March 1st is fast approaching and Michael Ellis and I are preparing for our contempt of court hearing before U. S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper in Washington, D.C.

Here are the details:

Date: March 1, 2018
Time: 10:00am EST
Location: E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse
Address: 333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington D.C. 20001
Judge: Christopher R. Cooper

In several ways, the conduct of Judge Cooper and DoJ attorney McMonagle reminds me of the conduct of King George III and his minions, as experienced by the Founders, and described in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776:

* He has called together legislative bodies (or, in this case, McNeil and Ellis) at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

* He has obstructed the Administration of Justice….. [by manipulating the docket; failing to file several of our pleadings into the record; failing to read our pleadings; issuing Orders without considering our pleadings opposing the DoJ’s motions; failing to recuse in the face of obvious bias, etc.]

* For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.

We have been reading, and re-reading, the pleadings and Orders in case 18-mc-00011, especially Judge Cooper’s Order of Permanent Injunction, and accompanying Memorandum Opinion, issued on April 19, 2017. After all, this is the Injunction we are alleged to have violated and for which we are at risk of being held in contempt of court.

Of course, as I explained in a previous blog, Michael and I carefully read the Injunction and are convinced we did not violate the narrowly-worded Injunction.

But, that will be determined on March 1st, and will depend on whether Judge Cooper conducts a fair and impartial hearing…..or not.

Airline tickets and hotel reservations have been charged to our already-stretched credits cards and we anticipate the final costs for this 2-day trip to approach $1,000.00. If you have made a pledge to donate to the cause, please send your contributions as soon as possible. If you have not made a pledge to help, but, would like to do so, please contact me here and I will send instructions.

Case Updates

16-2313 Ellis, et al v. Jackson, et al

See Docket Sheet

The Original Complaint in this case was filed on November 18, 2016 and names the following individuals as Defendants, sued in “personal capacity”:

* Loretta Lynch (United States Attorney General)
* John Koskinen (Commissioner, IRS)
* Amy Berman Jackson (U.S. District Court Judge)
* Christopher R. Cooper (U.S. District Court Judge)
* Padmanabhan Srinivasan (U.S. Appeals Court Judge)
* Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper (U.S. DoJ, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division)
* Ryan O. McMonagle (U.S. DoJ, Trial Attorney, Tax Division)

The First Amended Complaint was filed on January 30, 2017.

NOTE: This case was consolidated with Case 17-00022 Stanley, et al v. Lynch, et al on April 12, 2017.

In this case, Plaintiffs explicitly allege judicial officers are involved in an extrajudicial conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs and the United States, and to obstruct justice, by committing repeated acts of misprision to conceal and prolong the underlying program to falsify government (IRS) records.

Misprision of felony is proscribed by Congress and codified at 18 U.S.C. §4. Conspiracies to defraud the United States are proscribed at 18 U.S.C. §371. Obstruction of the due administration of justice is proscribed at 18 U.S.C. §1503.

The Defendant judges stripped themselves of their immunity from suit by committing acts Congress has expressly proscribed, i.e. criminal acts depriving victims of their constitutionally protected First, Fifth and Seventh Amendment rights.

The Defendant DoJ Tax Division attorneys have no immunity from suit for their acts of misprision to conceal the underlying systematic falsification of government records, for their collusion to create pretended “precedent” giving appearance victims cases were adjudicated and dismissed on their merits, when they colluded with the defendant judges to ensure the actual allegations victims raised were never addressed, and to retaliate against Plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment right to secure judicial redress of their grievances arising from the underlying “institutionalized” IRS record falsification scheme.

The case was originally assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who, subsequently referred it to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey for full case management. Unfortunately, Magistrate Harvey displayed his intent fall in line with all other judges and grant the DoJ’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, citing the Anti-Injunction Act as the reason. On April 26, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Reference of the case to Magistrate Harvey, but, Judge Sullivan denied that motion on July 27, 2017.

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Recuse both Judge Sullivan and Magistrate Harvey. Plaintiffs were informed that, on September 18, 2018, the case was reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly and Judge Sullivan was no longer assigned to the case. Magistrate Harvey refused to recuse, however, and remained assigned to the case.

And, on November 1, 2017, he issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that Judge Kelly GRANT the DoJ’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on November 15, 2017.

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice to the Court of the March 16, 2018 hearing in Case 17-00187 U.S.A. v. Ford. This case, filed in the Eastern District of California – Fresno seeks to reduce the IRS’ $190,854.91 assessment, for 2003 taxes, to a judgment, in order to seize the assets of 80 year-old Ms. Ford, including her home. The March 16th hearing is significant because, for the first time in any Court, the Magistrate (Erica P. Grosjean) ordered the Department of Justice attorney to produce the Substitute Income Tax Returns (SFRs) shown in Ms. Ford’s Individual Master File (IMF) records. As you can imagine the DoJ attorney, Jonathan M. Hauck, is trying everything possible to keep from supplying the SFRs because he knows they don’t exist, and he would have to admit that they don’t.

So, he has decided to go behind Magistrate Grosjean’s back and file a Motion for Summary Judgment directly with District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd. The outcome of the March 16th hearing should be interesting.

In this case, since the Plaintiffs filed their February 13, 2018 Notice, there have been no further pleadings filed by the DoJ or any more Orders issued by Magistrate Harvey. We suspect they are awaiting the outcome of our March 1st contempt of court hearing and Magistrate Grosjean’s hearing on March 16th.

Stay tuned.

In future blogs, I will provide updates on the following cases:

17-00022 Stanley, et al v. Lynch, et al

17-1720 McNeil, et al v. Harvey, et al

17-2602 McNeil, et al v. Brown, et al

17-5191 U.S. Court of Appeals – Crumpacker v. Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, et al

In liberty,

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

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 9:16 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