is ‘illegal’ or ‘criminal’ is simply a red herring.”

Of course, they also couldn’t resist an ad hominem attack, even while purporting to educate me on the proper way to resolve a tax dispute:

That is not to say that Plaintiff would be without legal recourse if his totally fanciful conspiracy were true. Again, Congress has authorized taxpayers to bring refund suits in district court under 26 U.S.C. § 7422, as long as they pay the disputed tax first. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the rule is ‘pay first, and litigate later.’ Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958). Congress has not, however, authorized Plaintiff or anyone else to refuse to pay taxes and bring suits to enjoin subsequent assessment and collections activities by the IRS because they think those activities are criminal.”

However fanciful Ms. Ciraolo-Klepper and Mr. McMonagle believe this case to be,  the basis of my Anti-Injunction Act argument continues to be this: since the assessment of the income tax for a so-called “non-filer” is based on falsified and fraudulently prepared documents (a criminal violation), the Anti-Injunction Act cannot shield ANY government employee, or agency, from criminal acts, and, therefore, is “inapposite” (not apt or pertinent).

It is a testament to the corruption of our judicial system that the U.S. Department of Justice attorneys believe it does, and, further, that any law could.

Regarding DoJ’s allegation that my December 9th “Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes” is an improper surreply filed without leave of court, I say it is not, and was never intended to be.

Surreply is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed.  DoJ claims its November 30th “United States’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss” ended the briefing period.

That may have been true, but, in that document, DoJ continued to misstate the allegations in my Original Complaint and engage in ad hominem attacks.  I wasn’t about to let those actions stand.

In my Original Complaint, I attached Exhibit H, which is a copy of Notice of Federal Tax Lien, Serial Number 960767813, allegedly prepared and signed at Nashville, Tennessee on September 12, 2013 by “M. Cox” for “G. J. Carter-Louis”.

The “new documents”, about which DoJ complains, are directly related to Exhibit H.  By way of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated August 24, 2014, I requested Cox’s full name, full and complete IRS title, and the service center/department where Cox is currently employed and can be contacted.  Similar information was requested for Carter-Louis.  In addition, I requested Cox’s September 2013 calendar, expense account, airline receipts, hotel receipts, and other documentation verifying that he/she actually traveled to Nashville, Tennessee on Thursday, September 12, 2013 to sign the Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NOFTL) and traveled back to the Cincinnati office to sign the cover letter on Tuesday, September 24, 2013.

In a letter, dated October 21, 2014, I received a response to my FOIA request from Diana H. Church, Disclosure Manager, Disclosure Office 08, in which she stated  Michael W. Cox and Gwenda J. Carter-Louis are both Program Managers, based in Covington, Kentucky.  In response to my request for Cox’s expense account information for his 542 mile round trip to Nashville, she stated “I found no records responsive to this portion of your request.

Why would the IRS enter false information on the front of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, if not to add another layer of deception and concealment to their multi-layered scheme?

Finally, DoJ attempts, unconvincingly, to persuade the Court that IRS actually DOES prepare income tax returns pursuant to 26 USC 6020(b), when I provided clear evidence that it DOES NOT.  In response to my FOIA, it could not produce a copy of the “Substitute For Return” (SFR), allegedly received on July 23, 2008 and identified in my Individual Master File (IMF) by Document Locator Number (DLN)  49210-888-00000-8.

Why does the DoJ claim the IRS prepared an income tax return on my behalf, pursuant to 26 USC 6020(b), when the IRS cannot produce a copy of it?

By now, I hope you are gaining an appreciation for the purpose of this lawsuit, which is to stop the criminal activities of the IRS, as they relate to so-called “non-filers”.

The corruption and collusion run deep.  The outcome is uncertain, and depends on whether the Judge adheres to her Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and provide a judicial environment where objectivity, fairness, and due process prevail.

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

p.s. ~ To “rgarriss” and snelson, who submitted comments about my last pleading (Doc 010), and that it lacked “Motion to Set” in the title and the body, please know that I appreciate your comments and took them to heart.  Stay tuned for Doc 012, which was filed with the Court on December 28, 2015, and will be the topic of my next blog.

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 Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 7:03 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.

Leave a reply

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