Nationwide, Permanent Injunction
An old, WWII bomber pilot once said “The flak is heaviest when you’re over the target.”
This is as true in the battle against criminal government activity as it is in war.
After we filed two new lawsuits in 2017 against four (4) Federal judges (17-cv-1720 and 17-cv-2602), Michael Ellis and I were ordered to appear at a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper on March 1, 2018, in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing was to “show cause” why we should NOT be held in Contempt of Court for allegedly violating Judge Cooper’s earlier injunction issued in April 19, 2017. At the end of the hearing, Judge Cooper found that we had NOT violated his injunction because the injunction did not prohibit us from filing any action against “judicial officers”. However, Judge Cooper did order the DoJ attorney to submit additional language to amend his April 19, 2017 injunction to include “judicial officers”.
On April 3, 2018, Judge Cooper then issued the following Amended Nationwide Permanent Injunction, which included the additional third bullet point in Paragraph 1.
This amended injunction is posted on this website to comply with paragraph (3) of his Order.
It is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) 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);
(2) In order to seek prior leave of court to file an action referenced in paragraph 1, the counterclaim defendants shall, before filing any complaint or other initiating document, file with the court a document titled “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File,” that: (i) certifies that the claims presented are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits on or jurisdictional grounds by any court; (ii) describes the allegations of the complaint; and (iii) contains a certification under penalty of contempt that the allegations of the complaint are true; and (iv) attaches a copy of this injunction. The counterclaim defendants shall not be permitted to file said action unless and until such application is granted.
(3) Counterclaim Defendant Robert A. McNeil shall post a copy of this amended injunction on his website, http://ram-v-irs.com.
(4) The United States may engage in post-judgment discovery to monitor compliance with the injunction.
(5) The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the counterclaim defendants and this action for the purpose of implementing and enforcing this injunction and any additional orders necessary and appropriate to the public interest.
(6) The United States may provide actual notice of the injunction entered in this action pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2) by sending a true and correct copy thereof to the counterclaim defendants by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by other private courier, such as Federal Express, to the address for respondents reflected on the Court’s docket sheet for this matter and by filing a certificate of service that certifies the United States’ compliance with this provision.
Date: April 3, 2018
HON. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge