Michael Ellis and I are involved in a number of active cases that require constant monitoring as we await rulings from judges who have been silent for many months.
I will post a separate blog discussing each of those in detail.
This blog is a request for donations for filing fees, PACER fees and computer repairs to allow us to continue our battle against the government criminals who continue to rob Americans of their property….. and their freedom.
Adding up all the estimated costs to continue prosecuting these cases yields a total of $4,015, much of which, based on filing deadlines, is needed immediately.
If there is a wealthy benefactor among you who loves justice and the Rule of Law and is willing to fund it all, God bless you. Please step forward.
If not, I ask that each of you search your hearts and donate any amount you can afford. The more we share the burden, the faster we will reach our goal. All amounts will be welcomed and appreciated.
Here is the link to donate: https://www.ram-v-irs.com/donate
Thank you!
Here are the specific requests and justification for each:
*******************************
Computer Repairs
In November, I replaced my PC’s hard drive with a solid state drive. Since then, my PC and 8 terabyte external backup drive no longer communicate, so I need to take both my PC and external drive to a local computer repair shop so I can recover much-needed files.
Estimated cost $300
*******************************
PACER Fees
I manage and maintain databases for several cases in multiple courts across America and use PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to view and download docket sheets, filed Complaints, Replies and Responses by Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as Rulings and Judgments by the Courts.
PACER charges a fee for each page downloaded, posts those charges to my account, and sends me an invoice at the end of each quarter. The first quarter of 2021 ends on March 31st, so I should receive an invoice around the middle of April. My activity is fairly constant, so I estimate the April invoice will be in the neighborhood of $200.
Estimated cost $200
*******************************
20-329 Robert A. McNeil v. State Department & IRS - Judge John D. Bates - U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
I regret to inform you that, on March 18, 2021, Judge John D. Bates granted the IRS’ Motion to Dismiss my passport case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing 26 U.S.C. §7421, the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act as the reason. The Anti-Injunction Act deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over “any suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.”
Never mind that the evidence supplied by and relied upon by the IRS contained “manifest errors”, which led to the IRS’ theft of almost $40,000 of my Social Security benefits and also caused the State Department to deny my passport renewal application because of an alleged “seriously delinquent federal tax debt” based on falsified IRS documents.
Of course, I plan to appeal his ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but the filing fee is $505, which is well beyond my reach considering the IRS is currently garnishing my monthly Social Security benefits by $1,050 (44%).
Estimated cost $505
*******************************
20-862-CI Darst v. WCGE - Judge Amy Williamson - 6th Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida
Greg Darst is the Plaintiff in a quiet title Countersuit/Counterclaim in Florida. This Countersuit/Counterclaim arose due to the tortious interference of the Internal Revenue Service with Mr. Darst’s right to contract with Defendant WCGE (WEST COAST GROUP ENTERPRISES, LLC.) for the sale of his mobile home park.
Mr. Darst, who is in his 80s, has been rendered destitute by the IRS’ 100% garnishment of his Social Security benefits. He needs help with his everyday living expenses as he searches for a Florida licensed attorney who will represent him on a contingency basis. It is estimated that WCGE owes him in excess of $2 million.
Current need $1,000
*******************************
20-5033/20-5034 Ellis, et al, v. Jackson, et al (16-2313) & Stanley, et al, v. Lynch, et al (17-00022) - U.S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit
This appeal arose from District Court cases 16-2313 and 17-00022, which were summarily dismissed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on January 13, 2020. Plaintiffs timely filed their Notice of Appeal on February 10, 2020. Shortly thereafter, the Court of Appeals consolidated the appeal under cases 20-5033/20-5034.
In accordance with the Court’s October 21, 2020 Briefing Schedule, the Appellants’ filed their Opening Brief on December 8, 2020.
On December 10, 2020, the Appellees (Government) filed a “Motion to Strike Appellants’ Opening Brief and to Suspend the Due Date of Appellees’ Answering Brief Until 30 Days After Appellants Submit a Compliant Opening Brief”.
On December 11, 2020, the Appellate Court Clerk suspended the Briefing Schedule pending further order of the court.
On February 22, 2021, the Clerk issued an Order DENYING the Appellees’ motion to strike the Appellants’ Opening Brief in its entirety, but GRANTING the Appellees’ request to withdraw Exhibit A (“Ten Step Program Used by IRS/DoJ to Enforce the Income Tax On Non-Filers”). In that Order, the Clerk ordered the Appellees to file their Answering Brief by March 19, 2021.
On March 19, 2021, the Appellees timely filed their Answering Brief.
Given the pattern and practice of Appeals Courts across the Nation to affirm the District Courts’ dismissals, we fully expect this Court to do the same. So, the next step is to appeal the affirmation to the Supreme Court.
Estimated cost of Supreme Court appeal $1,000
*******************************
19-421 USA v. Ebenezer K. Howe IV - Judge David C. Nye - U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Ben Howe lives in northern Idaho and is a 50 year-old Marine Corps veteran who works domestically and internationally in the oil and gas industry as a Driller on a drilling rig. But due to COVID-19 and the corresponding downturn in the industry, he hasn’t worked in almost one year.
The Government filed its Complaint on October 29, 2019 seeking to reduce to judgment the alleged outstanding federal tax assessments against him, in the amount of $343,605.36, for the years 2005 thru 2006 and 2008 thru 2013; foreclose federal tax liens on his Idaho property; sell the property; and distribute the sale proceeds in accordance with the Court’s findings as to the validity and priority of the liens and claims of all parties.
In the District Court of Idaho, the judge claims he has subject matter jurisdiction, even though Ben filed a Rule 12(b)(1) factual attack on the key (false) Complaint allegation that the IRS supposedly prepared a summary record of assessment on September 12, 2016 concerning each year involved, when the IRS provided evidence that it never prepares summary records of assessment on any date shown in its falsified IMF records. The assessments were simply presumed into existence in an order by the Magistrate.
We asked the presiding judge to order the government to produce the claimed assessments the Magistrate claimed exist, but to this date the Government has neither provided the assessments nor has the presiding judge ordered that production.
Instead, he has threatened Ben with sanctions (daily fines and/or contempt of court) unless he accepts the false claim of jurisdiction
Ben's case will likely need an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.
Estimated cost $505
*******************************
18-1746 Stanley, et al v. Duff & Walter - Judge Tanya Chutkan - U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
On July 23, 2018, Harold Stanley, Michael Ellis, Robert McNeil and many other Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendants, Mr. James Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), and Ms. Sheryl Walter (AOUSC Attorney).
This case arose from the actions in 17-1720 and 17-2602 in which Judge Rudolph Contreras improperly solicited representation by Department of Justice attorneys for four (4) judges, sued in personal capacity, after each had failed to respond to lawfully issued summonses and, therefore, defaulted.
In this case, we assert the Department of Justice was unlawfully injected to defend judicial officers in 17-1720 and 17-2602, since
1.) no request for representation was made by the judges (sued solely in personal capacity) as required by law, since
2.) the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts did not take any steps mandated by 28 C.F.R. §50.15 to secure free DoJ representation for the judges, and since
3.) the attorneys had all defaulted before the DoJ entered(!).
Another mandamus to the Court of Appeals in this case is appropriate to ask Judge Chutkan to simply rule on the Government's Motion to Dismiss filed April 1, 2020. Apparently, she is in a quandary and refuses to rule since the law and precedent of the courts wholly support our case.
Estimated cost $505