In my October 12, 2017 blog, I discussed the DoJ’s October 11th filing of it’s 6-page document entitled “United States’ Reply In Support Of Motion For Show Cause Why Counterclaim Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt”. On that same date, DoJ attorney Ryan McMonagle had also filed “United States Opposition To Counterclaim Defendants Motion For Recusal”. That document was in response to our “Motion to Recuse the Hon. Chris Cooper”, which Michael and I had filed on October 3rd and which I had failed to mention in my blog.

I discuss that document now.

The 9-page “Motion to Recuse the Hon. Chris Cooper” began: “Because Mr. Cooper repeatedly falsified the record of this case and all Class cases before his bench, in conjunction with other judges, in a transparent attempt to obstruct justice, (as detailed below), a reasonable person could question his impartiality. More specifically, since his acts favor the Government by concealing and prolonging the nine (9) step record falsification program used by IRS to enforce the income tax exaction on targeted nontaxpayers, Mr. Cooper should recuse forthwith, and, moreover, should resign from the bench.”

The Motion further states: “The two steps of the ASFR portion, of the nine stage overall IRS scheme, consists of IRS use of two related computer databases to fabricate the appearance IRS prepared substitute income tax returns on claimed dates, when no such thing occurs. Enjoining operation of the ASFR program, as well as the other seven steps of the scheme, is the goal victims have fruitlessly sought for the past four years in Mr. Cooper’s and other district courts.

But, to defeat Class cases, almost every government-employed attorney involved to date, including Mr. Cooper, Ryan O. McMonagle and others, have viciously claimed that victims seeking to terminate the ASFR program (and the other (7) stages of the IRS scheme) have supposedly been filing “meritless”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” litigation, and the attorneys have repeatedly falsified the record of all class cases to conceal and prolong the underlying felonious enterprise. (The repeated falsification of the federal record of Class cases appears to have been proscribed at 18 USC §4, as acts of misprision.)”

The reasons we sought recusal were summarized near the end of the document:

“A reasonable person, reviewing only those acts by Chris R. Cooper cited above could conclude that The Honorable gentleman has been obstructing justice and is incapable of impartially adjudicating Ryan O. McMonagle’s Motion for Sanctions, or Ellis and McNeil’s Opposition thereto. Specifically, the Honorable Cooper should recuse, in light of the following acts, as viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person: He

  • Falsified the record of all class cases by fabricating and attributing to his victims allegations they did not make, and relief they did not seek;
  • Dismissed all class cases without adjudicating their merits;
  • Dismissed all class cases on the basis of his fabrications;
  • Sanctioned Counterclaim Defendants for having the temerity to file, and to assist others to file, respectful lawsuits seeking to enjoin the entire IRS record falsification scheme, (including the two step ASFR portion);
  • Claimed that Ellis & McNeil had filed, and assisted others to file, “meritless” cases seeking to enjoin the ASFR program; and
  • Ignored and REFUSED to terminate the ASFR program himself, which has just been terminated by TIGTA, and which involves just two of the nine steps in the overall criminal enterprise Chris Cooper’s fellow attorneys use to enforce the income tax exaction.”

The document ended with the relief requested:

“In light of the just-announced termination by IRS of its ASFR program, and the apparent criminal actions taken to prevent adjudication of Class cases on their merits, Ellis and McNeil respectfully request that Mr. Chris Cooper recuse himself and resign from the bench, allowing others to adjudicate Mr. Ryan O. McMonagle’s Motion for Sanctions, (inarguably filed to harass, and not for any legitimate purpose).”

DoJ’s McMonagle  responded to our “Motion to Recuse…..” by filing his 5-page “United States Opposition To Counterclaim Defendants Motion For Recusal” on October 11th. The document opens, as follows:

“Counterclaim Defendants Robert McNeil and Michael Ellis have moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 for the Court to recuse itself from this action. The current motion raises all of the same arguments that McNeil, Ellis, and Plaintiff Mark Crumpacker have raised in multiple filings in this case, and which are the subject of two other lawsuits naming this Court as a defendant, namely that this Court has “avoid[ed] adjudicating the ACTUAL allegations of victims’ cases, . . . [and] fabricated and attributed to victims allegations that they did NOT make, and relief they did NOT seek.” Motion for Recusal (“Mot.”) at 4. Plaintiff’s recusal motion – the second recusal motion in this case – is legally and factually meritless and should be denied.”

[RAM Note: McMonagle accurately described the Courts’ actions in multiple cases – this Court has avoid[ed] adjudicating the ACTUAL allegations of victims’ cases, . . . [and] fabricated and attributed to victims allegations that they did NOT make, and relief they did NOT seek – , but, casually brushes aside our arguments as “legally and factually meritless”, although they are supported by the record.]

He justifies his statement by citing a section of the U.S. Code, and various cases:

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That legal standard is “an objective one that inquires whether a ‘reasonable and informed observer would question the judge’s impartiality.’” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114 (D.C. Circ. 2001) (per curiam). However, “it is well established . . . that ‘judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion’ and ‘opinions formed by a judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.’ Judicial rulings ‘[a]lmost invariably . . . are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.’” United States v. Marin, 662 F. Supp. 2d 155, 158 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).”

He continues:

“McNeil and Ellis concede that their entire motion challenges the Court’s judicial rulings alone, specifically (1) the Court’s memorandum opinion dismissing the underlying action (Mot. at 4-5); (2) the Court’s memorandum opinion in which it entered a permanent injunction against McNeil and Ellis (id. at 5); and (3) the Court’s denial of McNeil and Ellis’s motion to vacate the order of permanent injunction in this case (id. at 6 n. 12). They argue that those rulings include “fabrications” that would lead “a reasonable person to question [the Court’s impartiality].” Id. at 6.”

[RAM Note: We concede nothing of the sort, but, offer those documents as examples of the Court’s consistent rulings based on fabricated allegations and relief we never sought. And, in my opinion, based on the information contained therein, any “reasonable person” would question the Court’s impartiality. It appears that Mr. McMonagle fails that test.]

Further:

“McNeil and Ellis’s allegations do not come close to meeting the standard necessary for recusal. All McNeil and Ellis have argued is that they do not think that the Court’s rulings in this case were correct, because they think the Court misstated, misunderstood, or “fabricated” their allegations. They have not shown any evidence that this Court has a bias or prejudice against them that “stem[s] from an extrajudicial source and result[ed] in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.” United States v. Barry, 938 F.2d 1327, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1991). That is fatal to their motion. Marin, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 166 (denying motion to recuse as “devoid of any basis in fact or law” because “the Court had no extrajudicial source for its ruling and the defendants’ mere disagreement with the Court’s interpretation of the facts is patently insufficient to meet the legal standard for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).”).”

[RAM Note: Wrong! We don’t “think” the Court misstated, misunderstood, or fabricated our allegations. We provided evidence that proves it did.]

McMonagle concludes:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny counterclaim defendants’ motion for recusal.”

[RAM Note: On the signature page of the document, please notice that there is a new player in these proceedings. Ms. Jessie K. Liu has taken office as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. She succeeds Channing D. Phillips, who had been serving in the position since October 19, 2015. President Trump nominated Ms. Liu on June 12, 2017 to serve as U.S. Attorney, and the Senate confirmed the nomination on September 14, 2017. She was sworn in by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. She formally took office at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, September 24, 2017.]

As with all filings, there is a deadline to respond. So, on October 16, 2017, I filed a 10-page document entitled “Counterclaim Defendants’ Reply to Jessie K. Liu Opposition to Motion to Recuse with Declarations in Support”.

The “Reply” begins by listing the following FACTS leading up to, and including, Judge Cooper’s actions:

A. Christopher Cooper was assigned Class case 16-cv-00420 Dwaileebe v. Martineau on or about February 29, 2016;

B. Mr. Cooper took no action whatsoever in Dwaileebe from February 29, 2016 until shortly after September 27, 2016, the date when an extra-judicial meeting occurred between him, Amy Berman Jackson and possibly others of the “Calendar and Case Management Committee”, (CCMC) of the District of Columbia Federal Court; that

C. On or about August 30, 2016, Judge Jackson’s docket received the randomly assigned new case filed by IRS victim Adele Podgorny, 1:16-cv-01768, Podgorny v. RYAN O’CONNOR McMONAGLE; that

D. When Judge Jackson noted the obvious similarity of Podgorny v. RYAN O’CONNOR McMONAGLE to Ellis v. Commissioner in D.D.C. cause 14-cv-471, Ms. Jackson issued a Show Cause order on September 2, 2016 to explain why Podgorny should not be dismissed on the same ground as Jackson dismissed Ellis; that

E. On or about September 22, 2016, Podgorny filed her respectful Response to Show Cause and Motion to Recuse Judge Jackson, exposing Ms. Jackson’s fabrication and attribution to Ellis of relief he did not seek, (i.e. that he supposedly sought to enjoin IRS preparation of substitute income tax returns, despite his contention they don’t exist), thus bringing Ellis, by fraud, within the prohibitions of the Anti-Injunction Act and avoiding adjudication of Ellis on its merits; that

F. Ms. Jackson responded to the Motion to Recuse her filed on September 22, 2016 in Podgorny, by colluding extra-judicially with other attorneys, including Christopher R. Cooper, to defeat class cases and terminate the rights to access courts of litigants Ellis and McNeil, (whose efforts to end the underlying IRS record falsification program are applauded by all who love justice); that

G. During said extra-judicial meeting of September 27, 2016, Mr. Cooper learned from Ms. Jackson how to avoid adjudicating the merits of Class cases, by falsifying the record to reflect that litigants filing suit were supposedly seeking to enjoin IRS preparation of substitute income tax returns, which pretended form of relief Mr. Cooper learned could be claimed as supposedly violative of Anti-Injunction Act prohibitions, thus providing him and other judges involved in the collusion, (G. Michael Harvey, Emmet Sullivan, Dale Drozd, et al), colorable justification for dismissing class cases without adjudicating their ACTUAL merits; that

H. Mr. Cooper did NOT learn from any complaint filed by Class victims that they sought to enjoin IRS preparation of substitute income tax returns, because the litigants NEVER sought such relief, but instead he learned from his extra-judicial source, Amy Berman Jackson, how to fabricate, and falsely attribute to his litigant victims, such pretended relief; that

I. At the meeting of the CCMC of the District of Columbia on or about September 27, 2016, the judges extra-judicially agreed to consolidate all remaining, undismissed Class cases onto Mr. Cooper’s docket for dismissal without addressing the actual merits of victims’ complaints, pursuant to the “success” Ms. Jackson had in dismissing Ellis on the basis of her fabrications; that

J. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Cooper also agreed to terminate the rights to access courts of victims complaining of the underlying IRS scheme, by baldly claiming their unadjudicated cases were “frivolous”, “malicious” or “harassing”, but without presenting supporting evidence; that

K. Mr. Cooper agreed extra-judicially at the CCMC meeting on September 27, 2016 with Amy Berman Jackson to commit the same criminal falsification of court records Ms. Jackson had committed in Ellis, i.e., to attribute to litigants/victims of the IRS record falsification program that they supposedly sought to enjoin IRS preparation of substitute income tax returns, when no such relief was sought or requested, thus justifying dismissal of all Class cases on his docket without adjudicating their merits; that

L. After Judge Cooper’s extra-judicial agreement with Judge Jackson and other CCMC judges on or around September 27, 2016 to falsify the records of all class cases with respect to relief sought, suspicious Class victims responded to the surprise secret consolidation by the CCMC of all their cases onto his docket, by filing various Motions. [For example, see Objection to Consolidation…and Motion to Recuse The Hon. Judge Cooper, filed in Crumpacker, 16-cv-1053, on or about October 17, 2016, [Doc. No. 16]]. Victims respectfully suggested therein to Mr. Cooper he had been appointed by the CCMC and Ms. Jackson to commit misprision, in support of the IRS record falsification program, by adopting and reiterating her fabrication concerning the relief victims sought; that

M. Pursuant to Mr. Cooper’s extra-judicial agreement with Ms. Jackson on or about September 27, 2016 to falsify the record of all Class cases, and after months of indecision as to how he should “handle” Dwaileebe, Mr. Cooper fulfilled the expectations of the CCMC and Ms. Jackson, by adopting and citing on October 21, 2016 Jackson’s false “finding” concerning relief Class litigants seek, precisely as Ms. Jackson instructed, and his victims predicted; that

N. More specifically, in his Order issued on that date, [See 16-cv-1053 Crumpacker Doc. #18, Order October 21, 2016], Mr. Cooper (1.) ignored, thus evaded, the core issue the Class sought to adjudicate, i.e.,: whether IRS prepares substitute income tax returns on the dates shown in IRS records, and he 2.) held that all class cases were consolidated because they supposedly concern “the IRS’s preparation of substitute tax returns for non-filers”, (even though Class victims discovered and, in excruciating detail, alleged that no such thing existed on any date shown in IRS-falsified records).

O. Finally, pursuant to his extra-judicial collusion to dismiss all cases without adjudicating their merits, Christopher Cooper dismissed all six cases consolidated on his bench on Saturday evening December 31, 2016 at 5:38 pm, citing, as justification, the fabrication initially created by Ms. Jackson. Thus, precisely as he and Ms. Jackson colluded to do on September 27, 2016, Mr. Cooper left, unadjudicated, victims’ ACTUAL gravamen issue: Does IRS prepare substitute income tax returns on any date shown in IRS’ falsified records concerning targeted nontaxpayers?

P. Finally, Ms. Liu concedes, without discussing, that, on September 26, 2017, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration announced the suspension of the IRS record falsification scheme known as the Automated Substitute for Return program. She also failed to enlighten the Court as to the reasons for that suspension, which should surely have aroused her attention, and this Court’s interest.”

The next section of the “Reply” discusses Ms. Liu’s claimed defects in our “Motion to Recuse…..”:

A. Liu Failures to Mention

It is important to note from the outset that Ms. Liu failed to mention in her “Opposition”, and likely will never mention, the specific falsifications by Mr. Cooper of federal records which Ellis and McNeil claim supports his recusal, i.e., that Cooper fabricated, pursuant to his extra-judicial collusion with Amy Berman Jackson, that litigants supposedly seek to enjoin IRS’ preparation of substitute income tax returns, despite the fact no such relief was ever sought by litigants. Possibly Ms. Liu finds his acts so repulsive and violative of due process, that she can’t bring herself to mention them. Alternatively, she may simply lack integrity. In her Opposition, Ms. Liu also failed to mention the actual issue victims/litigants seek to have adjudicated: that IRS never prepares substitute income tax returns on any date shown in IRS-falsified records concerning victims. Those related failures appear to reasonable observers as tacit admissions of the bankruptcy of her position in regard to Mr. Cooper’s very necessary recusal, (and his removal from the federal bench).

B. Unconvincing Liu-Suggested Reasons Recusal Supposedly Inappropriate

In her “Opposition”, Ms. Liu correctly defines the recusal standard as an objective one, e.g., whether a reasonable, informed person might question the impartiality of Mr. Cooper. But, she posits only two utterly unconvincing reasons he should not recuse.

First, though she concedes that judicial orders can justify recusal if they “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” she never applies that rationale to any of Mr. Cooper’s orders. Particularly, she failed to address his refusal to adjudicate his victims’ cases on their ACTUAL merits, and his fabrication, and attribution to Plaintiffs, of the form of relief Ms. Jackson instructed him to use.

Second, she claims that only bias or prejudice resulting “from an extrajudicial source [which] resulted in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” can merit recusal, that Ellis and McNeil supposedly failed to make such allegations, hence that lacuna is supposedly ‘fatal’ to the recusal motion. Defendants disagree.

Argument

Because Mr. Cooper repeatedly falsified the record of this case and all Class cases before his bench IN HIS ORDERS with respect to the form of relief victims seek, and because he refused to adjudicate the ACTUAL core issue raised by victims, any reasonable, informed person could have questioned his impartiality by noting those actions alone. In fact, a REASONABLE person could conclude Mr. Cooper’s orders reveal such favoritism of the underlying IRS record falsification enterprise, and such overwhelming personal antagonism toward his victims, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to render fair judgment in regard to both the motion to sanction Ellis and McNeil, and their motion to recuse him.

But, far more importantly, as demonstrated above in exquisite detail, since Mr. Cooper has been involved in an extra-judicial collusion with other attorneys, including Amy Berman Jackson, who taught him how to falsify the type of relief litigants seek, in a transparent drive to jointly obstruct justice and prolong the underlying IRS record falsification enterprise, a reasonable person could question his impartiality in regard to any motion by the Government seeking to sanction Ellis and McNeil, who have been thrust by Cooper into the role of his adversaries. (They respectfully decline the role he’s assigned, and simply ask him to leave their cases.)

Finally, since any reasonable person could conclude his acts favor the Government by concealing and prolonging the nine (9) step record falsification program used by IRS to enforce the income tax exaction on targeted nontaxpayers, Mr. Cooper should recuse forthwith, and should resign from the bench.”

Notice Requested

Once again, the Court is requested to notice the September 26, 2017 announcement by the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), that TIGTA is soon to suspend operation of the Automated Substitute for Return (ASFR) record falsification program. Suspension of the ASFR program by TIGTA simultaneously brings into question all claims by attorneys that victims have been filing “meritless”, “frivolous” lawsuits by seeking to terminate the entire layered enterprise, while providing possible confirmation of the merit of those suits.

Summary

It is overwhelming evidence of partiality when a judge defeats the equitable jurisdiction of her court by colluding extra-judicially to fabricate and attribute to litigants relief they did not seek. It is an even greater injustice when she terminates victims’ rights to access courts on the basis of her fabrications. And, in most delicious irony, a reasonable person could conclude that Mr. Cooper ignored, and left unadjudicated, the merits of his victims’ cases, that he fabricated and attributed to his victims allegations they did NOT make and relief they did NOT seek, then declared his own mutant, deviant version of their cases “meritless” in order to justify sanctioning Ellis and McNeil. No more disgraceful parody of justice has ever been rendered in the history of law.

Relief Requested

In light of the just-announced termination by IRS of its ASFR program, in light of the joint extra-judicial collusion taken by Mr. Cooper with Ms. Jackson and other attorneys including Ryan O. McMonagle (as set forth above, and sworn below as to accuracy), to prevent adjudication of Class cases on their merits, Ellis and McNeil respectfully suggest Mr. Cooper has a duty to recuse himself and resign from the bench, allowing others to adjudicate Mr. McMonagle’s facially frivolous Motion for Sanctions.”

[RAM Note: Typically, our documents are posted to a case docket within a day or two of filing. But, when I logged into PACER to check, this “Reply” was not listed. Over the next 10 days, I kept checking the docket, but, to no avail. Finally, on Monday, October 30th (14 days after confirmed delivery by the U.S. Postal Service), I called the Clerk’s office in Washington, D.C. to inquire into the status of our document. After confirming that it wasn’t listed on the docket sheet, an employee transferred me to Ms. Davis, Judge Cooper’s Case Administrator. She, too, pulled up the docket sheet and confirmed that the “Reply” had not been entered. I asked her why it had not been entered and she replied that she didn’t know. She then left to ask Judge Cooper, came back a minute later and said “It’s in the Judge’s chambers.” I asked her when we could expect it to be placed on the docket sheet and she adamantly replied “It’s in the Judge’s chambers.”

It should be noted that, in September of 2016, Judge Cooper failed to place another document (located in his chambers) on this case’s docket sheet and, in fact, never did so. These two actions, along with his misstatements of our allegations and relief, prove his implicit bias and provide additional evidence supporting our Motion to Recuse.]

So, there you have it…. clear evidence of extra-judicial collusion, record falsification and other actions indicating violations of criminal statutes: 18 U.S.C. §1001 – falsifying federal records, 18 U.S.C. §4 – misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. §371 – conspiracies to defraud the United States, and 18 USC §1503 – obstruction of the due administration of justice.

I will not rest until these criminals are brought to justice and the Rule of Law is restored to America.

Donations to RAM-v-IRS

I would like to thank all of you who have responded to my requests for donations to restore the rule of law in America. Since my last blog, I have received donations from supporters in California, Ohio, Wyoming, Utah and Texas. No matter who, when, or how much, 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 November 8, 2017, I have received donations totaling $6,882.61, and spent $6,836.86, leaving a current surplus of $45.75 .

Here is the link to a PDF version of the Excel spreadsheet detailing the donations and expenditures as of November 8, 2017.

Of course, there are always more documents to write, print and mail, 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.

Thank you.

In liberty,

Bob McNeil
2018 U.S. Senate Candidate from Texas
21st Century American Revolutionary
Founder/President – American Citizen Party

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

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 8th, 2017 at 9:08 pm and is filed under 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