On April 15, 2021, I filed my Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [Doc. 35, 17 pages]. This was in response to Judge Bates’ Order to Dismiss [33] this case and his Memorandum and Opinion [34] in support of that Order.
I contend the holding by the Hon. Judge John Bates contains three “clear errors” working “manifest” injustice on me and my life, to wit.
1. Judge Bates committed a manifest injustice by refusing to accept as true (as required by law), my core, well-pled incontrovertible allegation: that the IRS delivers weekly to the State Department what the IRS defines as a “list” of those who supposedly owe a seriously delinquent amount of income tax to the Government, (existence of which LIST is established by sworn testimony of a Government agent as shown below). Judge Bates denied the existence of that list.
2. Judge Bates erred, after conceding that Section 7345 defines “seriously delinquent tax debt” as “an unpaid, legally enforceable Federal tax liability,” when he improperly limited that statute to authorize only litigation questioning whether a debt is a.) unpaid, b.) legally enforceable, c.) has been “assessed,” d.) is “greater than $50,000” and e.) is subject to a notice of lien or a levy, while blocking my clearly inferred right under §7345 to challenge whether or not I owed ANY Federal tax liability at all.
3. Judge Bates committed a manifest injustice by finding that it was not necessary for IRS to serve its assessment upon me, which finding directly violates 26 U.S.C. 6213(a) and binding Supreme Court precedent, per Weldon v. U.S., standing for the proposition that any IRS “assessment” is unenforceable, when it is not served upon a targeted individual.
RAM Note: Per Weldon, “An assessment is unenforceable, however, if it is based upon a notice of deficiency that is determined to be invalid because it was not mailed to the taxpayer's ‘last known address’." [See Doc. 19-6, Exh. E, Weldon v. U.S., pg. 5, last ¶ ]
In the Background section of the Motion, I listed every District Court judge who has participated in a coordinated effort to obstruct every victim/Plaintiff who has sought to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from falsifying its records to show that nontaxpayers/”non-filers” supposedly filed Form 1040/1040A tax returns on claimed, but false, dates and the IRS had prepared “Substitute Income Tax Returns” (SFRs) on other claimed, but false, dates when it didn’t. In all cases, DoJ attorneys have been unable to produce the imaginary 1040A returns shown in the IRS’ records (supposedly filed by “non-filers”) or the imaginary SFRs, since the claimed documents don’t exist.
The bottom line is this: I have proven that the IRS’ certification to the State Department that I have a seriously delinquent federal tax debt, is not only erroneous, it is worse: it is intentionally false, having no basis whatsoever in fact, absent IRS’ falsification of federal records concerning me. And Judge Bates knows it.
I encourage you to set aside some quiet time and read this Motion. When you do, you will gain a full understanding about how corrupt judicial officers are perpetuating, with impunity, the IRS’ record falsification scheme while ruining the lives of an untold number of innocent Americans.
Based on my 21 years of experience dealing with the IRS and the Courts, I expect Judge Bates to deny my Rule 59 Motion, in which case I will appeal his errant judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Stay tuned for further developments.