Source: https://www.ram-v-irs.com/16cv2313-ellis-et-al-v-jackson-et-al
Timestamp: 2019-05-26 22:10:04
Document Index: 187948818

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§371', '§1503', '§7421', '§1292', '§455']

16-CV-2313, Ellis, et al, v. Jackson, et al — RAM v. IRS
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #16-cv-2313-TJK
ELLIS v. JACKSON et al
Originally Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
Magistrate G. Michael Harvey
Reassigned to: Judge Timothy J. Kelly
Case #17-CV-00022-TJK
STANLEY v. LYNCH, et al
The instances of judicial misconduct present in 16-1053 Crumpacker are what spurred Michael and I to file our case 16-CV-2313 Ellis and McNeil v. Jackson, Cooper, et al. In this case, we sued District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper, Appellate Court Judge Padmanabhan Srinivasan, DoJ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General - Tax Division - Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, and DoJ Trial Attorney Ryan O'Connor McMonagle in their personal capacities, and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and two (2) Unknown-named IRS/DoJ attorneys, in their official capacities, for committing Misprision of Felony (a violation of 18 U.S.C. §4), Conspiracies to Defraud the United States (a violation of 18 U.S.C. §371) and Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice (a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1503).
This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 18, 2016 and assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
On February 3, 2017, however, Judge Sullivan issued a Minute Order "referring this case to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey for full case management, up to but excluding trial pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. This includes, with respect to any potentially dispositive motions, the preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.3.".
February 14, 2017, David A. Hubbert ~ DoJ Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, and Megan E. Hoffman-Logsdon ~ DoJ Trial Attorney, Tax Division, filed United States' Motion to Dismiss. Upon reading the Memorandum of Law in Support of United States' Motion to Dismiss there was no indication that the Department of Justice would give our allegations any more attention than their predecessors. In fact, they continued to misstate our allegations in order to influence the Court to dismiss our case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S. Code §7421) as the reason.
For example, on Page 3 of 16, the DoJ writes "This action is the twelfth in a series of similar and related actions filed in this district since 2012 that seek (1) enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from preparing tax returns for individuals who do not file their required federal income tax returns, and "(2) enjoin the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) from using certified copies of non-filers’ tax transcripts in subsequent collections and enforcement proceedings, and from defending against cases like the case at bar."
In truth, as in all other cases, we complained that IRS never prepares SFRs, but, falsifies its records to make it appear that it does, and that alleged transcripts are not sworn or properly certified and IRS has no authority under 6020(b) to create "income tax returns".
Additionally, on page 4 of 16, the DoJ makes the following false presumption: ".....McNeil and Ellis maintain a website devoted to their efforts to coordinate attacks on the IRS' ability to collect corporate and individual income tax." As confirmation that it is monitoring this website, in Footnote 3, Ms. Hoffman-Logsdon reaches all the way back and pulls this quote from the third paragraph of my January 20, 2015 blog: "I believe.....that, as long as the Corporate and Individual Income Taxes exist, ‘We the People’ will never truly be free."
1) I, Robert A. McNeil, am the sole owner of the website RAM-v-IRS.com and am wholly responsible for its content. Michael Ellis is not associated with this website in any manner.
2) Except for a short period during the Civil War, prior to 1909 (implementation of the Corporate Income Tax) and 1913 (implementation of the Individual Income Tax), no business or human being was required to fill out an income tax return or pay an income tax. I propose that "We the People" reclaim our economic freedom by bringing pressure on Congress to repeal those laws that took our economic freedom from us and merely return to the two taxing methods written into the Constitution by the Founders, and which still exist today in Article I, Sections 8 and 9 (Indirect Taxes, which must follow the "Rule of Uniformity" and Direct Taxes, which must be apportioned among the States according the census).
Advocating that doesn't make me a "tax protestor", as the DoJ intimates. It makes me a "21st Century American Revolutionary", a title I wear with pride.
In a Minute Order , dated February 15, 2017, Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered the Plaintiffs (Michael and me) to "file an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on or before March 8, 2017. Defendants shall file a reply, if any, on or before March 15, 2017. If Plaintiff does not file a timely opposition, the Court may treat the motion as conceded."
Of course, we timely filed our Opposition to the United States' Motion to Dismiss on March 7, 2017.
NOTE: On March 8, 2017, in case 17-CV-00022, DoJ filed its Motion to Consolidate Cases [Doc. 11], which requested that the Court consolidate cases 16-CV-2313 Ellis v. Jackson, et al and 17-CV-00022 Stanley v. Lynch, et al.
On March 21, 2017, in case 17-CV-00022, we filed Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Consolidate Cases [Doc. 15].
On April 12, 2017, in case 17-CV-00022, Magistrate Harvey issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. 18] in which he granted DoJ’s Motion to Consolidate Cases [Doc. 11].
On April 26, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed Plaintiffs’ Appeal to Judge Sullivan of Magistrate Harvey’s Six Misrepresentations & Motion to Vacate Reference [Doc. 09]. This pleading was filed to 1) request that Judge Sullivan notice six misstatements by Magistrate Harvey in his April 12, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. 18] and 2) that he vacate his referral of both cases to Magistrate G. Michael Harvey and notice Plaintiffs’ refusal to consent to Harvey’s participation in any of our cases.
On April 26, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, DoJ filed United States' First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08] and its accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of United States' First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08-1].
On May 1, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, Magistrate Harvey issued an Order [11] that “Plaintiffs’ shall file an opposition to Defendants’ First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08] on or before May 10, 2017.
On May 1, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Judge Sullivan for Continuance of Magistrate Order Setting Response Date [Doc. 12]. This motion requested that Judge Sullivan continue any response date to DoJ’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08] until our Motion to Vacate Reference [Doc. 09] is decided by the judge.
On May 31, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, Magistrate Harvey issued an Order [Doc. 13] Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Judge Sullivan for Continuance of Magistrate Order Setting Response Date [Doc. 12], but extending the time to file an Opposition to DoJ’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08] to June 14, 2017.
On July 27, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, Judge Sullivan issued an Order [14] denying Plaintiffs’ Appeal to Judge Sullivan of Magistrate Harvey’s Six Misrepresentations & Motion to Vacate Reference [Doc. 09]
On August 7, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) Motion to Certify and Amend Order of July 27, 2017 [Doc. 15].
On August 7, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed our Opposition to First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 16].
On August 7, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed 28 U.S.C. §455(a) Motion to Recuse the Hons. Emmet G. Sullivan and G. Michael Harvey [Doc. 17] which began with “Recent rulings by the named judicial officers prove they are falsifying the record of the two cases captioned above to obstruct Plaintiffs’ efforts to enjoin the Government’s record falsification program damaging them.”
On August 17, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed Notice of Plaintiffs’ Intent to Secure Mandamus Relief to The Hon. Judge Sullivan from the D.C. Circuit [Doc. 18].
On October 31, 2017, case 17-CV-00022 was reassigned from Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to Judge Timothy J. Kelly by direction of Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, Chair, Calendar and Case Management Committee [Doc. 22].
On November 1, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 20] and case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 23], Magistrate Harvey issued his Report and Recommendation in which he granted DoJ’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 08], denied our Motion to Recuse Judge Sullivan (since the case was reassigned to Judge Kelly), and denied all of our remaining motions as moot.
On November 1, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313, Magistrate Harvey issued a Minute Order denying our Motion to Recuse him, citing United States v. Miller, 344 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (D.D.C. 2005) “The judge who is the object of the recusal motion rules on the motion.”
On November 15, 2017, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 21] and case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 24], we filed Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendations.
On February 13, 2018, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 22] and case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 27], we filed Plaintiffs' Notice to the Court re Hearing in U.S. v. FORD, E.D. Cal. District Cause 1:17-CV-00187-EPG to Decide “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice & for Order to Show Cause Why the Gov’t. Should Not Be Sanctioned for Concealing Evidence”.
On June 5, 2018, in case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 28], we filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Notice Docketing in Supreme Court of Plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Petition was assigned Supreme Court cause number 17-1561, is styled “In Re Michael B. Ellis, et al., Petitioners”, and was placed on the docket on May 17, 2018.
On June 19, 2018, Judge Kelly issued an Order [Doc. 25] in case 16-CV-2313 adopting Magistrate Harvey’s November 1, 2017 Report and Recommendation [Doc. 20] in its entirety. This Order granted DoJ’s April 26, 2017 First Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] and denied ALL of Plaintiffs’ motions.
On July 16, 2018, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 27] and case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 29], we filed Plaintiffs' Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judge Kelly's Order of Dismissal.
On August 2, 2018, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 29], DoJ attorney Michael Martineau filed United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter/Amend Order Adopting Magistrate Report & Recommendations. This document also applied to 17-CV-00022.
On August 16, 2018, in case 16-CV-2313, we filed Plaintiffs' Reply to Martineau Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 59(e) Motion [Doc. 31]. This document also applied to 17-CV-00022.
On January 15, 2019, in case 16-CV-2313 [Doc. 34] and case 17-CV-00022 [Doc. 31], we filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Rule 59(e) Motion for Immediate Hearing or to Render Judgment.
On February 22, 2019, we filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Plaintiffs’ FRAP Rule 21 Petition for Mandamus [35]. This Petition requests that the Appeals Court compel Judge Kelly to simply rule, one way or the other, on the fourteen (14) substantive issues identified in Plaintiffs' Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judge Kelly's Order of Dismissal [Docs. 27 & 29], which has now been sitting on the docket for more than seven (7) months.
16-2313 Docket Sheet
19-5047 USCA Docket Sheet
18-1402 U.S. Supreme Court Docket Sheet