This is the third update related to my efforts to hold the IRS and the U.S. Department of State accountable for denying my 2018 passport renewal application because of an alleged “seriously delinquent tax debt”.
Of course, if you are a subscriber to this website, you know and understand that the IRS falsifies its internal digital records and external paper documents to create the appearance of income tax liabilities in order to harass and frighten Americans, garnish wages, seize assets, and refer innocent people to the Department of Justice to indict, prosecute, convict and imprison them for crimes they did not commit. The incontrovertible evidence proving this fraud was obtained, by FOIA, from the IRS' own records.
See the Introduction page of this website for details.
To bring yourself current on this situation, please start by reading my December 31, 2019 Update #1, “Robert A. McNeil (RAM) Passport Saga”, and my February 15, 2020 Update #2, “**NEW LAWSUIT** 20-cv-00329 McNeil v US Department of State”.
Update #2 ended with confirmation from the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that my Original Complaint in 20-cv-00329 McNeil v US Department of State had been filed. In addition, the Clerk provided signed and stamped summonses for the Department of State, AG Barr, and U.S. Attorney Shea, which I mailed on February 15, 2020.
On March 4, 2020, Assistant U. S. Attorney Alan Burch filed his “Notice of Appearance” as counsel for the U.S. State Department [Doc. 4].
On March 23, 2020, Mr. Burch filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to my Complaint [Doc. 5].
On that same day, March 23, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates issued a Minute Order GRANTING Mr. Burch’s Motion for Extension. The Order reads as follows:
Upon consideration of consent motion for extension of time, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendant's answer or other response shall be filed by not later than April 2, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/23/2020. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 03/23/2020).
On April 2, 2020, Mr. Burch filed his 7-page Answer to my Complaint [Doc. 6]. In that document, he admits or denies to the facts I presented in thirty-two (32) paragraphs in my Complaint. On page 6, he ends his Answer with this:
The remainder of the Complaint sets forth Plaintiff’s request for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief that it seeks or to any other relief in this action.
Defendant denies any and all allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint not expressly admitted herein.
DEFENSES
Plaintiff is not entitled to compel production of records exempt from disclosure by one or more exemptions of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
On April 16, 2020, I filed my 6-page Reply to Defendant’s So-Called Answer to Complaint [Doc. 7]. Here are a few excerpts from my Reply:
Mr. Burch provided no citation, nor any specific 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(1-9) exemption as evidence supporting his arbitrary and capricious conclusion.
With a wave of his hand, he merely brushed aside my statutory right to obtain a copy of the single document requiring the IRS to serve Notice [See Exh. A for an example of “Notice CP508C”] to me and the State Department of its certification of my alleged “seriously delinquent tax debt”.
I followed those statements with a listing of 5 U.S.C. §552’s nine (9) exemptions to the general presumption of mandatory disclosure.
At the end of that listing, I wrote this:
I remind the Court that, on August 23, 2018, the IRS responded with a letter saying that “this is a computer-generated transaction with no associated paper documents. Therefore, there are no documents specifically responsive to your request.” [See Complaint, Exh. 11]. As a result, I have reason to believe, and do believe, that the statutorily-required “CP508C” does not exist and State’s denial of my passport renewal was, therefore, unlawful.
To date, Defendant State has failed to: (i) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; (ii) notify me of the scope of any responsive records that State intends to produce or withhold, and the reasons for any withholdings; or (iii) inform me that I may appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination.
I ended my Reply with the following Relief Requested:
WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the Court:
(1) order Defendant to conduct searches for any and all records responsive to my request for a copy of the sworn, signed document provided to the United States Department of State by the Department of Treasury’s IRS certifying that I have a seriously delinquent tax debt and demonstrate that it employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of records responsive to the request;
(2) order Defendant to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exempt records to my request and a Vaughn index of any responsive records withheld under claim of exemption;
(3) enjoin Defendant from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive to the request;
(4) grant me an award of attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E);
(5) order Defendant, if it cannot produce the requested certificate of seriously delinquent tax debt, to immediately issue a passport to me; and
(6) grant me such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On April 17, 2020, Judge Bates issued an Order [Doc. 8], which reads, in pertinent part:
The Court has reviewed the complaint and the answer in this case. Defendant raises grounds for dismissal or summary judgment but has not yet filed a dispositive motion. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the parties shall confer and submit by not later than May 19, 2020, a proposed briefing schedule for the filing of dispositive motions to resolve this matter or, in the alternative, a proposed schedule for processing and producing responsive materials. In the event the parties cannot agree, separate proposals shall be filed by that date.
My plan going forward is to contact DoJ attorney Burch and confer with him about working together to comply with Judge Bates’ Order.
Be sure to SUBSCRIBE to my blog to receive email updates as this case progresses.
Also, please refer to the Docket Sheet for a complete listing of the activity related to this case.