Although I haven’t posted a blog in awhile, rest assured there has been a lot of activity going on behind the scenes: filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court; moving six (6) consolidated cases through Appeals Court; filing a motion to alter or vacate the Order of permanent injunction against Michael Ellis and me; battling a rogue Magistrate Judge in cases 16-2313 & 17-00022; my trip from Texas to California to assist a Plaintiff in a court hearing; etc.

Instead of writing a lengthy post about all those events, I will address each of them in individual blogs at a later date.  This lengthy blog, however, will focus on the one case filed in California and the events leading up to my flight to Fresno in May 2017 to support a pro se Plaintiff during her initial court hearing.

Before I begin, though, it is important that I remind all of you of the reasons why Michael and I have filed, or assisted in the filing of, fourteen (14) cases in U.S. District Court.

At the heart of each case are these two allegations:

1. For so-called “non-filers”, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) falsifies its internal computer systems and public-facing records to reflect that it prepared a Substitute For Return (SFR) on certain claimed dates, when, in fact, no SFR is ever prepared on any date. When requested, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the IRS admits that it cannot produce that document because it doesn’t exist. Congress proscribed the falsification of Federal records as a felony at 18 U.S.C. §1001.

2. The IRS then uses those falsified records to create fraudulent income tax assessments and deficiencies, issue liens and levies, garnish wages, and seize the property of an untold number of innocent Americans. The Department of Justice (DoJ) attorneys use those falsified records, along with self-certifying documents to indict, prosecute, obtain convictions and imprison otherwise innocent Americans for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. Congress proscribed the use of falsified Federal records as Misprision of Felony at 18 U.S.C. §4

Since Congress cannot authorize a government employee to commit crimes to enforce any law, it follows that there is no lawful method for the IRS to enforce the income tax laws against so-called “non-filers”.  Therefore, Congress imposed no “duty” to file a tax return or pay income taxes.

DoJ attorneys have no defense against the record falsification scheme, so, they, along with Federal judges, must engage in Conspiracy to Defraud the United States by misstating our allegations to make it appear we are attempting to enjoin (stop) the IRS from preparing SFRs (when it never prepares SFRs at any time), thereby, bringing all our cases under the ambit of the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act to justify dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has proscribed Conspiracy to Defraud the United States as a crime at 18 U.S.C. §371.

The bottom line is this: To date, no court in America has adjudicated these allegations on their merits.

Having said all that, lets get on with the blog.

Melba Ford is a feisty, 80 year-old woman who has been battling the IRS for more than 25 years….. and she doesn’t back down from a fight. In September of 2016, Melba contacted me through my website and expressed an interest in filing a lawsuit. At that time, Michael and I had several irons in the fire, so, it was December until we had the opportunity to study her evidence in depth and assist her with her complaint.

Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, California

On January 10, 2017 she filed her Original Complaint, styled as Ford v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al, in the Clerk’s Office at the Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California – Fresno Division.






Dale A. Drozd


Her case was given Docket Number 1:17-cv-00034 and assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd.


Erica P. Grosjean





Judge Drozd then reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean (pronounced Grow-ZHAWN). Both Drozd and Grosjean were appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama. On January 12, 2017, Judge Drozd issued a “Standing Order” which set forth the ground rules for how the trial would proceed.

On February 10, 2017, however, before this case got underway, DoJ attorney Jonathan M. Hauck filed a “Complaint to Reduce Federal Tax Assessments to Judgment” against Melba. This complaint was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California – Fresno Division and was given Docket Number 1:17-cv-00187.   It was originally assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, who issued a “Standing Order” that same day.

On March 15, 2017, DoJ’s Hauck filed “United States’ Notice of Related Case” on the premise that there are “common factual and legal issues present in both actions. The United States believes the court should consider assigning the cases to one district court judge since it is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort and other economies.”

On March 20, 2017, Judge Drozd issued an “Order Relating and Reassigning Cases” stating “These actions involve the same or similar parties, properties, claims, events, and/or questions of fact or law. In addition, the currently assigned district and magistrate judges in the Ford II action have not engaged in that matter in any substantial way. Accordingly, assignment of the actions to the undersigned and to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean will promote efficiency and economy for the court and parties. An order relating cases under this court’s Local Rule 123 merely assigns them to the same district judge and magistrate judge, and does not consolidate the cases. Good cause appearing, the court orders that the Ford II action is reassigned to U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd and U.S. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. All documents filed in that action shall bear the new case number: 1:17-cv-00187-DAD-EPG“.

Shortly thereafter, on March 29, 2017, Magistrate Grosjean issued a “Minute Order” resetting the Scheduling Conference for both cases for 10:00am on May 31, 2017 in Courtroom 10 of the Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse in Fresno.

Now that the DoJ had succeeded in relating 17-cv-00034 and 17-cv-00187, and having both cases assigned to Judge Drozd and Magistrate Grosjean, Mr. Hauck turned his attention back to Melba’s case 17-cv-00034.

On March 31, 2017, he filed “Notice of and United States’ Motion to Dismiss” (for lack of subject matter jurisdiction) accompanied by “Memorandum in Support of United States’ Motion to Dismiss”. On pages 1 and 2 of the Memorandum, as all previous DoJ attorneys have done, Mr. Hauck misstated Melba’s allegations as follows: “As indicated in the first paragraph of Melba Ford’s (Plaintiff) complaint filed January 10, 2017, (Complaint), this action is one in a series of similar actions filed since 2012 that seek to do the same two basic things: (1) enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from preparing substitutes for returns for individuals who do not file their required federal income tax returns (which they characterize as “fraudulent” and “criminal” and which Plaintiff specifically characterizes as an “institutionalized scheme to fabricate evidence concerning Plaintiff” at Compl. ¶ 20, 88), and (2) enjoin the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) from using certified copies of non-filers’ tax transcripts in subsequent collection and enforcement proceedings.”

Further, on page 3, he writes “Plaintiff’s claims are neither meritorious nor new. The “conspiracy” she alleges – the IRS’s determination of a tax deficiency and the making of a return when the taxpayer has refused to prepare one – is authorized by statute and the Treasury Regulations. See 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)(1)” And, on page 4, he states “Three trial courts in the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia have all agreed that these claims should be dismissed. The same result is required here.”

On page 4, Mr. Hauck continues to justify dismissal by stating “Like the actions that preceded this case – Florance, Ellis, and McNeil – Plaintiff’s action fails because the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction to consider it. There are two grounds for this conclusion. First, this is an action seeking to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes, which is barred by Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421). Second, Plaintiff cannot show the injury, causation, or redressability necessary to establish her Article III standing. Each provides an adequate, independent ground for dismissal.”

For your information, the Anti-Injunction Act, passed by Congress in 1867, states: “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” [26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)(1)] The principal purpose of the Anti–Injunction Act is to preserve the Government’s ability to assess and collect taxes expeditiously with “a minimum of preenforcement judicial interference” and “to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund.” Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974) (citing, Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962)).

Despite the fact that Melba sued IRS Revenue Officer Dennis Stiffler, Acting Assistant Attorney Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in their personal capacities, Mr. Hauck claims that her Complaint should be treated as a suit against the United States, which, conveniently, is protected from suit by the “doctrine of sovereign immunity” except when Congress has “unequivocally expressed” a waiver of sovereign immunity. [citing United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33 (1992).]

On April 12, 2017, Melba filed her “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Production of One Document to End Fact Controversy”. In this document [page 4] she requested that the Court notice “Government attorneys Hauck and Talbert have falsified the record of this case, by claiming I am attempting to do ‘two basic things: (1) enjoin IRS from preparing substitutes for returns for individuals’….’and (2) enjoin the DoJ from using certified copies of non-filers’ tax transcripts …’ (Mem. Doc. 13-1, filed 03/31/17, Pg. 1, and Pg. 8, Second ¶.)”

She further states “On the contrary, I never asked for any such relief, no language in my Complaint supports those deliberate fabrications, (which appear to be violations of the attorneys’ duty of candor to this Court, as well as acts of misprision to conceal and prolong the underlying felonious program which damaged me), and my Complaint directly contradicts such claim.”

Then, on page 6, “After the Court takes the judicial notice requested carefully above, and in light of the extreme importance to this case and to 17-00187, of the substitute income tax returns IRS claims to have prepared concerning me and 2003 on either July 11th, 2006 or August 14th, 2006, I move the Court to compel the Government to simply provide the sworn substitute income tax return claimed by IRS to have been prepared on either date. If none exist, as I claim, it is incontrovertible evidence that attorneys Hauck and Talbert are not only committing misprision to conceal and prolong that criminal enterprise, (see 18 U.S.C. §4), but also deliberately using falsified IRS records in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, which records reflect existence of substitute income tax returns that never occurred. But, if sworn substitute income tax returns do exist and were created on the dates shown in IRS records concerning me and 2003, and the legitimacy of their provenance is confirmed, I will dismiss this case forthwith.”

Mr. Hauck, on April 25, 2017, filed “The United States’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss”, stating on page 2, “Much as in all the other cases, the United States moved to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed her Opposition to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss (Plaintiff’s Opposition) primarily asserting that the United States has incorrectly stated the relief she seeks, that the United States has joined issue on the fact controversy by virtue of statements made in another case, and lastly, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of a document. While the United States does not agree that it has incorrectly characterized the relief sought in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the relief sought by Plaintiff is still not available due to a lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims that that the United States has joined issue in another case is ineffective in creating jurisdiction in this case. Lastly, Plaintiff’s request to compel production of discovery is improperly pled and untimely.”

On page 5, he writes “As such, it appears that Plaintiff believes the government’s conduct is illegal with regard to individuals who fail to file returns. Accordingly, Plaintiff still seeks to enjoin the government from the processes it currently uses to assess and collect tax. Plaintiff’s labeling or alleging these acts as illegal does not control whether the jurisdiction exists or whether the action is prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421).”

[RAM Note: Contrary to what the Government says, the Anti-Injunction Act DOES allow a court to invoke its equity jurisdiction in “extraordinary circumstances”. We believe IRS fraud merits that action, but, to date, no Federal judge has agreed with us, thereby, perpetuating the record falsification scheme. So much for the Rule of Law, huh?]

To combat DoJ attorney Hauck’s continued falsification of her allegations and relief sought, and his refusal to correct them, Melba then filed, on May 1, 2017, “Rule 11 Motion to Show Cause Re: Sanction of Jonathan M. Hauck or, In Alternative Motion to Compel Production of the ‘Substitute Income Tax Returns’ IRS Claims It Prepared on July 11, 2006 or August 14, 2006”. This document contains two Exhibits:  1) a Safe Harbor Letter to politely asking the attorneys to “redact and amend their material, case-dispositive falsehoods concerning the relief” Melba seeks, and 2) a letter from Mr. Hauck refusing to do so and stating “the United States believes that it fairly characterized the relief sought by you….”.

Shortly, thereafter, on May 18, 2017, Judge Drozd issued his “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”, for the following reasons: 1) the Court lacked jurisdiction because of the Anti-Injunction Act; 2) plaintiff has no Article II standing to bring a suit because she suffered no “injury in fact”, which has a causal relationship with the conduct complained of and which is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision; 3) to the extent plaintiff alleges violations of any federal criminal statutes have occurred, she has failed to demonstrate her legal authority to enforce those criminal statutes; and 4) plaintiffs claims are meritless.

In addition, he states “Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions is denied as having been rendered moot in light of this court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the action in its entirety”.

Not one to give up a fight, on June 13, 2017, Melba filed “Plaintiff’s Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Order”, noting seven (7) “errors” in Judge Drozd’s Order of dismissal.

True to form, however, on June 26, 2017 Judge Drozd issued his “Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment”.  Inexplicably, he states on page 1 @21 “While plaintiff does not identify the relevant rule upon which she relies in moving to alter or amend the judgment in this action, such requests are typically governed by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” [RAM Note: Refer to the previous document entitled “Plaintiff’s Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Order”.]

On page 2 @23, he writes “For many of these alleged errors, the only relief sought by the plaintiff is either a request that the court provide her with additional citations or that it amend the language of its order to reflect her view of the case. Such requests by plaintiff are without merit.” (“Despite what [plaintiff] appears to think, this Court’s opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure”) (quoting Quaker  Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)  He states further “Plaintiff is not entitled to have a court order phrased in a particular way, and her requests will therefore be denied.”

So, now, case 17-cv-00034 will be moving to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will now rejoin case 17-cv-00187 where Magistrate Grosjean had set the Scheduling Conference for May 31, 2017.

In response to the Government’s “Complaint to Reduce Federal Tax Assessments to Judgement”, Melba filed, on April 3, 2017, “Defendant’s Answer to Complaint & Motion to Notice United States Joinder of Fact Controversy”. In this document, she requested the Court to notice the Government’s recent filing in 17-cv-00022 Stanley, et al. v. Lynch, et al. “wherein the United States (for the very first time!) correctly identified the gravamen fact allegation of Class victims complaining of the IRS record falsification program. Further, the United States JOINED issue on that fact controversy by expressly denying victims’ claim IRS uses computer fraud to simulate existence of substitute income tax returns, which are never prepared on any date listed in IRS computer records.”

In that regard, she states: “Finally, I request the Court to end the entire controversy between me and the Government by ordering the IRS and DoJ to simply produce the substitute income tax return IRS claims it prepared on either July 11, 2006 or on August 14, 2006. Government provision to this Court of that single, sworn, correctly dated document would end this litigation fairly for the IRS; failure to provide that single sworn document would end this litigation fairly for me.”

As in 17-cv-00034, on May 1, 2017. Melba then filed “Rule 11 Motion to Show Cause Re: Sanction of Jonathan M. Hauck or, In Alternative Motion to Compel Production of the ‘Substitute Income Tax Returns’ IRS Claims It Prepared on July 11, 2006 or August 14, 2006”. As before, this document contains two Exhibits: 1) a Safe Harbor Letter to politely asking the attorneys to “redact and amend their material, case-dispositive falsehoods concerning the relief” Melba seeks, and 2) a letter from Mr. Hauck refusing to do so and stating “the United States believes that it fairly characterized the relief sought by you….”.

In compliance with Magistrate Grosjean’s March 29, 2017 “Order Resetting Scheduling Conference”, DoJ attorney Hauck filed “United States’ Scheduling Report” on May 23, 2017.

This is where I enter the picture.

As mentioned before, Magistrate Grosjean ordered the Scheduling Conference to be held on May 31, 2017 in Fresno, California.  I had been talking to Melba about my flying out there to provide moral support to her during the hearing.  Her sister, Elaine, was gracious enough to donate enough travel points for an airline ticket and one night in a hotel, so, on May 30th, I flew from DFW airport to Fresno, arriving at 6:00pm.  Melba picked me up at the airport, which was the first time we met in person.  We went to dinner and discussed the next day’s hearing while eating, then she dropped me off at the La Quinta, which was in Downtown Fresno, just a few blocks from the courthouse.

The next morning, she picked me up at the hotel and we drove to the courthouse, arriving early for the 10:00am hearing. Since I’ve never been indicted for committing a crime, this was to be my first time in a Federal courtroom, other than serving on a jury a time or two.

She wanted me to sit next to her at the Defendant’s table, but, that was normally reserved for counsel. When we entered the courtroom at 10:00am, however, we both walked right up to the table and I sat down next to her.  Within minutes, we all rose, as Magistrate Grosjean entered the courtroom and sat in her big chair at the far end of the room about 30 feet away.  In the room was the Bailiff, a court reporter, Magistrate Grosjean’s Court Deputy, and another gentleman who sat at a far table and never identified himself.  Mr. Hauck’s office is in Washington, D.C., so, he participated by telephone.  There were microphones and speakers in the room so we could all hear what the others were saying.

Magistrate Grosjean then went around the room and asked the participants to identify themselves.  When she got to me, she said “And, who are you?” Without hesitation, I replied “My name is Robert McNeil, Your Honor, and I am here to assist Ms. Ford in this hearing.”

“Are you an attorney?”, she asked.

“No, Your Honor.”, I said.

“Well, are you a friend?”, continuing with her inquiry.

“Yes, Your Honor, I am.”, said I.

“I usually don’t allow anyone to sit at that table who is not an attorney, but, I will make an exception this time.”, she said.

“Thank you, Your Honor”, I replied.

And, so, the hearing began.

For the next thirty minutes or so, each of the parties went through their calendars to set dates for initial disclosures, a discovery plan, disclosure of expert witnesses, filing of non-dispositive and dispositive motions, the pre-trial conference and the trial date.

Magistrate Grosjean then adjourned the hearing and Melba and I left, thanking the judge on our way out of the courtroom. We stopped at IHOP to have some hot tea and debrief, then, she took me to my hotel so I could check out of my room.  With luggage in tow, she drove me to the airport where I caught my return flight to DFW.  All-in-all, I think she was glad I was at her side during the hearing….and, it was a great experience for me.

Bob McNeil and Melba Ford











The next day, June 1, 2017, Magistrate Grosjean issued a “Scheduling Conference Order” with the agreed-upon dates.

Following the hearing, Melba drafted and filed “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” on June 13, 2017, claiming that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

And, shortly thereafter, on June 29, 2017, Judge Drozd issued an “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”. In this Order, he denied Melba’s May 1, 2017 “Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions….” against DoJ attorney Jonathan Hauck and also her June 13, 2017 “Motion to Dismiss” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating “Defendant’s motions are meritless and will be denied.” [Page 1 @ 21, 22]

Further, he states “Concerning defendant’s second request for relief, the court observes that under the discovery order in this case discovery has just opened, with the parties’ initial disclosures being due June 14, 2017. (Doc. No. 13.) To the extent defendant seeks the production of documents or records, she may seek them in discovery through the use of the normal discovery tools. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37. If defendant is unable to obtain the documents she seeks through discovery requests, she may file a motion to compel, noticing such a motion for hearing before the assigned magistrate judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); Local Rule 251.” [Page 2 @8-14]

Case 17-cv-00187 remains active, with upcoming filing deadlines set by Magistrate Grosjean’s June 1, 2017 “Scheduling Order”.



I would like to thank all of you who have responded to my request for donations to restore the rule of law in America.  Since my last blog, I have received donations from supporters in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Texas, Wyoming and Washington state. Please know that I appreciate every one of you who have donated and thank you very much for your generosity.

For the period January 1 thru June 21, 1017, I have received donations totaling $4,032.61, but spent $4,662.17, leaving a current deficit of <$629.56>.

Here is the link to a PDF version of the Excel spreadsheet detailing the donations and expenditures as of June 21, 2017.

Of course, there is more work to do, so, I continue to humbly ask each of you to search your heart, and pocketbook, and make a monetary donation to the cause of liberty.  No amount is too small or great, and will be appreciated more than you know.

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


As I continue to mention, it is important for every American to understand that most of the loss of liberty we are experiencing 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 is so voluminous and complex that few Americans actually 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 defunding 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, Department of Justice, and the Courts 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

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

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 13th, 2017 at 11:44 pm and is filed under 115-cv-01288, 16-5233 Appeal, 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.

3 comments so far

Malcolm MacHauer

Mr. McNeil, I am a fellow victim of the IRS as you are and I am impressed with the process and professional effort/ legal support you are providing to others.
Personally, I had been a non-filer since 1998 and the DOJ caught up with me in 2009. They railroaded me with a tax evasion convictions and I laid around Federal Prison Camp for 29 months. On release, the IRS met with me and produced Substitutes for Returns for all those missing years, or at least they said they did. I have been on and off payment plans since 2013 and the total amount alleged owed is in the millions. Currently, they have a lien on my wife’s house and a levy on my college instructor salary.
I have reviewed much of your site but probably have not seen it all. Several questions come to mind: Why doesn’t the IRS produce their Substitute for Return? They claimed they did this for me and gave me some papers showing the totals. I need to look at them closer to see if they were actual Substitute for Returns, or some other type of summary. Also, it appears you just can’t get a decent hearing because of the ability to have your case dismissed without being looked at. I looked at your ” God opens the Door ” file at that seems to give a little hope for this process. But can you expect to go forward with such an effective barrier to the federal legal system.
Sincerely, Malcolm MacHauer MD

July 29th, 2017 at 9:00 pm
James Hays


Name of Agency or Legal Entity CERTIFIED MAIL #
City, State, Zip

Dear public servant,

Jurisdictional bar is hereby declared. You must abide in Federal jurisdiction defined and limited by Article I, § 8, Cl.17 of the Constitution for the UNITED STATES of America.

“It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.” Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948).

It is a principle of law that, jurisdiction challenged, the person asserting jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction to exist as a matter of law:
Federal Procedures § 2.455 states as follows: “If a party’s allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by an adversary in any appropriate manner, he or she must support them by competent proof.”

Also please take note of the following:
McNutt v. G.M., 56 S.Ct. 789, 80 L. Ed. 1135
Griffin v. Matthews, 310 Supp. 341, 423, F.2d 272
Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F. 2d 906
Thompson v. Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111

Your claim of jurisdiction is hereby challenged on the basis of the following Affidavit of Facts:
(1) I am an American Citizen, domiciled in the Florida State. This is one of the 50 several States guaranteed a Republican Form of Government and not a Territory over which the sovereignty of the UNITED STATES is granted.
(2) I do not reside in or derive federal income, profit or gain by contract or SSN from any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave that is under the “sovereignty of” or “subject to the jurisdiction of” the UNITED STATES.
(3) I am not a person, property, or legal fiction participating in a public trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES.
(4) I am neither an employee of a government nor an officer of a corporation under a duty to withhold.
(5) I do not accept an instrument which creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the UNITED STATES and Me.

Unless you or your agency can provide Me with your appropriate jurisdictional authority within 30 days, I will respectfully expect a letter from you stating, “All claims and charges are withdrawn.”

All Rights Reserved, Witness _____________________

________________________ Witness _____________________

September 10th, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Mr. Hays, hello, I see that this is a recent post concerning the CERTIFIED CHALLENGE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. I am curious if you or someone you know has used this document, it looks real good to me but I’m not an attorney so I wouldn’t know what to look for. I am a retired union boilermaker who has had my pension levied very hard and now I get a Notice of Deficiency letter for the year 2012, should I send that IRS agent this Challenge document or do you suggest something different?. Thank You for your time, Roy

September 26th, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Leave a reply

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