U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California - Fresno
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #17-cv-00187-DAD-EPG
USA v. MELBA L. FORD
Assigned to: Judge Dale A. Drozd
Magistrate Erica P. Grosjean
Date Filed: 02/10/2017
Related Case: 1:17-cv-00034-DAD-EPG
Case in other court: USCA for 9th Circuit 18-17217
Melba Ford is an 80-year old Patriot who resides in eastern California. In December of 2016, she contacted me on this website and asked if I would review her Individual Master File (IMF), and other documents, to determine if I saw the same pattern of IRS computer fraud I had observed in other cases.
After reviewing her IMF Account Transcript for 2003, I immediately recognized the same pattern of three-digit transaction codes that nameless IRS employees enter into the IMF computer system, then conceal, by overriding the system’s strict security features. According to the Transcript, the IRS alleged that she had a 2003 tax liability of $150, 326.02, which included accrued interest and penalties.
After discussing my findings with Melba, she decided to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - Fresno to enjoin (stop) the IRS from falsifying federal records. This lawsuit was filed on January 10, 2017 and was assigned Case #17-CV-00034.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd, who reassigned it to U.S. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean (grow-zhawn) to administer up until trial.
The Department of Justice assigned the case to Jonathan M. Hauck, Trial Attorney, Tax Division, who is located in Washington, D.C.
In apparent retaliation, on February 10, 2017, Mr. Hauck filed a countersuit against Melba “….To Reduce Federal Tax Assessments to Judgment.” That case was also filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - Fresno and designated 17-CV-00187 United States of America v. Melba L. Ford.
Since the two cases, 17-CV-00034 and 17-CV-00187, involved the same or similar parties, properties, claims, events, and/or questions of fact or law, both were assigned to Judge Drozd and Magistrate Grosjean.
On April 3, 2017, Melba filed Defendant’s Answer to Complaint & Motion to Notice United States Joinder of Fact Controversy. In her answer, Melba requested the following relief:
After the Court takes judicial notice as requested above, it may begin to understand why I so vehemently (albeit respectfully) deny owing any liability to the United States. I contend IRS fabricated the “assessment” against me concerning 2003 after falsifying IRS records to reflect IRS’ pretended preparation of a substitute income tax return on two competing dates, which in fact never happened on either date shown in IRS’ falsified records concerning me. I further contend IRS and DoJ filed suit in this case solely to retaliate against me for suing to end IRS’ falsification of records concerning me.
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.
On May 1, 2017, Melba filed her 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.
The Motion to sanction Mr. Hauck was filed because he, like the DoJ attorneys in all other cases, falsified the record of Defendant’s case, and refused to correct his acts, by falsely claiming Defendant is 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 ...”
In alternative, I move the Court to order the attorneys to simply provide the case-dispositive, sworn substitute income tax returns shown in IRS records concerning me and 2003, as having been prepared on either July 11, 2006 or on Aug 14, 2006. It they exist, the two related cases concerning me should be closed in favor of the Government. If they don’t, the cases should be closed in my favor.
Then, on June 13, 2017, Melba filed her Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On June 28, 2017, Judge Drozd issued an Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanction and Motion to Dismiss.
On July 11, 2017, Melba filed her Initial Disclosures seeking proof of the Court’s jurisdiction.
On September 26, 2017, DoJ filed its Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report.
On October 3, 2017, Magistrate Grosjean issued a Minute Order granting Melba permission to file a motion to compel discovery.
On November 8, 2017, Melba filed her Motion to Compel Discovery, in which she sought an Order compelling the Government to produce:
1. The substitute income tax returns IRS records show were prepared on July 11, 2006 or August 14, 2006 concerning me and 2003;
2. The delegation order EXPLICITLY authorizing IRS to prepare substitute income tax returns, without the request of a taxpayer;
3. Any contract or other document designating me as engaged in a revenue taxable activity;
4. The delegation order authorizing Revenue Officer Dennis Stiffler to take my personal property without a court order signed by a judge;
5. Proof that a legal lien exists against me, filed in the public record of California, authorizing the seizure of my property;
6. Proof that this Court has jurisdiction in this matter.
On November 27, 2017, Magistrate Grosjean issued a Minute Order [Doc 20 on the Docket Sheet] instructing Melba to file and serve, by December 1, 2017, a new notice of motion and motion setting forth a proper time and date for a hearing.
On December 1, 2017, Melba filed her second Motion to Compel Discovery, noticing the setting of a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 19, 2018 before Magistrate Grosjean.
On January 3, 2018, DoJ attorney Hauck filed United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Declaration of Jonathan M. Hauck in Support of United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery.
On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Grosjean issued her Order After Hearing Regarding Discovery Issues, in which stated:
Without deciding the motions to compel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to determine whether additional documents may exist that could be covered by the requests, if broadly construed, and to state whether Plaintiff would voluntarily produce such documents.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court directs Plaintiff to make the following supplemental submission:
By no later than two weeks from today,1Plaintiff shall describe whether any additional documents falling within the following categories exist and whether Plaintiff would voluntarily produce any such documents: (1) documents, if any, in hardcopy or electronic form, the IRS has related to the amounts currently owed by Plaintiff related to taxes due for the year 2003; (2) documents related to collection efforts already undertaken by Plaintiff that were applied to the 2003 return; (3) documents reflecting the legal basis for the government to collect such taxes, either through collection efforts undertaken or any further right to collection.2
Upon review of Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court shall render a decision on the motions to compel in due course.
a) A copy of your “ASFR TDI RECORD” for your 2003 income tax liability. (Bates No. US-000070)
b) A redacted Certified Mail List for your Statutory Notice of Deficiency for tax year 2003 (Bates No. US-000071)
c) Copies of forms 4340 dated December 2, 2016, for your 2003 income tax liability, and your Civil Penalty account for 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005. (Bates No. US-000072 through 000104)
d) Copies of updated “literal” Account Transcripts for your 2003 income tax liability, and your Civil Penalty account for 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005. (Bates No. US-000105 through 000117)
e) Copies of Internal Revenue Manual Sections 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, and Delegation Order 25-1. (Bates No. US-000118 through 000131)
f) Copies of Forms 8278 and 12616 for each of the frivolous tax return penalties at issue. (Bates No. US-000132 – 000141)
On that same date, February 5, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice & For Order to Show Cause Why the Government Should Not Be Sanctioned for Concealing Evidence along with Exhibits in support of that motion. Following is the relief requested:
I request the Court find that
1. Mr. Hauck has defied the order of this Court to provide the sworn 1040A “return” IRS records concerning me show to have been “received” on July 11, 2016. Neither has Mr. Hauck conceded that no such 1040A return exists, as I requested him to inform the Court, when he couldn’t produce the return.
2. Mr. Hauck has defied the order of this Court to provide the “substitute income tax return” IRS records concerning me shows was prepared on August 14, 2006. Neither has he conceded that no substitute income tax return exists, as I requested him to inform the Court, when he couldn’t produce the return.
3. Mr. Hauck has defied the order of this Court to provide me ALL the documents associated with the “290” transaction shown as occurring on 02-26-2007, (which in reality is merely the date an IRS data entry clerk entered into the 2003 module the deficiency amount computed on a Form 4549, as part of the SFR package “Jan Sinclair” created on July 24, 2006).
4. Mr. Hauck has provided the Form 4340 Certification, which was falsified, (as it always is), to reflect IRS’ pretended preparation of a substitute income tax on three competing dates, none of which are true.
I move the Court issue a Show Cause hearing to determine whether Mr. Hauck is in contempt of this Court’s order of January 22, 2018.
I further request the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
Finally, I request the Court enjoin IRS from ever again falsifying the records of those IRS labels “non-filers” by making them falsely reflect IRS’ pretended preparation of substitute income tax returns on claimed dates, when no such thing exists.
Instead of producing the documents Melba requested, on February 16, 2018, DoJ attorney Hauck filed a Notice of and United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment stating that the United States “will bring a Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd….on March 20, 2018, or soon thereafter.”
In support of its Motion, the United States filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion, a Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of the Motion, and the Declaration of Revenue Officer Kenneth Morgan.
Mr. Hauck also filed the following documents in support of the Motion:
Melba Ford Deposition
Melba Ford Form 1040s for 1993 and 2001
Melba Ford Form 1040 for 2003
Melba Ford IRS Letter 2566 (30-Day Letter) for 2003
Melba Ford IRP Data for 2003
Melba Ford Form 4340 for 2003
Melba Ford Account Transcript for 2003
On February 20, 2018, Melba filed her Emergency Motion to Recuse the Hon. Dale A. Drozd & to Stay Determination of Summary Judgment Motion Until Recusal Motion is Decided. The Motion to Recuse began:
I am moving to recuse Mr. Drozd from any further participation in any case involving me because he falsified the record of the civil case I filed against IRS, 17-00034, Ford v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al, in order to avoid adjudicating that case on its merits. Any reasonable, well-informed observer, viewing the disgraceful acts of Mr. Drozd in Ford, would not only question his ability to be impartial in this case, but his fitness to remain on the bench. And in fact, if he were to adjudicate this case impartially, it would reveal that he committed fraud on me and his Court in Ford.
On February 27, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Combined Third Motion to Compel Production of Documents & Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Timetable.
Then, on that same date, February 27, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Interrogatories and Motion for Stay of Summary Judgment Timetable, which reads:
This is being filed contemporaneously with my “Third Motion for Production of Documents…..”. Herein, I request the Government answer 25 questions which will provide invaluable, material evidence to refute Mr. Hauck’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Even though discovery is still not complete, I am under the strain of having to defeat his motion. So, I request the Court allow me to secure answers to the Interrogatories below at the very earliest convenience of the Government. And, as I requested in the “Third Motion for Production of Documents…..”, I, once again, request that the Court issue a stay of the summary judgment timetable, just only as long as it takes to complete discovery, and secure full answers to my questions below.
On March 2, 2018, DoJ attorney Hauck filed United States’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss & for Order to Show Cause Why the Gov’t. Should Not Be Sanctioned for Concealing Evidence with Exhibit. In his Opposition, Mr. Hauck, like all other DoJ attorneys, justified his request for the Court to deny Melba’s Motion to Dismiss by continuing his pattern of misstating the relief Melba seeks:
Ms. Ford has requested that the Court enjoin the IRS from engaging in what she deems falsifying records. This request is very similar to the relief sought in Ms. Ford’s action Ford v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al. 1:17-cv-00034-DAD-EPG (Ms. Ford’s first case) which was a related case to this action prior to its dismissal. While it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter an injunction for the reasons given in the order in Ms. Ford’s first case (1:17-cv-00034-DAD-EPG, ECF No. 19), her first case merits some attention as it provides some context for the current discovery dispute. Ms. Ford’s first case was one in a series of similar actions filed since 2012 that sought to enjoin the IRS from preparing substitutes for returns for individuals who do not file their required federal income tax returns (which the all of the lawsuits characterize as “fraudulent” and “criminal” and which Ms. Ford’s complaint specifically characterized as an “institutionalized scheme to fabricate evidence concerning [Ms. Ford]”), and enjoin the Department of Justice from using certified copies of non-filers’ tax transcripts in subsequent collection and enforcement proceedings.
Of course, Mr. Hauck knows that the relief Melba sought was 1) to enjoin IRS from falsifying its records to make it appear it prepared Substitute for Returns (SFRs) on certain dates, when it never prepares SFRs on any date, and 2) to enjoin the DoJ from using those falsified documents to enforce the income tax against so-called non-filers.
Next, on March 2, 2018, Judge Drozd issued his Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Recuse and Denying as Moot Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing.
Also on March 5, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment which begins “Although the Government attorney, Jonathan M. Hauck, has not produced the documents I have repeatedly requested, and my motions to compel production of those documents remain unadjudicated at this moment, fourteen (14) triable issues of material fact, or mixed questions of fact and law, are in contention between the parties, preventing summary judgment. Thus, the Government is not entitled to the judgment requested.”
This was followed, on March 13, 2018, by Mr. Hauck’s filing United States’ Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, which, among other things, states:
“…..the United States categorically denies any allegation that any forms 4340, or any other document or testimony, were falsified in relation to this action. Ms. Ford’s conclusory allegations unsupported by specific factual data are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact so as to preclude summary judgment.
The United States has introduced sufficient evidence to trigger the legal presumption of correctness for Ms. Ford’s tax and frivolous filing penalty assessments. Ms. Ford has failed to introduce any evidence concerning the amount of tax or penalties she owes. Accordingly, Ms. Ford has failed to overcome the presumption that she owes the amounts at issue.”
[Notice Mr. Hauck’s repeated use of the word “presumption” when describing Melba’s alleged tax assessment and resulting liability.]
On March 14, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Addendum to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment w/Declaration in Support, in which she stated:
The two strongest arguments I make concerning the existence of triable controversies concerning material facts preventing summary judgment, both involve this patently false Government claim:
“On dates and for the amounts listed below, a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made timely assessments against Melba L. Ford, for individual income taxes for the taxable years set forth below: 2003 Assessment Date 02/26/2007 $59,485.”
I provide the Court, herein, with attached documents, evidence to rebut that claim on two grounds.
First, no lawful assessments were ever made on any date shown in IRS records concerning me, because IRS’ Sun Microsystems computer made the calculations and spit out unsigned “Letters” Mr. Hauck claims were substitute income tax returns/assessments. Second, the Commissioner disputes the Government’s inference that he delegated authority under 6020(b) to prepare substitute income tax returns/make assessments concerning me.
On March 16, 2018, Magistrate Grosjean issued her Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Motion for Sanctions, and Motions to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing.
On March 28, 2018, Melba filed her Brief in Support of Motion to Clarify Facts Precluding Summary Judgment. The Brief in support of this Motion explains the legal significance of a Summary Record of Assessment, what a Certificate of Assessments is and its legal significance, who can make determinations of deficiencies, as required by Congress at 26 U.S.C. §6212, and how the unclean hands doctrine prevents any judgment favoring the Government.
Also on March 28, 2018, Melba filed Motion to Clarify Facts Precluding Summary Judgment with Brief and Declaration in Support.
This motion is filed to show evidence of the FACTS that the Commissioner contends his authority under 6020(b) does not extend to income tax, but uses computer and document fraud to conceal that lack. That evidence also counters the presumption of validity typically accorded a Certificate of Assessments and Payments, as presented by the Government in this case, since, as shown, no Summary Record of Assessment was signed by a duly authorized IRS officer/employee on any date shown in the falsified Certificate.
Finally, this Motion is filed to counter any claim by a government-employed attorney that the mere entry by an IRS data entry clerk into the IMF software on February 26, 2007 of an alleged “deficiency” amount, is an “assessment” supposedly made by a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury. Data entry clerks are not authorized to make income tax assessments.
The evidence provided raises this ultimate FACT question, precluding summary judgment: Did a “duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury make timely assessment against (me)” on February 26, 2007, as the Government materially contends?
On April 25, 2018, Melba filed her Renewed Motion to Dismiss, with Prejudice, and to Sanction Jonathan M. Hauck, in which she states:
Mr. Hauck is unable to refute the evidence he provided from IRS records, which contradicts the falsified Certificate of Assessments he submitted in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 35] in this case. Specifically, the evidence he provided proves that IRS never “received a return” on July 11, 2006, the date IRS claimed; that IRS never prepared a substitute income tax return on August 14, 2006, as IRS claimed; and, most importantly, that IRS did not prepare a summary record of assessment on either August 14, 2006 or February 26, 2007, as IRS claimed. That evidence thus directly contradicts this dispositive material fact claim he repeatedly made:
“A duly authorized delegate of the Secretary prepared a summary record of assessment on Feb. 26, 2007” concerning me and 2003.
[Note: Attorney Hauck made that false fact claim at Paragraph 48 of his so-called “Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment” [35-2]. He also caused Revenue Officer X to swear to the same claim in the Declaration Hauck prepared [35-4], at Paragraph 30. In addition, Mr. Hauck also states in his “United States’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment”, [35-1, Pg. 6, line 4]: “the IRS lawfully assessed the tax shown on the notice on February 26, 2007.”]
Yet, since on or about March 27, 2018, when he received my Motion to Clarify FACTS Precluding Summary Judgment, [Doc. 54], Mr. Hauck has failed to withdraw his Motion for Summary Judgment, with its fraudulent claims and supporting documentation.
On May 8, 2018, Mr. Hauck filed Notice of and United States’ Motion to Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines, in which he states:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the United States of America will bring a Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge, in Courtroom 5, 7th Floor of the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, on June 5, 2018, at 9:30 AM, or soon thereafter.
On May 15, 2018, Melba filed her Motion to Judicially Notice Filing of Petition in the United States Supreme Court of Motion for Writ of Mandamus, stating:
I am over eighty years old and in uneven health. I have watched, and proven, that our government falsified federal records to justify its attack upon me in the pending forfeiture case. Although, on March 27, 2018, I filed my Motion to Clarify  all the fact questions preventing summary judgment, which include IRS’ falsification of IRS digital and paper records concerning me, and thereafter file my second Motion to Dismiss  no ruling has occurred.
The Court is also requested to judicially notice that the Government attorney, failed to oppose my last two motions. Thus, the Government does not dispute, and has conceded, it is committing fraud on this court when Mr. Hauck repeatedly claimed:
“a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made timely assessments against Petitioner for individual income taxes,” (concerning) “2003, on February 26, 2007”, in the “amount of $59,485.00.”
On May 8, 2018, Mr. Hauck filed his latest Motion , wherein he failed entirely to mention the case-dispositive falsehoods in his Motion for Summary Judgment  and supporting documentation, and he essentially requested the Court ignore the obvious evidence of his wrong-doing, while granting him summary judgment. The Rule of Law, of course, requires the Court to decline his request.
Accordingly, to respectfully compel my Motions to actually be heard in this case, and to protect the Supreme Court’s ultimate appellate jurisdiction over the vicious underlying IRS record falsification of which this Court is VERY well aware, I filed my Petition in that Court on or about May 11, 2018, to compel this Court to “do the right thing” and rule on my Motions.
I am contesting the Government’s core FACT claim cited in the paragraph immediately above, on three levels.
First, the Commissioner claims he has no delegable authority to prepare substitute income tax returns/assessments, thus he DID NOT MAKE such delegation on or before any date shown in his fraudulent Certification.
Second, I contend that no Summary Record of Assessment was ever signed on any date shown in the repeatedly falsified Certificate, destroying the presumption that Certificate is valid proof a claimed tax liability was properly assessed against me. (This presents a FACT question a jury should decide.)
Third, the mere entry of a deficiency amount made by an IRS order entry clerk on February 26, 2007, is not an “assessment” by a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary.
In sum, and as shown below in detail, evidence proves that no duly authorized delegate of the IRS prepared, or signed, a Summary Record of Assessment concerning me and 2003 on either July 11, 2006, August 14, 2006 or on February 26, 2007, three dates shown in the falsified Certificate knowingly presented by Jonathan M. Hauck to the Court. Thus, the Court cannot accept the “Certificate of Assessments and Payments” submitted by the Government as presumptive proof a valid assessment was made. A trial must be held to determine whether a valid assessment was ACTUALLY made by a duly authorized delegate of the IRS on ANY date.
And, since the Government is relying upon falsified documents to justify summary judgment, the “unclean hands” doctrine precludes such judgment with respect to all the years and all the “penalties” in question, not just limited to 2003.
 Contrary to Mr. Drozd’s opinion, I am not merely complaining that documents created by the Sun Microsystems Computer are unsigned. I complain, instead, that NO assessment was made by any duly authorized delegate of the Secretary on any date, EVER. BIG difference.
I respectfully move the Hon. Judge Drozd to
(1.) dismiss this case with prejudice, pursuant to the irrefragable evidence provided by the Government, which I supplied to the Court with my Motion to Clarify FACTS Precluding Summary Judgment [Doc. 54] and Brief in Support [Doc. 53], and which is incorporated herein fully by reference; and
(2.) To sanction Mr. Hauck for refusing to retract his Motion for Summary Judgment, despite his knowledge he supplied incontrovertible evidence IRS and he, himself, are relying upon falsified IRS documents to justify this forfeiture action. In alternative, I move Judge Drozd to
(3.) Allow me, on June 5, 2018, to fully air my grievances with the “process” whereby my rights to due process of law are being evaded, obliterated and violated by attorneys claiming to be public servants.
On May 24, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s OPPOSITION TO U.S. FILING, [Doc. 56], Styled “NOTICE OF AND U.S. MOTION TO CONTINUE REMAINING PRETRIAL DEADLINES”, BUT STATING (in the body) IT IS A “NOTICE that the U.S. is BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT for hearing on June 5, 2018”.
On May 25, 2018, Mr. Hauck filed United States’ Statement of No Reply Due to No Response to Its Motion to Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines. He states:
On May 8, 2018, the United States filed its Notice of and Motion to Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines (the Motion). The Motion was noticed for a hearing on June 5, 2018, before the Court.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Ms. Ford’s opposition or other response, if any, was due to be filed fourteen (14) days prior to June 5, 2018, or May 22, 2018. The United States’ Reply to any opposition would have been due May 29, 2018; however, Ms. Ford has not filed an opposition or any other response to the Motion. As Ms. Ford’s time for filing any such opposition or response has expired, the United States’ Motion is unopposed and there is no document to which the United States can file a Reply.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court grant the United States’ Motion to Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines and vacate the scheduled hearing as there has been opposition.
On May 30, 2018, Mr. Hauck filed UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S “FURTHER MOTION TO CLARIFY FACTS PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT”, in which he states:
On May 22, 2018, Ms. Ford filed the Notice of and the Motion at issue. The notice date included in the notice for the Motions is listed as June 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM (only fourteen (14) days from the date of filing and service of the Motions). Accordingly, the United States’ opposition would have been due the day the Notice of the Motion to Clarify was filed.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(b) the Motion to Clarify needed to be noticed at least 28 days after the filing and service of the Motion. The notice on the Motion to Clarify is half of the required 28 days, and as such Rule 230(c) states that the “Clerk shall immediately notify the moving party of the defective notice and of the next available dates and times for proper notice, and the moving party shall file and serve a new notice of motion setting forth a proper time and date.” Accordingly, it may be appropriate to strike Ms. Ford’s Motion to Clarify and allow her to refile with an appropriately noticed hearing.
Also on May 30, 2018, Mr. Hauck filed UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION ENTITLED “FURTHER RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS, WITH PREDJUDICE, (AND SANCTION JONATHAN M. HAUCK)”, in which he opposes Melba’s Motion for the following reasons:
Ms. Ford’s Motion to Dismiss is based upon an incorrect premise.
At its core, Ms. Ford’s current Motion to Dismiss (and to sanction) is based upon her errant belief that that government has committed fraud against her, her belief that 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) does not apply to her, and her belief that the government has falsified its records to perpetrate this fraud. These arguments have largely been addressed before in various contexts before this Court.
Ms. Ford’s Motion to Dismiss is effectively a motion for reconsideration.
Ms. Ford again seeks to have her case dismissed based upon “irrefragable evidence” and sanction undersigned counsel for refusing to retract the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment which she alleges is based upon “falsified IRS documents.” This is essentially the same argument she advanced in prior motions to sanction (ECF Nos. 10, 31), which have both been denied. As before, her Motion to Dismiss is largely silent as to the basis for the dismissal being sought, but presumably it is a proposed sanction for the conduct of the undersigned attorney which she has sought before and which has been denied. See ECF Nos. 31 and 49, respectively. As such the current Motion to Dismiss could properly be construed as a motion for reconsideration.
Ms. Ford did not appropriately notice her Motion to Dismiss.
On May 22, 2018, Ms. Ford filed the Notice of and the Motion at issue. The notice date included in the notice for the Motion is listed as June 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM (only fourteen (14) days from the date of filing and service of the Motions). Accordingly, the United States’ opposition would have been due the day the Notice of the Motion to Dismiss was filed.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(b) the Motion to Dismiss needed to be noticed at least 28 days after the filing and service of the Motion. The notice on the Motion to Dismiss is half of the required 28 days, and as such Rule 230(c) states that the “Clerk shall immediately notify the moving party of the defective notice and of the next available dates and times for proper notice, and the moving party shall file and serve a new notice of motion setting forth a proper time and date.” Accordingly, it may be appropriate to strike Ms. Ford’s Motion to Dismiss and allow her to refile with an appropriately noticed hearing.
On May 30, 2018, Judge Dale A. Drozd issued a Minute Order vacating all pretrial deadlines pending a written decision on the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment which is currently under submission. In addition, he denied Melba’s May 22nd Motions  and  as they do not comply with Local Rule 230, which states that a motion is to be heard not less than 28 days after service and filing of the motion.
On June 4, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Motion to Notice Docketing in the Supreme Court of Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Since “justice delayed is justice denied” I request that the Hon. Judge Drozd notice the contents of the appended Supreme Court Petition and move at his most early convenience to rule on my Motion to Clarify Fact Issues Precluding Summary Judgment, and my Motion to Dismiss.
On June 6, 2018, Melba filed Defendant's Reply to Doc 64 USA Opposition to Further Motion to Clarify Facts Precluding Summary Judgment.
Then, on June 12, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Reply to U.S. Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and to Sanction Jonathan M. Hauck.
More than three (3) months later, on September 28, 2018, Judge Drozd issued his Order Granting Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Remaining Motion as Moot.
Following that Order, on October 11, 2018, Melba filed Defendant’s Combined Rule 59 Motion to Alter/Amend & Rule 60(b)(3) Motion to Set Aside Judgment, with Declaration in Support.
If my documentation in either this motion or supporting evidence is faulty, I request the Court explain how, and direct me to the correct rules and method to correct any defects.
If not, after the Court gives full consideration to the argument, sworn declarations and irrefutable IRS-provided evidence attached to this Motion, tending to prove that 1.) no admissible evidence was presented supporting the lawyers’ claim a summary record of assessment was signed on Feb. 26, 2007 concerning me and 2003, and that 2.) Mr. Hauck repeatedly filed false and misleading claims and documents into the record of this case, I request the Court withdraw the Summary Judgment Order issued on September 28, 2018, and set a hearing at its earliest convenience to determine the key material fact controversy between the parties:
Did a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury sign a summary record of assessment on any date shown in IRS’ Form 4340 and Account Transcript?
As a result of Judge Drozd’s September 28th Order, Mr. Hauck, on November 6, 2018, sent an Abstract of Judgment to the District Court Clerk in Fresno, California and she filed it. This document created a $190,854.91 lien on all of Melba’s real property and has priority over all other liens or encumbrances which are perfected later in time. The lien is effective, unless satisfied, for a period of 20 years.
On November 14, 2018, Melba filed her Notice of Appeal from the judgment entered by Judge Drozd on September 28, 2018. In this document, she states:
It appears The Hon. Servant Dale A. Drozd has become an accomplice to the underlying IRS/DoJ record falsification program used to enforce the income tax on those the servants label “non-filers”. He has also thus destroyed the “independence of the judiciary” by becoming involved in the executive branch lawlessness, and he appears to be openly assaulting the Rule of Law and my rights. It seems our public servants no longer have an idea what justice is.
From his actions of granting summary judgment and allowing issuance of an Abstract of Judgment, despite knowing that no signed assessment exists he could reduce to judgment, I appeal.
On November 15, 2018, the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - Fresno issued a Notice that Defendant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on November 14, 2018.
Also on November 15, 2018, the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - Fresno issued New Appeals Docketing Information regarding Defendant’s Notice of Appeal.
On December 4, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed an Order stating:
The court’s records reflect that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely-filed motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), and that motion is still pending in the district court. The November 14, 2018 notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, proceedings in this court are held in abeyance pending the district court’s resolution of the pending October 11, 2018 motion.
On January 18, 2019, Melba filed her Motion to Render Immediate Judgment Concerning My Combined Rule 59(3)/Rule 60 Motion. In this document, she writes:
I contend, with the concurrence of all men and women of good will, (whether attorneys or lay people), that the following FOUR ISSUES concerning every single American should be brought (through the 9th Circuit) immediately to the attention of the Supreme Court, to wit:
Judges using 1.) baseless presumptions, 2.) deliberate misrepresentations and 3.) outright criminal acts (falsifying federal court records) to obstruct adjudication of IRS’ institutionalized record falsification program, have
destroyed the judicial integrity rationale and the independence of the judiciary,
destroyed the critical checks and balances of our government (in order to preserve the underlying executive branch record falsification program upon which enforcement of the income tax is based), while
knowing that unrepresented litigants, such as me, have no access to meaningful appellate relief at any level of United States Courts, and
set themselves above the law, accountable to no one for even criminal acts taken in support of the institutionalized IRS scheme.
Justice obstructed is delayed and denied. I respectfully remind Mr. Drozd that he, along with other judicial branch officers, have obstructed the adjudication of Class cases for over FOUR years. That farce is a disgrace. I am 80 years old, and my patience with such misconduct is exhausted. I request Mr. Drozd adjudicate my Combined Rule 59/60 Motion by January 26, 2019.
When Judge Drozd failed to rule on her January 18, 2019 Motion, on February 15, 2019, Melba filed, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, her APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MANDAMUS, with Declaration in Support To the Hon. Dale A. Drozd To Compel Adjudication of My Combination RULE 59/60 MOTION.
In light of the strain of the multi-year attack upon me by the combined attorneys of both executive and judicial branches, who have used falsified IRS records and repeatedly falsified court filings to secure a summary judgment against me in the underlying forfeiture case, I request the Court simply orders Dale A. Drozd to immediately rule, one way or another (I don’t care which way), on my long-pending Rule 59/60 Motion, within a TEN DAY PERIOD after I file this petition in the Circuit, in order for the record falsification program upon which the income tax rests to be brought within the jurisdiction of this Circuit to adjudicate.
Besides concerning an obvious emergency in my life, no other case on the Circuit’s docket has a wider application to more Americans than this appeal/petition. That is, correct resolution of this case will affect every single American. So, this Petition should go to the very top of the Circuit’s docket.
But, on February 25, 2019, the 9th Circuit responded with its Order denying Melba’s Emergency Petition. The Order read:
Appellant’s emergency motion for a writ of mandamus (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).
No motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of this denial shall be filed or entertained.
Proceedings in this court remain held in abeyance pending the district court’s resolution of the pending October 11, 2018 motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
On May 30, 2019, after seven months of silence, Judge Dale A. Drozd finally responded to Melba’s October 11, 2018 Rule 59 and 60 Motion by issuing his four page Order Denying Defendant Melba Fords Motion Seeking Relief Under Rule 59 and 60(b)(3) and Denying All Other Motions as Moot.
In short, here is Judge Drozd’s flawed reasoning:
Defendant argues that the court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States should be reconsidered because in this case: 1) there are material factual controversies regarding whether there was a summary record of assessment that was signed by a duly delegated employee of the Secretary of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); 2) the 2003 Form 4340 (See Footnote 1) submitted by the United States was falsified, which creates a factual dispute about defendant’s tax liability that precludes the granting of summary judgment; 3) alternatively, the allegedly falsified document submitted by the United States constitutes fraud pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), and therefore warrants reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States. (See Doc. No. 71 at 1.)
Footnote 1) As discussed in the court’s prior order, a Form 4340 is an IRS Certificate of Assessments and Payments that calculates the amount of tax due for a tax year. (See Doc. No. 70 at 9.) Forms 4340 are a method through which the United States can establish an individual’s tax liability. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding that the Government’s submission of a Form 4340 was sufficient to establish that a valid assessment had been made, in light of no contrary evidence from defendants).
Defendant is seemingly repeating the same arguments, already considered and rejected by this court, that the Commissioner of the IRS has disclaimed the IRS’s authority under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) to create tax returns for taxpayers who fail to file returns. (See Doc. No. 70 at 2, n.2; 10–12.) The court has previously concluded that defendant’s argument regarding the lack of statutory authority allowing the IRS to create substituted returns if a taxpayer does not file a tax return is unpersuasive and entirely without support in the law. (See id. at 12.) Similarly, the court has already rejected defendant’s contention that the government has falsified digital and paper records through the course of this civil action. (See id. at 13–14.) Though defendant repeatedly states that there are disputes about material facts precluding the granting of summary judgment in favor of the United States (see Doc. No. 71 at 9), defendant has not presented any actual evidence to support such assertions. Of note, defendant has attached a declaration of Robert McNeil, a forensic accountant (See Footnote 2), in support of her motion for reconsideration, which similarly makes various conclusory assertions about documents that the United States has allegedly falsified. (See Doc. No. 71 at 52–54.) Defendant’s conclusory allegations in this regard are wholly unsupported by any specific facts or evidence and are therefore insufficient to create a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment or to warrant reconsideration of the court’s prior order. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.”) The court does not view Mr. McNeil’s declaration as providing any factual support for defendant’s claim that the government has relied upon false documents due to its conclusory nature. However, even assuming arguendo that it provided such support, defendant does not explain why the court should consider “evidence for the first time when [it] could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.
Footnote 2) Mr. McNeil is also a pro se litigant who frequently challenges IRS actions pertaining to the collection of taxes and litigates related issues as well. See generally McNeil v. Commissioner of the Internal Rev. Serv., 179 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6–8 (D.D.C. 2016).
Because defendant presents no new evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law, her motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 and Rule 60(b)(3) will be denied.
In truth, Melba provided irrefutable evidence to support her Rule 59 and 60 Motion, but, Judge Drozd chose to ignore it.
APPEALING JUDGE DROZD’S JUDGMENT
Melba had already opened a case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, California (see Docket Sheet for 18-17217 below).
Following are the Docket Sheets containing links to all of the documents filed in this case.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Ninth Circuit of California
U.S. Supreme Court
18A1104 Docket Sheet - Application for Stay, submitted to Justice Kagan