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 October 16th, Michael and I filed our 6-page response entitled “Counterclaim Defendants’ Response to Jessie K. Liu’s Reply in Support of Motion to Show Cause”.

Although you can click on the link to read the PDF, what follows is the actual text of our response:

“Knowing she can’t refute Class victims’ discovery of irrefragable IRS-supplied evidence proving IRS never prepares substitute income tax returns on any date shown in IRS’ falsified records concerning targeted non-taxpayers, and knowing TIGTA has recently announced suspension of the Automated Substitute for Return program (using computer fraud to create the appearance IRS prepares substitute income tax returns on claimed dates, when it doesn’t), Jessie K. Liu now posits tissue-thin arguments to shield the vast fraud she defends.

In her “Reply” (Doc. 58, filed 10/11/17) she deliberately misreads the sanctions Order of Permanent Injunction (Doc. 44, 4/19/2017). Then, she misquotes Sibley v. United States Supreme Court in attempt to wrench from it support for her untenable position. The Court should find such nonsense sanctionable.

A. Liu’s DELIBERATE Misread of Sanctions Order

By its plain wording, Mr. Cooper’s sanction of April 19, 2017 applies ONLY to new cases filed by Ellis and McNeil, or with their assistance, if that case were to “challenge actions taken by the IRS or the Department of Justice”. In pertinent part it reads:

“Counterclaim Defendants…[are] permanently enjoined from: a. Filing…. any civil action in any U.S. District Court…asserting… a claim… challenging actions taken by the IRS in preparing to assess and assessing income tax liabilities….” and from: “b. Filing … any civil action… asserting… a claim… challenging actions taken by the Department of Justice…”

Ms. Liu KNOWS that McNeil, et al, v. Harvey, et al, 17-01720, does not challenge either the underlying IRS fraud, nor the fraud perpetrated by DoJ use of IRS-falsified records, nor any other act by IRS or DoJ. Ms. Liu further knows that McNeil v. Harvey solely seeks a narrow declaratory judgment as to whether or not, in any suit filed by Class plaintiffs to date, the involved judges adjudicated the core question presented in those cases.

[Footnote: The question attorneys are afraid to address was actually identified once by the DoJ in a footnote: “The United States is aware that plaintiffs allege that the Service never actually prepares substitutes for [income tax] returns, but rather inputs computer codes to make it appear as though a substitute return has been filed. The United States categorically denies this allegation.” 17-00022, Stanley, et al, v. Lynch, et al, Motion to Consolidate Cases, March 8, 2017, Doc. 11, Pg. 3, FN 1] Every government-employed attorney has been assiduously concealing that issue and refusing to address it and adjudicate it, including Ryan O’Connor McMonagle.]

Hence, Ms. Liu knows that her claim “McNeil and Ellis were still required to file an application pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File…” is patently false.

B. Is a declaratory judgment “functionally the same as a direct appeal”?

To defend her motion to show cause, Ms. Liu first pretends that the declaratory judgment sought in McNeil v. Harvey would “challenge the underlying conduct alleged in the complaint” [Doc. 58, Pg. 4]. (The “conduct” to which she refers is IRS’ underlying record falsification program, the DoJ’s knowing use of IRS-falsified records, its fraud-filled defense to prolong the scheme, etc.). Hence, she opines, the declaration sought in McNeil is supposedly “functionally the same as a direct appeal from those dismissals.” She is dead wrong because she knows a huge difference exists between appeals and declaratory judgments.

First, in McNeil v. Harvey, Plaintiffs OBVIOUSLY seek no determination of whether or not IRS falsifies records, whether or not DoJ uses falsified records to enforce the income tax exaction, etc. In short, Ms. Liu knows the new case of McNeil v. Harvey does NOT challenge any action by IRS or DoJ. This can be proven by simply reading the relief sought. Should the declaration in 17-01720 be granted as requested, it will not TERMINATE any act by those agencies, because it does not address them. Hence, by its clear terms, the Cooper injunction has no application whatsoever to 17-01720, so Plaintiffs were not required to seek pre-filing permission.

Second, in McNeil v. Harvey, the Plaintiffs are not seeking ‘reversal’ of any previous cases, nor any judgment that past dismissals were ‘in error’, which is the standard relief sought by litigants seeking appellate relief. More importantly, the Plaintiffs seek NO injunctive relief whatsoever. In other words, Plaintiffs in 17-01720 do not seek to compel ANY action by ANY person or agency, nor “reversal” of the dismissals in question, which injunctive relief is ALWAYS a component of appellate cases.

Every citation to every authority offered by Ms. Liu states that the plaintiff sought not only declaratory judgment but, impermissibly, also sought to compel a further act. For example, she blunderingly cites Sibley v. United States Supreme Court, wherein she claims it was supposedly held “this court is not a reviewing court and cannot compel other Article III judges in this or other districts or circuits to act review by any other court.” [sic] [Footnote: Sibley actually states: “This court is not a reviewing court and cannot compel Supreme Court justices or other Article III judges in this or other districts or circuits to act.” NO act is requested to be compelled in McNeil.] [See Reply, Doc. 58, Pg. 4, footnote 2.] Aside from her obvious garbling of Sibley, she failed to note that Mr. Sibley sought not only declaratory relief but, simultaneously and impermissibly, injunctive relief to compel acts by other courts, which a district court unarguably lacks power to compel.

Ms. Liu knows Plaintiffs in McNeil have NOT sought any injunctive relief, whatsoever, but merely a narrow declaration of facts related to their rights to access courts for adequate, effective and meaningful judicial relief, something any court of the United State may provide, per 28 U.S.C. §2201:

“[A]ny court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.”


The fraud perpetrated jointly by attorneys colluding to prevent adjudication of monumental issues before their courts gives rise to questions of first impression, yet, thankfully, opens lawful doors/options for their victims the attorneys never considered and CANNOT lawfully foreclose. Since Plaintiffs in McNeil seek ONLY a simple declaration as to whether their core complaint question was adjudicated, (“Does IRS prepare substitute income tax returns on any date shown in IRS’ falsified records?”), since Plaintiffs in McNeil have not sought any injunctive relief whatsoever (they do NOT seek to compel ANY act by any person or agency) [Footnote: Nor will the declaratory judgment requested in McNeil invalidate the dismissals in question. They should stand forever as testaments to attorney fraud.], since any court of the United States may declare the simple fact question whether or not the core Class complaint issue was adjudicated, and, since that declaration does not concern any act by the IRS or DoJ, the sanctions order of April 19, 2017 has no application whatsoever to McNeil v. Harvey.

Relief Requested

The sanction imposed on Ellis and McNeil on April 19, 2017 has no arguable application to their filing of McNeil v. Harvey. An order denying the Motion to Show cause should issue forthwith, and is hereby respectfully requested.


So, now, our fate lies with Judge Cooper. Will he issue an Order holding me and Michael in contempt of court and impose additional sanctions?

Since October 16th, when we filed this “Response”, he has not done so.

[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 “Response” 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 “Response” 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.]

Donations to RAM-v-IRS

I am now the de facto Case Manager for nine (9) active cases (5 in District Court and 4 in Appeals Court) and 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.

Also, I would like to thank all of you who have responded to my requests for donations to restore the rule of law in America. In the last month, 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.

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

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 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 at 8:26 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) (*)