21st Century American Revolutionary
Founder/President – American Citizen Party
Posted: 27 Jun 2016, by http://www.mainerepublicemailalert.com
In the next few days, the ninth (9th) Plaintiff will file his lawsuit in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia for the purpose of enjoining the IRS from committing crimes in the enforcement of the income tax, as it relates to so-called “non-filers”. With each case, and the Government’s response to it, we learn more about the strategy and tactics of the Department of Justice (DoJ) attorneys and the Federal judges, who are working in concert to defeat these cases.
Michael Ellis elaborates below.
The power of truth is ours. Let’s use it judiciously to restore the Rule of Law to our Nation.
We can now outline precisely the contours of the judicial scheme to defeat Class litigation concerning the underlying IRS record falsification scheme. That is, due to the progress of our litigation, we can now predict in advance how district judges will provide themselves the pretense of lawfulness to dismiss cases involving the underlying IRS / DoJ record fraud.
Specifically, we can now predict in our initial complaints how the federal district court judge assigned to the new case will commit the following 5 crimes or violations of mandatory, binding precedent of the Circuit and Supreme Court, to defeat the case, (or, hopefully there may be a faithful, fearless federal judge who will obey and restore the Rule of Law).
1. Judges are required by Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to “consider as true all the well-pled allegations of a complaint”. [Cites available on request.] Thus they should begin with the complaint allegations and proceed from there. In Class cases, this means that the judge MUST consider as true explicit Class allegations that show precisely where and when the IRS is systematically falsifying government records to make it look like it had executed substitute income tax returns on claimed dates, when in truth they merely manipulate their databases to produce the appearance in their records that they executed such substitute returns, although none are executed on any date. But instead of starting with the ACTUAL complaint allegations, to justify dismissal, judges of Class litigation MUST violate that requirement to not ignore the allegations, and instead will
2. Fabricate allegations, and insert them in the case while attributing them to the Class plaintiffs. For example, in Ellis v. Commish and McNeil v Commish, Judges Jackson and Kollar-Kotelly fabricated that those Plaintiffs sought to enjoin assessment or collection activities, when in FACT the Plaintiffs sought only to enjoin the falsification of IRS records to make them reflect that the IRS performed substitute income tax returns, when no such forms were ever performed. For a second example, in Ellis v. Jarvis, Judge Boasberg fabricated and attributed to the Plaintiff that he was supposedly trying to block a criminal indictment, when in fact he only sought to compel the U.S. Attorney General to present to the Dallas County Grand Jury the substantial exculpatory evidence that the IRS falsifies its records concerning every “non-filer”, in the manner mentioned above.
Federal judges have no authority to fabricate allegations and attribute them to litigants to justify them dismissing cases. In fact, falsely attributing to a plaintiff an allegation, in order to preserve, prolong, and conceal an underlying criminal scheme, is a violation of 18 USC §4. Such acts are known as “misprision of felony”, when done to conceal an underlying criminal act. Federal judges are not immune from suit for committing crimes proscribed by Congress, such as “misprision of felony”. [The four elements to prove commission of that crime can be googled. Please do so.]
3. District Court judges will also violate mandatory binding precedent requiring trial courts to “grant to a plaintiff all reasonable inferences which can be derived from his well-pled complaint allegations”. [Cites available on request.] In Class cases, the reasonable inference that district judges MUST deliberately refuse to grant in order to conceal and prolong the underlying criminal scheme, is the inference that since no Govt. agent can commit crimes to enforce the law, (google U.S. v. Olmstead, Justice Brandeis’ excellent dissent), the repeated, layered falsification of government records by IRS employees, violating 18 USC §1001 under direction of IRS attorneys, are “extraordinary acts” justifying exercise of a district court’s “equitable jurisdiction”. Thus, to justify dismissing Class cases, federal district judges will grant ZERO inferences which should have been derived from the complaint allegations of Class plaintiffs, violating binding precedent in the process.
4. U.S. District judges are concealing the existence of, and refusing to exercise what’s labeled the “equitable jurisdiction” of their courts.
Backstory: With the enactment of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both the law and the equity jurisdictions of federal courts were merged. But still equity exists when 1.) “extraordinary facts” are alleged, and when 2.) no remedy ‘at law’ exists to justly resolve a conflict. Since the IRS has no authority to violate the criminal law by falsifying federal records, their systematic acts of doing so are truly “extraordinary facts”, and there is no remedy short of a civil suit to bring those crimes to a halt.
Yet, instead of engaging their equitable jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying criminal record falsification scheme run by attorneys inside the IRS and the DoJ, the federal judges will claim that the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 supposedly stripped them of ALL jurisdiction, despite the fact that simple analysis of the context, text, and history of the Act shows that it only imposed limitations on the exercise of equity, and did not “strip” courts of that all-important equity jurisdiction. [Details of that analysis are available in McNeil v Commissioner, See Rule 59 Motion.]
Again, Class plaintiffs are not attempting to halt assessment or collection activities authorized by Congress, (which attempts WOULD be barred by the Anti-Injunction Act prohibitions) but instead seek only to enjoin/halt the systematic falsification of federal records that the IRS secretly performs to build records to justify forfeiture actions and criminal prosecutions of “non-filers”.
Chief Justice John Marshal declared that the refusal by a court to exercise a jurisdiction given it was ‘treason to the constitution’. [See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 1821]. Thus federal district court judges can only justify dismissing Class cases by refusing to even mention, let alone engage, the equitable jurisdiction for use in extraordinary cases such as the Class provides, by committing treason to the constitution.
5. Finally, U.S. District and Circuit judges create the appearance of “precedent” to dismiss Class cases, when incredibly no federal judge has ever performed their duties mentioned above to concede as true the Class allegations that the IRS daily falsifies government records, when no federal judge has ever inferred that such acts are “extraordinary”, and when no federal judge has even mentioned his/her Court’s latent equitable jurisdiction available for such a time as this, let alone exercised it. Fabricating the appearance of, and knowingly using pretended, fabricated “precedent” that never addressed the case pending before the Court appears to be a criminal act taken to conceal and prolong the underlying criminal scheme. It is also a violation of a litigants 1st Amendment right to MEANINGFUL access to courts.
Any new Class members could allege in their opening complaints that the integrity of the judge presiding over their case will be sorely tested to conform to the 5 crimes or violations of binding precedent committed to date in other Class cases, as shown above.
Nothing proves the bankruptcy of the federal bar more clearly than watching attorneys behind federal benches conceal and prolong crimes committed under the direction of attorneys inside the IRS and the DoJ. And, sadly, nothing more visibly provides evidence that the Federal Bar is deliberately and carefully destroying the Rule of Law which made our Nation great.
Never in the history of this nation have litigants been able to forecast from the inception of their cases the precise crimes and violation of law that federal judges MUST commit to dismiss meritorious cases concerning any underlying crimes committed by the Government.
It is truly empowering to “see the future” of our litigation from the initiation of a complaint. Thus, since that power belongs to us, let’s use it wisely to restore the Rule of Law, a course the federal judiciary should be applauding most vigorously. We will see.
Join us in liberty. RAM-V-IRS.com