As everyone following this website knows, on April 3, 2018, D.C. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued a nationwide, permanent injunction against me and Michael Ellis which states:
“It is hereby ORDERED that:
Counterclaim defendants Michael B. Ellis, and Robert A. McNeil be permanently enjoined from:
· Filing, or assisting in the filing of, any civil action in any United States District Court, without first obtaining leave of that court, asserting, or purporting to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or the Administrative Procedure Act challenging actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service in preparing to assess and assessing income tax liabilities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020;
· Filing, or assisting in the filing of, any civil action in any United States District Court, without first obtaining leave of that court, asserting or purporting to assert a claim under the United States Constitution or the Administrative Procedure Act challenging actions taken by the Department of Justice to defend against the suits referenced in paragraph 1(a) and/or suits to collect income tax liabilities;
· Filing, or assisting in the filing of, any civil action in any United States District Court, without first obtaining leave of that court, asserting or purporting to assert claims against judicial officers, whether in their official or personal capacities, challenging the merit, the substance, and/or the process of those judicial officers’ decisions with respect to the Internal Revenue Service’s program for preparing to assess and assessing income tax liabilities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b);”
Now, three years later, we are assisting a new Plaintiff in filing his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (filing, of course, a “Motion for Leave to File” to ensure our compliance with the injunction).
During this process, I began remembering the time when the subject of an injunction against us was first proposed to the Court. It was in the Government’s August 15, 2016 Answer and Counterclaim in case #16-1053 Crumpacker v. Ciraolo-Klepper, et al. The injunction language begins on page 7 of that document, which was authored by DoJ Tax Division Trial Attorney, Ryan O. McMonagle.
Crumpacker was the fifth case filed to enjoin the IRS from falsifying its records to make it appear that, in cases involving so-called “non-filers”, a Substitute For Income Tax Return (SFR) had been prepared and received by the IRS on certain dates, allegedly in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §6020(b), when evidence obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proves the IRS NEVER prepares or receives SFRs on any date.
We know this is true because the government, when asked in more than fifteen cases filed between 2014 and 2018, has NEVER been able to produce copies of the SFRs.
As you read McMonagle’s injunction language in the Answer and Counterclaim, he knows he is defending government fraud as he writes the following lies:
“Counterclaim Defendants Ellis and McNeil
knowingly filed actions that are factually frivolous, without any legal basis, and duplicative of each other
RAM FACT CHECK: False - Every lawsuit we filed, or assisted others to file, has been based on incontrovertible evidence of IRS record falsification in Individual Master File (IMF) documents obtained directly from the IRS via FOIA. The clearly articulated, core legal basis of each lawsuit was to enjoin (stop) the IRS from falsifying its records, which is a clear violation of federal law, i.e. 18 U.S.C. §1001. This is what sets our lawsuits apart from all other types of “traditional tax suits”.
The lawsuits are viewed as duplicative because my examination of IMF records of multiple litigants revealed the same pattern of transaction codes, thus proving the pattern and practice of IRS record falsification was institutionalized, that is, it affected different so-called “non-filers” in the same manner.
knew or had reason to know that their lawsuits asserted claims that were not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for modifying the existing law
RAM FACT CHECK: False - Every lawsuit asserted claims of IRS record falsification, which is a clear violation of federal law, i.e. 18 U.S.C. §1001 and certainly not frivolous. Also, no lawsuit ever asserted a claim to modify the existing law, but was filed only to hold accountable those government employees responsible for violating it.
knew that their factual claims lack evidentiary support
RAM FACT CHECK: False - Before any lawsuit is filed, a Plaintiff typically mails a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the IRS for the purpose of obtaining copies of various reports extracted from his/her Individual Master File (IMF) records. Examples of these extracts are: Account Transcript; AMDISA; ENMOD; IMFOLT; TXMODA; Form 4340 Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters; and any SFRs allegedly created. Once someone (like me) deciphers and analyzes the Transaction Codes (TCs), Document Locator Numbers (DLNs) and other pertinent data contained in each of these extracts, the method by which the IRS falsifies its records becomes clear. Thus, the facts alleged in each lawsuit are fully supported by incontrovertible evidence from the IRS’ own computer records. And, since every DoJ attorney assigned to defend the IRS has failed to refute this evidence, they are left with only one response: They must lie.
filed these actions for the express purpose of burdening the IRS, DOJ, and the courts with their frivolous claims, and not for any proper purpose
RAM FACT CHECK: False - I suppose I would make the same vacuous statement if I were a government attorney assigned the impossible task of defending the IRS institutionalized record falsification scheme in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Nevertheless, there can be no greater or proper purpose for filing these lawsuits than to stop the IRS from falsifying it records in order to garnish wages, issue liens and levies, seize assets, and cause innocent Americans to be indicted, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned.
filed multiple frivolous motions, pleadings, and appeals in their respective actions, with the full knowledge that their pleadings were legally insufficient as a matter of law
RAM FACT CHECK: False - Since every lawsuit is supported by evidence obtained directly from the IRS, not one lawsuit is frivolous or legally insufficient as a matter of law.
have publicly encouraged others to file identical, frivolous lawsuits, and have assisted in those lawsuits by preparing supporting documents such as affidavits that are filed with the initial pleadings
RAM FACT CHECK: False - To date, all litigants have reached out to me on this website for help and chosen to represent themselves in their lawsuits because 1) they have been impoverished by the actions of the IRS, or 2) no attorney will place their law license at risk by using the IRS record falsification scheme as a defense.
Also, as Section I.B.b. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s Pro Se Non-Prisoner Handbook, states: “As a pro se litigant you may not authorize another person who is not an attorney to appear for you. While you may receive help from other non-attorneys in drafting your pleadings and other papers, you must personally sign your complaint and all additional papers filed with the court. If several individuals commence an action together, each person must personally sign the complaint.”
Therefore, Michael and I have the right (and DUTY) to use our knowledge, skills and experience to assist anyone who requests our help. Also, any affidavits or declarations we prepare are signed and sworn under the penalty of perjury and are based on the facts we observed in the evidence the litigants received directly from the IRS.
Further, the lawsuits are NOT frivolous and the allegations ARE identical because each one is based on the falsified records created by the IRS’ institutionalized scheme.
Counterclaim Defendants’ frivolous lawsuits, and their encouragement of a multiplicity of additional frivolous lawsuits, has interfered with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws
RAM FACT CHECK: False - No one in America is above the law, and that applies especially to government servants like Mr. McMonagle and the federal judges who enable him to lie with impunity. Unable to provide SFRs that the IRS records claim were received approximately 20 days before they were prepared, he resorts to calling the lawsuits “frivolous”.
Also, in response to his claim that the lawsuits have “interfered with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws”, I say that Congress gave NO government entity the authority to violate any law when carrying out its duties.
In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, in Justice Brandeis’ incomparable dissent, he explained that our Government cannot commit crime: “When these unlawful acts were committed, they were crimes only of the officers individually. The Government was innocent, in legal contemplation, for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf”. [Emph. Added.]
Thus, the purpose of the lawsuits is to stop the IRS from violating federal law (18 U.S.C. §1001) by falsifying its records and this is a perfectly legitimate purpose for filing such suits, notwithstanding Mr. McMonagle’s claims to the contrary.
The requested injunction, barring Counterclaim Defendants and anyone acting at their direction or in concert with them from filing the specific type of legal challenge at issue in this case without obtaining prior leave from the court, is necessary for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws
RAM FACT CHECK: False – And, with this statement, Mr. McMonagle reveals the true purpose of the requested injunction: to place the government’s need for revenue above due process, interfere with our efforts to stop the IRS from violating federal law to falsify its records and to perpetuate fraud to ruin the lives of millions of innocent Americans.
There is a likelihood of irreparable harm if Counterclaim Defendants and their followers can continue to file yet more lawsuits without prior leave. Counterclaim Defendants’ civil actions burden the courts, force the IRS and DOJ to expend scarce federal resources in defending against them, and interfere with the individually-named defendants’ ability to properly perform their duties
RAM FACT CHECK: False – As long as the federal government is allowed to create fiat currency out of thin air, there is no such thing as “scarce federal resources”. That old trope just doesn’t work anymore and should be rejected out of hand.
Also, if the courts want to reduce their burden, they should invoke their equity jurisdiction, adjudicate our lawsuits on their merits and rule in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Finally, I contend that 1) the DoJ’s pattern and practice of falsifying the ACTUAL allegations in Plaintiffs’ lawsuits to make it appear they are attempting to stop the IRS from creating SFRs, thus removing the Courts’ jurisdiction based on the 1867 Tax Anti-Injunction Act and 2) the Courts’ dismissal of the lawsuits based on the DoJ’s falsified allegations, are NOT proper functions in the performance of any government servant’s duties. They are, in fact, felonies in violation of multiple federal statutes.
The balance of harms favors the United States. The requested injunction would not deprive Counterclaim Defendants of access to the courts, or even the ability to file a complaint, but would only require them to seek and obtain prior leave from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before filing complaints in this District that assert challenges to the process of creating returns under 26 U.S.C. §6020
RAM FACT CHECK: False – To this day, Mr. McMonagle still fails to understand, recognize, or admit the truth that the evidence reveals: the IRS never creates SFRs, but falsifies its records to make it appear returns were created when they weren’t.
The real harm is inflicted on the American people who suffer the effects of the tyranny of the IRS’ record falsification scheme and its cover-up and perpetuation by corrupt Department of Justice attorneys and federal judges.
The requested injunction would serve the public interest by preventing facially frivolous lawsuits from being entered onto the dockets of the courts of this District, as well preventing the IRS and DOJ from being forced to divert resources away from tax administration and enforcement efforts in order to defend a multiplicity of frivolous lawsuits.”
RAM FACT CHECK: False – “Frivolous” is the government’s favorite f-word and is used by the IRS, DoJ attorneys and federal judges to minimize, obfuscate and denigrate our allegations of government fraud described and documented in each plaintiff’s lawsuit. Once used, it is parroted by every subsequent public servant to 1) prevent an unbiased review of the incontrovertible evidence proving the fraud and 2) interfere with the adjudication of the case based on its merits, thereby obstructing the plaintiff’s rights to due process.
Final Word: For those of you who say “McNeil and Ellis have lost every case they filed”, I say this in return.
“No, we haven’t ‘lost’ any cases. Notwithstanding the government’s lies to the contrary, not one suit has been adjudicated on its merits. If they had, the IRS’ record falsification scheme would have ended seven years ago.”