Since Department of Justice attorney, Ryan O. McMonagle, has consistently failed to defend the IRS’ record falsification scheme, he has resorted to the only remaining action available to him……to go into attack mode.

Thus, on September 18, 2017, he filed, in Judge Christopher R. Cooper’s court, “United States’ Motion For Order To Show Cause Why Counterclaim Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt”, with accompanying Memorandum. It should be noted that McMonagle is acting under the direction of Channing D. Phillips (United States Attorney for the District of Columbia) and David A. Hubbert (Acting Assistant Attorney General – Tax Division).

In response, on September 28, 2017, Michael and I filed “Ellis & McNeil Opposition to Motion for Show Cause & Motion to Notice Suspension of ASFR Record Falsification Program”. It opens with this statement: “For multiple reasons shown herein, Counterclaim Defendants Ellis and McNeil suggest that Ryan McMonagle’s recent Motion seeking an order to find them in contempt of this Court’s pre-filing sanction is meritless, filed solely to harass, and not for any legitimate purpose.”

Here’s the back story to bring you up to date on this development:

Case No. 16-1053 Crumpacker v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al.

In my February 27, 2017 blog, in the section entitled “E. A Crisis of Conscience”, I detailed the history of Case No. 16-1053 and how the Court has mishandled it from the beginning.

Unfortunately, the sordid tale continues.

On February 28, 2017, DoJ attorney McMonagle filed a motion for an injunction, with accompanying memorandum. In the Memorandum, he writes “…..the counterclaim defendants and those other litigants acting at their direction have named in these frivolous suits individual DOJ attorneys, cabinet officials, and judicial officers in this district. In short, they are promoting a multiplicity of vexatious suits, designed to inundate the IRS, DOJ and courts, and to harass individual executive officials and judicial officers. And they have made clear that they will continue to do so unless enjoined.”

Given the felonious acts committed by the IRS, DoJ, and federal judges we have witnessed in all the cases, to date, he goes on to laughably state: “As set forth more fully, infra, the requested injunction is therefore warranted under the Court’s inherent authority to “protect the integrity of the courts and the orderly and expeditious administration of justice, “(Urban v. United Nations, 756 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1985)) and to prevent Ellis, McNeil, and others from interfering with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. 26 U.S.C. §7402(a).”

On April 19, 2017, Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted the motion and ordered a nationwide, permanent injunction against me and Michael Ellis, prohibiting us from filing “further duplicative lawsuits challenging the IRS’ assessment of income taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6020.” Here is the Memorandum Opinion accompanying the injunction.

Note: Here is what the Internal Revenue Manual Section says about “IRC 6020(b) Authority”: (04-23-2014)
IRC 6020(b) Authority
1. The following returns may be prepared, signed and executed by revenue officers under the authority of IRC 6020(b):

A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
C. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
D. Form 944, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return
E. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
F. Form 2290, Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return
G. Form CT-1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
H. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income

2. Per Delegation Order 5–2 (Rev 2), effective October 21, 2013, GS-09 Revenue Officers, GS-09 Bankruptcy Specialists, and GS-11 Bankruptcy Advisors have the authority to prepare, sign and execute returns under IRC 6020(b).]

[RAM Note: Please notice these are all business returns and Form 1040 is not listed as one of the returns authorized.]

The injunction contained VERY specific and narrowly crafted language, as follows:


“It is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Counterclaim defendants Michael B. Ellis and Robert A. McNeil be permanently enjoined from:

a. Filing, or assisting in the filing of, any civil action in any United States District Court, without first obtaining leave of that court, asserting, or purporting to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or the 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;

b. Filing, or assisting in the filing of, any civil action in any United States District Court, without first obtaining leave of that court, asserting or purporting to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or the Administrative Procedure Act challenging actions taken by the Department of Justice to defend against the suits referenced in paragraph 1(a) and/or suits to collect income tax liabilities.”

Further, Judge Cooper required that we first obtain leave of the court to file an action referenced in paragraph 1, as stated below:

“(2) In order to seek prior leave of court to file an action referenced in paragraph 1, Michael B. Ellis and Robert A. McNeil shall, before filing any complaint or other initiating document, file with that court a document titled “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File,” that: (i) certifies that the claims presented are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits on or jurisdictional grounds by any court; (ii) describes the allegations of the complaint; and (iii) contains a certification under penalty of contempt that the allegations of the complaint are true; and (iv) attaches a copy of this injunction. The counterclaim defendants shall not be permitted to file said action unless and until such application is granted.”


Of course, Michael and I discussed the injunction at length and vowed to adhere to every word. To do otherwise would likely expose us to severe contempt of court sanctions, including monetary fines, payment of attorneys’ fees, and possible incarceration that neither of us is willing to bear.

To everyone reading this, it is important to make clear that the lawsuits we filed, and assisted others to file, have all been based on the following two allegations:

  1. In the case of nontaxpayers, the IRS falsifies its Individual Master File (IMF) computer records by entering specific “transaction codes” (TCs) into the system to make it appear that it prepared substitute income tax returns (SFRs) on certain dates. Then, it conceals that record falsification using a subsequent series of TCs. But, as the irrefutable, IRS-supplied evidence proves, the IRS never prepares (SFRs) on any of the dates shown in its records; and,
  2. Both the IRS and DoJ use the fruit of the scheme to enforce the income tax on an untold number of Americans, resulting in innocent victims having their rights violated, property stolen and being wrongly indicted, convicted and imprisoned.

In every case, the relief Plaintiffs sought from the Courts was to (a) enjoin the IRS from falsifying its records to make it appear it prepared substitute income tax returns (SFRs) on certain dates, when it never prepares SFRs on any date, and (b) enjoin the IRS and DoJ from using those falsified records to violate the rights of innocent Americans.

With each case filed, Michael and I noticed a consistent pattern of blatant acts of collusion between DoJ attorneys and Federal judges. In each Motion to Dismiss, the attorney misstated the Plaintiffs’ allegations and relief sought (to supposedly “enjoin IRS preparation of substitute income tax returns….”), in order to bring the case, by fraud, within the prohibitions of the Anti-Injunction Act – 28 U.S.C. §7421(a), which 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.” The judge then dismissed the case based on DoJ’s misstatements. Further, each subsequent case was dismissed in a similar fraudulent fashion, and on similar grounds, with the previously misstated cases cited as precedent.

Thus, it occurred to us that each case had been dismissed without ever having been adjudicated on its ACTUAL merits.

So, after carefully rereading the language of the injunction, we determined that it did NOT prohibit us from filing a new case seeking a narrow three-part declaratory judgment, which is totally unrelated to any adjudication concerning the underlying IRS/DoJ program.

Therefore, we filed Case No. 17-1720 McNeil, et al. v. Harvey, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and it was assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 21, 2017.

This is the relief we seek:

a.) In each case filed by nontaxpayers/litigants and identified herein, did the judge address  and resolve the core fact controversy between the Government and Class litigants, summarized by the Government: whether IRS prepares substitute income tax returns on the dates claimed in IRS’ “Individual Master File” software records?

b.) Did the named Defendants and other attorneys falsify the federal record of each case identified herein, dismiss those cases on the basis of the falsifications, and thereby leave unadjudicated the ACTUAL merits of all Class cases?

and, ultimately,

c.) Do such dismissals, crafted to avoid reaching the merits of each case, have ANY precedential value or preclusive effect in regard to the fact controversy raise by Class victims?

The Defendants in the case are G. Michael Harvey, Dale A. Drozd and Christopher R. Cooper, all sued in personal capacity. (Drozd is a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Harvey is a magistrate, and Cooper is a judge, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.)

The fact that the Defendants are being sued in personal capacity precludes the United States from being a “party of interest” and also prevents the DoJ attorneys from representing them. But, that didn’t stop attorney McMonagle from trying. On September 21, 2017, he filed a “Notice of Appearance” as counsel for the United States of America and requested that he be served with all filed papers.

On that same date, he also filed a document entitled “Statement of Interest of the United States”. In this filing, McMonagle duplicitously states “The United States is not a party to this matter and is not entering an appearance on behalf of the federal defendants, but files this Statement of Interest under 28 U.S.C. 517….”.

Further, he writes “The United States has two independent interests at stake in this suit” (i) its interest in ensuring that McNeil and Ellis not be allowed to litigate suits in violation of the injunction against them and in favor of the United States; and (ii) its interest in preventing meritless suits against federal officials that interfere with the orderly administration of justice.”

In conclusion, he states “Plaintiffs have violated an injunction requiring them to seek leave of court before filing this action. This Court should immediately stay the action pending resolution of contempt proceedings against them.”

In response to McMongale’s filings, on October 6, 2017, Michael and I filed, along with eleven (11) other Co-Plaintiffs, a document entitled “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Notice TIGTA Suspension of ASFR Record Falsification Program and Opposition to DoJ Statement of Interest” .

Statement of the Case (page 3) reads “This case of first impression is designed to determine 1.) whether, or not, the Defendant attorneys adjudicated fully-paid cases by Plaintiffs and others to determine whether IRS falsifies records concerning them, and to determine 2.) whether attorneys appointed to federal benches enjoy absolute immunity for JOINTLY colluding to subvert the jurisdiction of the courts to circumvent the protected First and Fourth Amendment rights of litigants.”

The response is structured as follows:

  1. Does the injunction entered in Crumpacker concerning Ellis and McNeil have ANY bearing on this case?
  2. Does judicial immunity shield attorneys from personal suits seeking simple determination whether they colluded to commit acts Congress has expressly proscribed?
  3. Since Plaintiffs are NOT asking the Court to compel any act, vacate any judgment, or declare any judgment of a felloe judge “erroneous”, does their Complaint state a claim?
  4. Do Plaintiffs have standing because their injury is redressable by a favorable decision of this Court?
  5. Does the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provide anything more than the illusion of appellate remedy?

As of this writing, this document has not been filed into the record.

The Supreme Court

The battle continues and the outcome is unpredictable, but, cloaked in God’s protection, the slings and arrows raining down upon us will have no effect, and we will prevail over this evil.

In fact, since the U.S. Court of Appeals does not appear to provide a remedy for the record falsification scheme, God recently revealed to us that it is possible to file an Original Complaint with the Supreme Court, under 28 U.S.C. §2851, and we are vigorously exploring that option.

However, filing this complaint will be expensive because (1) the filing fee is $300.00, (2) the Court requires the complaint to adhere to strict printing guidelines, (3) the Court requires 40 copies of the complaint to be bound by a printer, and (4) the costs to mail 40 copies to the Court, and other parties, will add up quickly. In total, I estimate the costs to be between $600.00 and $700.00.

It would greatly benefit our efforts to file this complaint as soon as possible, so, if you would like to donate to this effort, please click the link below for instructions.

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 and Ohio. 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 October 6, 2017, I have received donations totaling $5,882.61, but spent $6,593.56, leaving a current deficit of <$710.95> .

Here is the link to a PDF version of the Excel spreadsheet detailing the donations and expenditures as of October 7, 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 Tuesday, October 10th, 2017 at 9:18 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) (*)