Petitioner on December 28, 2017, filed Petitioner’s reply to the USDOJ attorney’s response to Petitioner’s motion demanding the taxing statute to which Petitioner allegedly is liable.
Because the judge’s deputy clerk removed three essential pages from Petitioner’s reply before entering it on the docket, if Petitioner wanted the complete document to appear on the record of the case Petitioner had to file another, “amended” version of the reply, which Petitioner did 11 days later on January 8, 2018 (the only difference in Petitioner’s original and amended reply is that the word “Amended” appears in the title of the latter version).
Both Petitioner’s reply and amended reply demonstrate that the Internal Revenue Service is engaged in evil practice against Petitioner in this equity action and not entitled to relief in any court of equity.
Upon the filing of Petitioner’s reply (December 28, 2017) the USDOJ attorney went silent and has remained so since then.
Because the USDOJ attorney does not know what to do to overcome the substance of Petitioner’s amended reply (showing that the Internal Revenue Service is engaged in evil practice against Petitioner) and the judge needed another participant to carry out his wishes for the case.
Five weeks after the initial filing, the judge on February, 5, 2018, broke silence by entering an Order bringing in the magistrate to make determinations on the matters pending in the case.
The judge knows everything and does not need the magistrate, Dena Hanovice Palermo, for anything and can disregard or supersede anything the magistrate may recommend (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The judge’s purpose in introducing the magistrate is to draw attention away from the failures of the USDOJ attorney and, as an “unbiased” figure, make recommendations as to how to solve “all the issues” before the Court.
In a previous such instance where Petitioner checkmated the USDOJ attorney, Petitioner had demanded the constitutional authority that gives the judge the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter an order in Tyler County, Texas and thereafter moved the court to dismiss, the USDOJ attorney went silent and remained so for the next five and half months until the judge appointed a magistrate to step in and make “recommendations” (dictated by the judge) that the judge could use to salvage the case for the government.
In that case, the magistrate (carrying out the dictates of the judge) ignored material facts on the record and material failures of the USDOJ attorney that were fatal to the government’s case (which should have caused the judge to dismiss the case for the government’s failure to object to Petitioner’s motion to dismiss) and cherry-picked from the record certain facts and pieced them together so as to support the false picture he contrived and upon which his recommendations were based.
The Internal Revenue Service is not entitled to relief in a court of equity (because it comes with unclean hands) and judge and magistrate and USDOJ attorney all know it.
What will the magistrate recommend?
We will have to wait to find out.