30
Aug

An Update on Exciting New Developments

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in 115-cv-01288, IRS

 

I once overheard an old World War II bomber pilot say this about enemy anti-aircraft fire, “The flak is heaviest when you’re right over the target.

Judging from recent events, that’s where I am now, and where I want to be…..right over the target.

In 1968, as a 19 year-old Vietnam era Marine Corps private, I pledged to give my life in service to my country for the cause of liberty.  Today, almost fifty (50) years later, that pledge means as much to me as it did then.  Now, as a 67 year-old father, grandfather and 21st Century American Revolutionary, I also pledge my fortune, which is under assault by the Internal Revenue Service, who is taking direct action to impoverish me (see Item 6, below).  In the face of all this, my sacred honor remains intact and I will never allow it to be stripped from me by anyone, anytime, for any reason.

Since my last blog on August 4, 2016, several exciting new developments have occurred in my case and others, so, to bring everyone up to date, this will be a fairly long blog, but, it is of national importance.

Please give it your undivided attention.

To begin, I give thanks to a loving God who provides wisdom, guidance, protection, and power, as I, and the other courageous Plaintiffs, stand steadfastly on the front lines in this battle against fraud, corruption, and collusion in the Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government.  With Him at our side, this mountain we face is no more than a grain of sand.

I also give thanks to each of you who are subscribers to this website.  You play an important role in the coming revolution by educating yourselves and sharing your knowledge, these blogs, and all documents on this website, with everyone you know.  There is nothing for sale here.  The documents you see consist of my personal correspondence, as well as court filings that are a matter of public record.  As such, you are free to download and disseminate any document you choose.

The outcome of these cases determines if “We the People” will continue to live as fearful, economic slaves to our 100+ year-old, complex, corrupt, progressive, and oppressive income tax system, or as free Americans, funding a limited Federal government according to the original taxing clauses found in Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers intended.

As I mentioned before, and will repeat again, my case is not a tax case, but, like the others listed below, is a case alleging the commission of crimes by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice in the enforcement of the income tax code against millions of innocent Americans it labels “non-filers”.  With specificity and particularity, each case presents clear and convincing evidence of violations of the Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as violations of Federal law, i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (falsification of federal records) and 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony).

We are in uncharted territory here, as these are cases of “first impression”, which means the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court’s jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_impression

Having said all that, let’s get started on the update.

The following is a list of the new developments, and my comments on each:

  1. Welcome New Readers
  2. Status of Cases Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  3. Declaration with Evidence of IRS’ Institutionalized Record Falsification Program
  4. Department of Justice Response to 1:16-cv-01053-TSC Crumpacker v Commissioner, IRS, et al.
  5. Department of Justice Counterclaim in its Response to 1:16-cv-01053-TSC Crumpacker v Commissioner, IRS, et al.
  6. IRS Notice of Levy Against Robert A. McNeil
  7. Donations

Welcome New Readers

Although they are not subscribers, I would like to welcome three (3) new readers to my website:

Mr. Channing D. Phillips
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.

Ms. Caroline D. Ciraolo-Klepper
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General – Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Ryan O. McMonagle
Trial Attorney – Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

I know they are reading this website because, in Item 5., above, Mr. McMonagle extracted and inserted quotes from my blogs, and also inserted multiple links to my website into his Counterclaim related to 1:16-cv-01053-TSC Crumpacker v Commissioner, IRS, et al.  I discuss the contents and the implications of the Counterclaim, below.

Mr. Phillips’, Ms. Ciraolo-Klepper’s and Mr. McMonagle’s names appear on the last page of the Counterclaim.

Status of Cases Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The TENTH Plaintiff has filed her case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging damages from IRS fraud, in a similar fashion as all the other Plaintiffs.

Here is a list of the cases filed to date, and the current status of each:

  1. Ellis v. Commissioner, et al.  1:14-CV-0471 (ABJ) – Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Dismissed/Appealed/Dismissed/Needs Funds for Appeal to Supreme Court)
  2. McNeil v. Commissioner, et al.  1:15-CV-1288 (CKK) – Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Dismissed/Appealed/Docketed on August 11, 2016 in U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C. Case No. 16-5233/Brief on Appeal due September 12, 2016)  NOTE: To help keep things organized, all documents pertaining to my appeal will be posted to this website on the page entitled “16-5233 Appeal”
  3. DePolo v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al.  1:15-CV-2039 (RMC) – Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (Dismissed/Rule 59 Motion Filed)
  4. Ellis v. Jarvis, et al.  1:16-CV-0031 (JEB) – Assigned to Judge James E. Boasberg (Dismissed/Appealed/Docketed for Appeal: Case #16-5219/Appeal docs mailed August 27, 2016)
  5. Dwaileebe v. Martineau, et al.  1:16-CV-0420 (CRC) – Assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper (Active/Motion to Judicially Notice + McNeil Declaration of IRS’ Institutionalized Record Falsification Program” filed by Plaintiff on August 20, 2016)
  6. Ellis v. Langer, et al.  1:16-CV-0729 (JEB) – Assigned to Judge James E. Boasberg (Dismissed  May 23, 2016/Appealed/Brief on Appeal due September 12, 2016)
  7. Crumpacker v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al.  1:16-CV-1053 (TSC) – Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkin (Active/DoJ filed Answer and Counterclaim on August 15, 2016)
  8. Morris v. McMonagle, et al.  1:16-CV-1384 (CKK) – Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Active)
  9. McGarvin v. McMonagle, et al.  1:16-CV-1458 (EGS) – Assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Active)
  10. Podgorny v McMonagle, et al. 1:15-CV-____ – Mailed to the Court Clerk on August 25, 2016 – Waiting to be assigned a Case Number and a Judge

As you can see, in addition to the IRS Commissioner and U.S. Attorney General (in their official capacities), the most recent Plaintiffs have begun suing DoJ attorneys and Federal court clerks in their personal capacities, for concealing the fraud (misprision of felony).

There are more Plaintiffs in the queue waiting to file their cases, and other Americans, similarly harmed, are welcomed to join the Class.

Contact me here, if you are interested in doing so.

Declaration with Evidence of IRS’ Institutionalized Record Falsification Program

As a retired Forensic Accountant/Auditor, I assist each Plaintiff by examining their documents, such as the Individual Master File (IMF), Account Transcript, IRS-prepared Forms 13496 and 4549, IRS letters, Notice of Deficiency, Notice of Federal Tax Lien, Notice of Levy, etc.  I then organize the relevant documents into “Exhibits A, B, C, D…..” which serve as the evidence that will support the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint.

After I organize the evidence, I prepare a “Declaration and Forensic Analysis of Evidence“, on behalf of the Plaintiff, which details my findings and conclusions for each document, based on my examination.

When a Plaintiff files his/her lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, these are the documents filed, comprising what is known as the “Original Complaint Package“:

  1. Original Complaint
  2. Declaration and Forensic Analysis of Evidence
  3. Exhibits A, B, C, D…..(the Evidence)
  4. Declaration with Evidence of IRS’ Institutionalized Record Falsification Program

Item 4,  entitled “Declaration with Evidence of IRS’ Institutionalized Record Falsification Program” is a fairly new document that I first wrote in July 2016.

This Declaration, which is updated, attached to, and filed with each new case, is a powerful document that summarizes the fraud and provides evidence to the Court showing how each Plaintiff was damaged in the identical manner by the IRS’ systemic and, therefore, institutionalized record falsification scheme.  The “evidence” provided with this Declaration is typically the first page of each Plaintiff’s Individual Master File (IMF), which clearly demonstrates how the fraud begins.

In addition to the evidence the Judge will see in the case before him/her, detailing how his/her particular Plaintiff was damaged by the fraud, he/she will also see “the big picture”, that is, how EVERY Plaintiff was similarly damaged.  I believe this Declaration will make it more difficult for the Judge to dismiss the case at Bar when he/she sees that the fraud is not an isolated incident.

Here is a link to the latest version of this powerful Declaration:  http://www.ram-v-irs.com/scanned_docs/RAM-310.pdf

Department of Justice Response to 1:16-cv-01053-TSC Crumpacker v Commissioner, IRS, et al.

In all previous cases, the first response by the Department of Justice (DoJ) attorneys has been a “Motion to Dismiss”, citing 1) lack of jurisdiction per 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (the 1867 Tax Anti-Injunction Act), 2) lack of Plaintiff’s “standing” to bring the suit, and 3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In Crumpacker v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al.  1:16-CV-1053 (TSC), for the first time, the DoJ responded with a sixteen (16) page “Answer and Counterclaim“.  The “Answer”, covering pages 1 thru 7 of the document, consists primarily of denials and/or partial admissions of the fifty-two (52) paragraphs of Mr. Crumpacker’s allegations in his Original Complaint.  The DoJ gave no reasons for denying any of the allegations.

Michael Ellis and I believe this is VERY good news, because, this opens a door that was previously closed to all other Plaintiffs, when, in those cases, the Judges granted the DoJ’s Motions to Dismiss.  In this case, however, the DoJ’s denials create “fact controversies” which must now be resolved by the Court.

In the next few days, we will be assisting Mr. Crumpacker with his response.  I will blog about, and post, that document when it has been filed with the Court.

Department of Justice Counterclaim in its Response to 1:16-cv-01053-TSC Crumpacker v Commissioner, IRS, et al.

The second half of the DoJ’s “Answer” in Crumpacker contains the Counterclaim, which provides clear evidence that I am “right over the target”.

In the middle of Page 7 you will find the heading entitled “COUNTERCLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST MARK CRUMPACKER, MICHAEL B. ELLIS, AND ROBERT A. MCNEIL“.

DoJ begins with:

“The United States of America, as the proper defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, brings this counterclaim to:

Permanently enjoin Mark Crumpacker, Michael B. Ellis, and Robert McNeil from filing any action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia without obtaining prior leave from the court, and from assisting in filing, or inciting others to file, any further frivolous actions in this District without obtaining prior leave from the court, which:

  • Assert or purport to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.) (the “APA”) challenging actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service in preparing to assess and assessing income tax liabilities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020; and/or
  • Assert or purport to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or the APA challenging actions taken by the Department of Justice to defend against the suits described above and/or collect income tax liabilities.”

Per Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “enjoin” means “to legally prohibit or restrain by injunction.”

In addition, Black’s defines “frivolous” as “lacking a legal basis or legal merit;  not serious; not reasonably purposeful”.

Yes, the DoJ is trying to stop Michael and me from assisting Plaintiffs in filing their cases alleging fraud committed by the IRS and DoJ.

But, as Mr. McMonagle knows, or should know, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia publishes a Pro Se NON-PRISONER Handbook on its website, describing such handbook as “Instructions for filing a civil action on your own behalf”.  In Section I.B.b., it states “As a pro se litigant, you may not authorize another person who is not an attorney to appear for you.  While you may receive help from other non-attorneys in drafting your pleadings and other papers, you must personally sign your complaint and all additional papers filed with the court……”.

It is apparent Mr. McMonagle is asking the court to prohibit an act that the Court, itself, authorizes, which seems rather “frivolous”, on its face.

Further, on Page 8, paragraphs 53 and 54, the DoJ states:

  1. “Jurisdiction is conferred on the Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1340 and 1345, and 26 U.S.C. § 7402.”
  2. “Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Government’s claim for an injunction and other relief occurred in this judicial district.”

Curiously, this directly contradicts the DoJ’s statement, in all prior cases, that the Court lacks jurisdiction.

With the full approval of his superiors, Mr. Phillips and Ms. Ciraolo-Klepper, and in an attempt to solidify the points made in his counterclaim, DoJ attorney McMonagle makes a series of factually inaccurate statements, committing “fraud on the Court”, in the process.  This is a very serious act and could result in a series of ethics complaints before the BAR(s) where he is licensed to practice law, possibly leading to his disbarment.

Here is one example on Page 8, under the heading “DEFENDANTS’ FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS“:

58. “Counterclaim defendant Michael B. Ellis filed the action styled Ellis v. Commissioner, 1:14-cv-0471, on March 19, 2014, pro se, alleging that the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice violated the Fifth Amendment and the APA by engaging in a “criminally fraudulent scheme.” According to that suit, the IRS generates a “fraudulent” and “falsified” substitute for returns in order to assess federal income tax liabilities from individuals who do not file their legally-required federal income tax returns, and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) purportedly is complicit in that scheme by relying on those “falsified” returns in litigation and criminal prosecutions against those nonfilers. Ellis v. Comm’r, 67 F. Supp. 3d 325, 328 (D.D.C. 2014).”

FALSE!

The gravamen (the essence of the complaint) in all these cases, and what the evidence consistently proves, is that the IRS NEVER generates a “Substitute For Return” (SFR) for those its labels “non-filers”, but, falsifies its records to make it appear a Form 1040A was prepared, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  And, the DoJ NEVER uses a non-existent 1040A SFR in litigation and criminal prosecutions against “non-filers”, because it uses Forms 13496 and 4549 as a “certified return”, allegedly authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b), when this statute applies only to excise, employment and partnership taxes….not the income tax.

McMonagle continues his falsehoods though paragraph 66, but, for the first time, references this website, as follows:

67.  “McNeil and Ellis regularly and publicly boast about the flood of frivolous lawsuits that they have encouraged on McNeil’s blog: http://www.ram-v-irs.com“.

Further:

70.  As a result of Ellis and McNeil’s actions, the IRS, the DOJ, and the District Court have been inundated with duplicative and facially frivolous lawsuits. Ellis and McNeil have, in turn, made clear that they have no intention of ceasing their activities, no matter how many courts dismiss these suits on the same exact grounds.  [McNeil Note: No Court has ruled on the merits of any case.]

71.  Plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Crumpacker has filed precisely the type of suit encouraged by Ellis and McNeil, and admits in his Complaint that no court has agreed with the claims he purports to assert, and that he is precluded from receiving any legal relief.  [McNeil Note: Crumpacker admitted no such thing and no Court has ruled on the merits of any case.  DoJ has consistently mischaracterized the Courts’ dismissals under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act as “claims preclusive precedent”.]

72.  As a result of these constant frivolous filings, the IRS and DOJ must divert their enforcement resources to fighting myriad meritless civil actions that have no chance of success. This interferes with – and indeed is intended to interfere with – the United States’ ability to enforce the internal revenue laws.  [McNeil Note: Another example of fraud on the court.  The intent of these cases is to enjoin the commission of crimes by the IRS and DoJ in the enforcement of the internal revenue laws….period.]

73.  Unless the Court enjoins Ellis, McNeil, and Crumpacker, and those acting in concert with them or at their direction, from filing lawsuits without prior leave from the court, the interference with the IRS’s ability to enforce the Internal Revenue Laws will increase in volume and intensity.  [McNeil Note: The intent of these cases is to enjoin the commission of crimes in the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.  Until that happens, you bet the number of cases will increase in volume and intensity as more Americans join the Class.]

Fast forward now to Page 13 and the heading entitled “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE”

74.  Counterclaim defendants Ellis, McNeil, and Crumpacker (the “Counterclaim Defendants”) have all knowingly filed actions that are factually frivolous, without any legal basis, and duplicative of each other.

75.  When the Counterclaim Defendants filed these actions, they knew or had reason to know that their lawsuits asserted claims that were not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for modifying the existing law.

76.  When the Counterclaim Defendants filed their actions, they knew that their factual claims lack evidentiary support.

77.  The Counterclaim Defendants have filed these actions for the express purpose of burdening the IRS, DOJ, and the courts with their frivolous claims, and not for any proper purpose.

78.  Counterclaim defendants McNeil and Ellis have each filed multiple frivolous motions, pleadings, and appeals in their respective actions, with the full knowledge that their pleadings were legally insufficient as a matter of law.

79.  Counterclaim defendants McNeil and Ellis have publicly encouraged others to file identical, frivolous lawsuits, and have assisted in those lawsuits by preparing supporting documents such as affidavits that are filed with the initial pleadings.

80.  The Court may make any order or injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7402 that is necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.

81.   The Counterclaim Defendants’ frivolous lawsuits, and their encouragement of a multiplicity of additional frivolous lawsuits, has interfered with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.

82.  The requested injunction, barring Counterclaim Defendants and anyone acting at their direction or in concert with them from filing the specific type of legal challenge at issue in this case without obtaining prior leave from the court, is necessary for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.

83.  There is a likelihood of irreparable harm if Counterclaim Defendants and their followers can continue to file yet more lawsuits without prior leave. Counterclaim Defendants’ civil actions burden the courts, force the IRS and DOJ to expend scarce federal resources in defending against them, and interfere with the individually-named defendants’ ability to properly perform their duties.

84.  The balance of harms favors the United States. The requested injunction would not deprive Counterclaim Defendants of access to the courts, or even the ability to file a complaint, but would only require them to seek and obtain prior leave from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before filing complaints in this District that assert challenges to the process of creating returns under 26 U.S.C. § 6020.

85.  The requested injunction would serve the public interest by preventing facially frivolous lawsuits from being entered onto the dockets of the courts of this District, as well preventing the IRS and DOJ from being forced to divert resources away from tax administration and enforcement efforts in order to defend a multiplicity of frivolous lawsuits.

WHEREFORE, the United States prays for the following relief:

A.  That the Court find that Michael B. Ellis, Robert A. McNeil, and Mark Crumpacker have filed frivolous lawsuits in this District: Ellis v. Commissioner, McNeil v. Commissioner, DePolo v. Commissioner, and Crumpacker v. Ciraolo;

B.  That the Court find that Michael B. Ellis and Robert A. McNeil have continually and repeatedly encouraged others to file – and participated in– additional frivolous lawsuits in this District;

C.  That the Court find that Michael B. Ellis, Robert A. McNeil and Mark Crumpacker have engaged in conduct that interferes with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and that injunctive relief against Ellis, McNeil, and Crumpacker is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of that conduct pursuant to the Court’s inherent equity power and 26 U.S.C. § 7402;

D.  That the Court, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 enter a permanent injunction barring Michael B. Ellis, Robert McNeil, and Mark Crumpacker, from filing any suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia without obtaining prior leave from the court;

E.  That the Court, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 enter a permanent injunction barring Michael B. Ellis, Robert A. McNeil, and Mark Crumpacker, from assisting in filing, or encouraging others to file, any further civil actions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, without obtaining prior leave from the court, which:

  1.  Asserts or purport to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or Administrative Procedure Act challenging actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service in preparing to assess and assessing income tax liabilities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020; and/or

2.  Asserts or purport to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or Administrative Procedure Act challenging actions taken by the Department of Justice to collect income tax liabilities assessed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020;

F.  That the Court order that Michael B. Ellis and Robert A. McNeil provide written notice of the entry of a permanent injunction in this action by posting the injunction on their website: http://www.ram-v-irs.com, for a continuous period of five years;

G.  That the Court order such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

[McNeil Note: It is clear the DoJ cannot defend the IRS Commissioner, U.S. Attorney General, and the other named Defendants against our claims of fraud, and are relying now on the Courts themselves to shut down the filing of any new cases.  Over the next few days, we will be working to draft a response that will prevent that from happening.]

IRS Notice of Levy Against Robert A. McNeil

The Crumpacker “Answer and Counterclaim” was filed with the Court on August 15, 2016.  Two days later, on August 17th, I received a “Notice of Levy” from Houston, Texas based Revenue Officer, Anubhav Bagga.  The Notice alleges that I have a balance due of $267,100.89 for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008.  Of course, since this amount was created by fraud, I claim I owe zero.

The Notice was sent to my bank, which says that, after 21 days (September 6, 2016), it will send to the IRS the balance in my account on August 17th, which was $753.00.  On August, 22nd, I went to the bank and had a meeting with one of the bank managers, but, while she was sympathetic to my plight, she was just “doing what she was told to do.”  “Nobody likes paying taxes”, she said.  “But, it’s something we all have to do, and the bank just isn’t going to refuse to do what the IRS says.”

When I returned home, I wrote a letter to the bank’s President/Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial Officer, and copied the IRS Revenue Officer.  In that letter I served them NOTICE and evidence that:

1) I have an active case in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.;

2) There is no perfected lien or levy recorded in the public record at the county or state level here in Texas;

3) The Notice of Levy alleges I owe a “Type of Tax – 1040” that doesn’t exist in the statutes;

4) The Notice is defective, and deceptive, because, on the reverse side it begins with “Sec. 6331 Levy and Distraint – (b) Seizure and Sale of Property”.  But, what does a) say?;

5) 26 USC §6331 (a) Authority of the Secretary states “Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.”;

6) I am not now, nor have I ever been, an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, and;

7) The Notice lacks a Jurat and Anubhav Bagga, IRS Revenue Officer, failed to swear, under penalty of perjury, that the contents of the “Notice” are true.

I closed the letter by requesting the bank executives verify with the Harris County Clerk and the Texas Secretary of State that a perfected IRS lien or levy, against me, exists in the public record.

On Monday, August 29, I received a reply to my letter from the President/Chief Executive Officer, the Executive Vice-President/Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial Officer of Lone Star Capital Bank.  You can read the one-page letter yourself, but, it ends with the following paragraph:

“We acknowledge that you have a dispute with the IRS, but Lone Star Capital Bank is not involved in that dispute.  The bank has no basis to contest the levy, and we will adhere to its requirements.”

So, there you have it.  Even when given clear evidence of fraud, this financial institution will capitulate to the IRS’ demands and hand over my property without even making an effort to verify its existence in the public record.

Donations

While the IRS/DoJ fraud occurs in the same manner, it manifests itself differently in the lives of each Plaintiff.  Some have had their wages garnished to the point of receiving a $0.00 paycheck for months.  Some have had their bank accounts, trust funds, Social Security and pension payments looted, their businesses destroyed, and their homes seized and sold at public auction, all for a non-existent debt that was created by fraud.

In every case, Michael and I spend days, nights, weekends, and holidays assisting each Plaintiff with his/her case, preparing the Original Complaint, organizing the evidence, and putting together two (2) Declarations to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  I provide specific instructions to ensure a successful filing.  When a case is dismissed in District Court, we also assist each Plaintiff in the preparation of his/her case for filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, requiring additional expenditure of time and effort.

This is a labor of love and we do not charge one penny for our assistance, but, time is an irreplaceable asset and our knowledge and experience provides value to our Plaintiffs, and, if we prevail in the Courts, will provide liberty and prosperity to ALL Americans at the level our ancestors enjoyed.

Michael has a family of seven people to support and every minute spent on these cases is one minute less time spent on work and with his family.

Although I am retired now, I am living on 75% less money than in 2015, when my 20-year oil & gas consulting practice was destroyed by the drop in price of oil from $100.00 per barrel to $50.00.  That was good for the price of gasoline at the pump, but devastating for everyone in that industry.

Having said all that, I humble asking each of you to search your heart, and pocketbook, and make a monetary donation to the cause of liberty.  No amount is too small, and will be appreciated more than you know.

If you are so moved, please contact me here for instructions.

Conclusion

It is important for every American to understand that most of the loss of liberty we are experiencing today began with laws passed by Congress over the last 100 years, and are being perpetuated today by the very people we elected to represent our interests, but who are failing to do so.

The Internal Revenue Code consists of more than 75,000 pages and is so complex that no American can possible know what is in it, or, more importantly, when they are violating a provision of it.  This provides the ideal environment for tyranny and oppression to flourish, the examples of which we present in these cases.

“We the People” will never be truly free until both the corporate and individual income taxes are eliminated and the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is repealed.  My case, and the others, clear the way for those events to happen.

Should we prevail, it will mean the end of the suffering experienced by millions of so-called “non-filers” at the hands of the IRS.  It will also mean the door is open for millions of Americans to participate, without fear of harm, in the coming “21st Century American Revolution“, which is a good, old-fashioned tax revolt.

We are the rightful masters of ALL levels of government, and we can put this out-of-control Federal government back into its Constitutional box by simply de-funding it and, in the process, creating a smaller, more efficient government built on the solid, everlasting foundation of the Constitution, sound accounting principles, and economic law.

Please continue to educate yourselves about the fraud being committed every day by the IRS and DoJ in the enforcement of the income tax, and spread this website to all of your social media outlets.

Do it so you, your family, and future generations of Americans can begin to live at the level of liberty and prosperity the Founding Fathers intended.

Thank you.

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 Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 4:00 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.

2 comments so far

G S Smith
 1 

There is nothing exciting going on, unless you work for DOJ. They will get an injunction and then they will move for dismissal. If you do not move for dismissal of the counterclaim, it will be over very quickly. How exactly can DOJ move for judicial review absent a final agency order? I do not like your chances asthe facts are immaterial.

September 23rd, 2016 at 6:53 pm
Marie
 2 

Bob, I found that the IRS is REQUIRED to obtain a COURT ORDER for a bank levy under Title 26 USC 6332(c) Special rule for banks:
Any bank (as defined in section 408(n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

HOWEVER, a friend experienced the IRS issue a bank levy order and I notified them of this section. They then notified the bank’s corporate office of IRC 6332(c). The bank responded in writing that my friend WAIVED this right on the SIGNATURE CARD fine print (bank included the signed copy). This is how the IRS is easily able to take property from our bank accounts. The banks are complicit because they KNOW but do not point this out when bombarding us with the docs we must sign to open bank accounts.

Our remedy is to simply amend the original contract with the bank. Or close that account and open a new account striking through what we don’t agree to waive our rights.

November 9th, 2016 at 3:34 pm

Leave a reply

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