Should this WordPress.com blog ever become unavailable, you can access the exact same posts at this mirrored website: https://supremecourtcase.net. Please visit this alternate website and bookmark it.
Since the last post, some significant things have occurred regarding (1) United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 17-mc-1557 Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Summons (“Civil Action No. 17-mc-1557”), and (2) IRS collection activities.
Regarding Civil Action No. 17-mc-1557:
- August 6, 2018 (15 months ago): Petitioner files into the record this Objection and Demand for a Constitutional Judge or Immediate Dissolution of this Kangaroo Court,(1) the Oath of Office of whose Alleged Judges is expressly Prohibited by the Constitution and the Unconstitutionality of which Is Blackletter Law(2) (the “Demand for Dissolution of this Kangaroo Court”);
- August 8, 2018 (15 months ago): Based on the contents of the Demand for Dissolution of this Kangaroo Court and Petitioner’s knowledge of felonious acts, Petitioner swears to a criminal complaint against the U.S. district judge and U.S. magistrate judge in the case, as well as their employer, the District of Columbia(3) and begins the process of getting it accepted by Texas authorities (but does not file it into the case);
- August 30, 2018 (15 months ago): The judge in Civil Action No. 17-mc-1557 ignores the accuracy and appositeness(4) of the contents of the Demand for Dissolution of this Kangaroo Court and unlawfully enters an Order concluding the case;
- February 21, 2019 (nine months ago): After spending six months submitting, unsuccessfully, the criminal complaint to four different Texas authorities, Petitioner uses the “Official Sworn Complaint of Criminal Misconduct” form provided by the Public Corruption Division (“PCD”) of the Harris County, Texas, District Attorney’s Office, and submits to PCD the criminal complaint for the District Attorney to present to the grand jury;
- March 5, 2019 (eight months ago): PCD sends Petitioner this letter, declining to present Petitioner’s criminal complaint to the grand jury;
- April 2, 2019 (seven months ago): Petitioner does an “Amended Official Sworn Complaint of Criminal Misconduct” (the “Amended PCD Form”) and amends the criminal complaint (the “Amended Criminal Complaint”) so as to include only the subject U.S. district judge as a defendant and submits the Amended PCD Form and Amended Criminal Complaint to the PCD for presentment to the grand jury; and
- October 16, 2019 (one month ago): PCD sends Petitioner this response informing Petitioner that the Division Chief of the PCD of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office will present the Amended Criminal Complaint to the grand jury
Regarding IRS collection activities:
- April 2, 2018 (19 months ago): An IRS Revenue Officer personally delivers to Petitioner these IRS Forms CP504 “Notice of Intent to seize (levy) your property or rights to property”;
- April 30, 2018 (19 months ago): In response the above IRS Forms CP504, Petitioner sends IRS this IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request and attached Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace—the subject matter of which is the (a) unlawfulness (for the same reasons delineated in the above criminal complaint) of the judge’s order which purportedly warrants seizure of Petitioner’s property, and (b) commercial, civil, and criminal penalties which will be enforced against any IRS personnel who seeks to levy / seize Petitioner’s property—the result of which is that no levy / seizure of Petitioner’s property occurs;
- September 25, 2018 (14 months ago): Numerous exchanges between Petitioner and an IRS Revenue Agent and two IRS Revenue Officers culminate in this IRS Letter 950 from the Acting Director, Examination – Gulf States Area; and
- October 24, 2018 (13 months ago): Petitioner responds to the above September 25, 2018, letter (as prescribed therein in the second bulleted item at the top of page 2) from the IRS executive with this devastating October 24, 2018, Formal Protest and receives no further communication from IRS on the matter.
- kangaroo court. 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (West Group: St. Paul, Minn., 1999), 359 (s.v. “Court”).NOTE: The greatest insult to a justice or judge is that his court is a kangaroo court.
- blackletter law. One or more legal principles that are old, fundamental, and well settled. ● The term refers to the law printed in books set in Gothic type, which is very bold and black. — Also termed hornbook law. Id. at 163.
- The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation (incorporated February 21, 1871), also known as and doing business as United States, in turn also known as and doing business as United States of America.
- appositeness: the quality or state of being highly pertinent or appropriate.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Notwithstanding this guarantee, the current form of government found in “every State in this Union,” id., though seemingly republican in form, is ultimately municipal—because, as shown herein below, every such State (i.e., body politic, not geographic area) has been transmuted into a political subdivision of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, 16 Stat. 419, whose municipal law is Roman Civil Law.
Roman Civil Law equates to absolute, exclusive territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislative power (and executive and judicial jurisdiction) over residents of municipal territory.
The best symbol of Roman Civil Law is the badge of authority borne before Roman magistrates in ancient Rome, the fasces (Lat., from plural of fascis bundle)—a bundle of rods with an ax bound up in the middle and the blade projecting—as displayed on the Seal of the United States Senate, the wall behind the podium in the House of Representatives, reverse of the Mercury dime, National Guard Bureau insignia, Seal of the United States Tax Court, etc.
Americans who do not physically reside in the District of Columbia today nevertheless are treated as residents of that municipality for legal purposes based on certain unconstitutional stealth legislation.
Until his recent May 17, 2018, motion for an order to show cause why Petitioner should not be held in contempt for alleged violation of the Court’s September 13, 2017, Order, the last time the US attorney made an appearance was December 20, 2017—a span of 148 days.
During that period the US attorney failed to respond to any of Petitioner’s four case-dispositive (tending to dispose of) motions to dismiss with prejudice: a representation to the Court that United States of America does not oppose Petitioner’s requests for dismissal with prejudice of this alleged action in equity.
The respective essence of Petitioner’s four unopposed motions to dismiss with prejudice is as follows:
- no constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction, exercise “The judicial Power of the United States” (Constitution, Art. III, § 1), or enter an Order against Petitioner in Harris County Texas (Document 30);
- failure to allege a contractual duty of Petitioner or damage (actual or threatened) to non-governmental private-sector Internal Revenue Service, and therefore failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Document 32);
- United States of America’s fraud on the Court (misrepresentation that non-governmental private-sector Internal Revenue Service is part of United States of America) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Document 36); and
- United States of America’s lack of Article III-standing (no injury to United States of America, actual or threatened) to bring this alleged suit in equity (Document 41).
Petitioner on June 5, 2018, filed Petitioner’s response in opposition to United States of America’s motion for contempt of court.
The next day, June 6, 2018, Petitioner filed an objection for substitution of the real party in interest—private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury, a.k.a. and DBA “United States Treasury”—for alleged petitioner United States of America.
The day after that, June 7, 2018, Petitioner demanded disclosure of whether real-party-in-interest Secretary of the Treasury is (a) a government officer seeking to enforce government laws, or (b) a private-sector businessman seeking to enforce the terms of some private contract; the motion docket date (date by which any response from United States of America is due) of which is June 28, 2018.
The US attorney has previously demonstrated his inability to manage this case (see Document 16) and now to deal with any of Petitioner’s several motions to dismiss with prejudice without unfair (inequitable) assistance from the magistrate or judge or both.
The magistrate will make her recommendation/s to the judge regarding all the pending motions before the Court sometime after each party has had the opportunity to respond to each motion submitted by the other.
Whether the US attorney responds to the June 7 motion (demand for disclosure) by June 28 or not, Petitioner will be posting here again prior to that time.
When IRS makes an assessment of tax allegedly due, such tax may be collected by levy or court proceeding, but only if the levy is made or the proceeding begun within 10 years after assessment of said tax liability, 26 U.S.C. § 6502.
If, however, a timely proceeding in court for the collection of said tax is commenced, the period during which such tax may be collected by levy is extended and does not expire until the liability for the tax—or judgment against the taxpayer arising from such liability—is satisfied, id.
Should an alleged taxpayer petition the U.S. Tax Court to challenge an assessment, all collection activity is suspended while the court proceeding is underway.
Should an alleged taxpayer lose in U.S. Tax Court, a new assessment is made and IRS and U.S. Department of Justice get a fresh 10-year period to levy or begin a court proceeding to collect.
Petitioner petitioned U.S. Tax Court re alleged tax liability for tax years 1994-1997, but shortly thereafter withdrew the petition; the USDOJ attorneys and judge, however, continued without Petitioner’s consent and spent some 18 months “holding a trial” with Petitioner in absentia, ultimately ruling for IRS (Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
After time was tacked on to the 26 U.S.C. § 6502 10-year collection period for “time spent” in U.S. Tax Court, the collection period was extended to January 16, 2014.
Nine days before expiration of said 10-year collection period, United States Department of Justice on January 7, 2014, began a court proceeding to enforce collection of the taxes allegedly due for tax years 1994-1997 in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action 4:14-cv-0027 (the “Houston Division Civil Action”).
Because the collection lawsuit was begun within the 10-year collection period, and plaintiff United States of America prevailed, the period during which said alleged tax liability may be collected by levy does not expire until the judgment is satisfied.
This story, however, is not over.
Petitioner recently received in the mail four IRS Forms CP504, “Notice of Intent to seize (levy) your property or rights to property,” dated April 2, 2018 (the “CP504s”), for alleged tax periods ending December 31, 1994-1997.
The CP504s give Petitioner till May 1, 2018, to pay the amount demanded, make arrangements to pay in installments, or submit an IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request or face immediate seizure of property or rights to property.
The alleged authority for the CP504s, upon which they ultimately depend for their authority, legitimacy, and enforceability, is the aforementioned judgment in the Houston Division Civil Action.
As shown in Petitioner’s IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request (hyperlinked below), however, the alleged judge in the Houston Division Civil Action, Lynn Nettleton Hughes, had no authority to take jurisdiction, exercise “The judicial Power of the United States” (Constitution, Art. III, § 1), or enter a judgment in Harris County, Texas.
The foregoing is not an insignificant statement.
If true, it also means that every judgment in every civil or criminal proceeding in every United States district court throughout the Union is void for the respective judge’s lack of authority to take cognizance of the matter in question, a condition known as coram non judice; to wit:
“coram non judice . . . [Latin ‘not before a judge’] 1. Outside the presence of a judge. 2. Before a judge or court that is not the proper one or that cannot take legal cognizance of the matter.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 338.
Petitioner’s Response to CP504s.
Petitioner followed the instructions provided in the CP504s and on April 26, 2018, sent an IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request and attached to it a Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace and Affidavit of Mailing.
The Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace educates IRS as to the invalidity of the alleged judgment upon which the alleged CP504s depend and tells IRS what Petitioner will do if IRS undertakes any act in respect of the CP504s that results in damage to Petitioner or Petitioner’s property or rights to property.
Because neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a commissioned officer of the United States but a private-sector businessman: (a) Neither of the organizations over which they administer, i.e., Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, respectively, is part of government but a private-sector business, (b) every employee thereof a private-sector worker, and (c) any criminal offense committed in Texas by any such private-sector employee properly a Texas, and not a Federal, matter.
Petitioner’s revised IRS Form 9423 and Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace spell out the penalties should IRS damage Petitioner via the alleged CP504s, as well as penalties for any retaliatory acts (e.g., criminal charges) taken against Petitioner should Petitioner enforce the penalties set forth therein against private-sector Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service or their respective employees.
IRS summons-case update.
- New motion to dismiss
Petitioner on April 11, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss for United States of America’s lack of constitutional (Article III) standing to.
The US attorney had until May 2, 2018, to respond, but stood mute.
Petitioner on May 3, 2018, filed with the Court a Notice of United States of America’s representation of no opposition to respondent’s April 11, 2018, case-dispositive motion to dismiss with prejudice and Request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
The US attorney failed to respond to any of Petitioner’s last four motions to dismiss—a representation that he does not oppose what is requested in any of said motions (dismissal with prejudice).
The last time the US attorney filed anything in the Court was December 20, 2017—four and half months ago.
Under the rules of equity, the US attorney’s failure to prosecute or participate in the suit operates to imply that the IRS summons case should be dismissed with prejudice immediately, as requested by Petitioner.
- “United States Treasury”
As you may know, the payee listed in every IRS request or demand for payment is “United States Treasury.”
Although Congress mention “United States Treasury” 14 times in Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking, three times in Title 26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code, and six times in Title 31 U.S.C. Money and Finance, there is no statute that expressly creates, establishes, or defines “United States Treasury.”
The closest thing to identifying how “United States Treasury” was created or what it is or means, is found in regulations written by non-officer of the United States, private-sector worker Secretary of the Treasury at 31 C.F.R. Money and Finance, Part 203 Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan Program, Subpart A General Information, § 203.2 Definitions:
There being no congressional statute that creates, establishes, or defines it, “United States Treasury” appears to be a fictitious name created by Secretary of the Treasury, in which certain private business bank accounts are maintained for his personal use, either directly as a signatory or by proxy (junior employee in private-sector Department of the Treasury).
If this is true, it means that ultimately every penny collected in so-called income tax goes not to anyone in government but rather the exclusive, unilateral control of non-governmental, non-officer of the United States, private-sector worker Secretary of the Treasury (see 31 U.S.C. § 321(d)(1) and (2) for verification of this point).
It also would mean that governmental United States of America would have no constitutional standing to sue any alleged taxpayer in any United States District Court for alleged unpaid taxes for lack of a case or controversy between the litigants—because the actual party in interest is not governmental United States of America but private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury, via his DBA and alter ego “United States Treasury.”
And also that the instant civil action to compel Petitioner to produce books and records for the ultimate benefit of private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury, would have to be dismissed for United States of America’s lack of Article III standing (no case or controversy between the parties) to bring suit against Petitioner.
Presently, Petitioner is waiting for the Court to grant Petitioner’s motion for an order compelling the U.S. Secretary of State to produce for Petitioner’s inspection and copying, the commission, as an officer of the United States, of current Secretary of the Treasury Steven Terner Mnuchin (and former Commissioner of Internal Revenue John Andrew Koskinen).
When the U.S. Secretary of State is forced to comply with the subpoena (whether in the current IRS summons case or some other civil or criminal proceeding in the future) and has to produce the commission, as an officer of the United States, of the Secretary of the Treasury or, in the alternative, certify that there is no document in his custody responsive to the subpoena, there will be sufficient evidence on the table to resolve all disputes and rectify any discrepancy.
 This aligns with a previous official statement as to the nature of income tax; to wit:
“100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt . . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace, “President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President,” dated and approved January 12 and 15, 1984, p. 3.
Following the judge’s February 5, 2018, Order referring the case to the magistrate to conduct all pretrial proceedings, Petitioner filed the following three separate motions to dismiss with prejudice (i.e., dismissal barring prosecution of any later suit based on the same claim), each with its own particular reason:
- THE COURT LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Every act of every government officer, state or federal, must be authorized by at least one provision of the Constitution; see Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989); Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of th [sic] Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813).
Petitioner on February 14, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for lack of constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The US attorney had 21 days from date of filing of said motion, i.e., till March 7, 2018, to file a response in opposition, but remained silent.
The reason the US attorney failed to oppose the above case-dispositive motion (i.e., a motion that is divestitive in nature and brings about the extinction of rights and disposes of the case) is that there is no provision of the Constitution that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The Court (and United States Department of Justice) is operating in Harris County, Texas, without constitutional authority.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion is the US attorney’s representation to the Court that he does not oppose it—is sufficient ground for the judge to grant Petitioner’s motion and dismiss with prejudice the case.
Upon the US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion, Petitioner on March 8, 2018, filed a notice of United States of America’s failure to oppose respondent’s case-dispositive motion to dismiss and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Whereas, the judge has no capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas, there is nothing that the US attorney could have said in opposition without incriminating himself.
In this alleged equity proceeding, the “United States” district court is an instrumentality of the District of Columbia, a Federal municipal corporation (see 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15) for definition of “United States” in every civil or criminal proceeding regarding an alleged debt, such as alleged taxes, allegedly owed to the United States), and the judge is usurping exercise of jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the corporate charter of said municipal corporation, 16 Stat 419, which is limited to the territory within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.
- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A PRIVATE-SECTOR BUSINESS WITH NO AUTHORITY OVER PETITIONER
Petitioner on February 27, 2018, filed an amended motion to dismiss with prejudice which asserts that, because neither the so-called Secretary of the Treasury nor his underling, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is a commissioned officer of the United States: (a) Neither is a government officer, (b) both are private-sector workers, (c) the organization over which each administers and which issued the subject IRS administrative summons, i.e., IRS, is not part of the government, (d) IRS is a private-sector organization (business), (e) the only cause of action a private-sector business such as IRS could bring against Petitioner is for breach of contract, (e) there is no evidence of any contract between IRS and Petitioner, and, therefore (f) the government’s case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The US attorney had until March 20, 2018, to file a response in opposition to this motion, but remained silent, whereupon Petitioner on March 21, 2018, filed a notice of the US attorney’s failure to oppose said motion and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to this case-dispositive motion is his representation that he does not oppose it and sufficient ground for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Every justice and judge of the United States and every United States attorney knows that the Internal Revenue Service is part of the private Federal Reserve.
To provide evidence that IRS is not part of government, Petitioner on March 1, 2018, served United States Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson (custodian of the Great Seal of the United States) with two subpoenas commanding his production, at 10:00 A.M. on March 22, 2018, of the commission as an Officer of the United States, in effect as of May 30, 2017 (date IRS administrative summons was served on Petitioner)—bearing the signature of the President of the United States and Great Seal of the United States—of (1) current Secretary of the Treasury Steven Terner Mnuchin, and (2) former Commissioner of Internal Revenue John Andrew Koskinen.
The 10:00 A.M. March 22, 2018, deadline came and went, with no word from Secretary of State Tillerson.
No commission, as an officer of the United States, exists for either man because each is a private-sector businessman.
Because Secretary of State Tillerson failed to obey the subpoenas for production of documents, Petitioner on the afternoon of the same day, March 22, 2018, filed a motion to compel compliance with Subpoenas for the production of documents, and request for an order to show cause why non-party Rex W. Tillerson should not be held in contempt and submitted a proposed Order for the judge to sign.
Secretary of State Tillerson can avoid a contempt citation simply by providing Petitioner with written certification that there is no document in his custody responsive to either of the subpoenas.
- IRS NOT PART OF “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”—WHO HAS COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT
“Fraud on the court” is defined as follows:
“fraud on the court. A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding, ● Examples are bribery of a juror and introduction of fabricated evidence.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 671.
The instant petition represents by inference that Internal Revenue Service is part of alleged “United States of America.”
Being an organization whose senior executive is a non-governmental private-sector businessman, IRS cannot be part of any government—either the alleged “United States of America” (moribund since June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 223, 306, sec. 182) or District of Columbia, a municipal corporation (16 Stat 419).
Whereas, only a duly commissioned officer of the United States can administer over a government organization, Internal Revenue Service cannot be part of government and alleged “United States of America” has made a false representation and committed fraud on the court.
Because alleged “United States of America” has no right to title or ownership of any alleged claim of a private business (IRS), alleged “United States of America” has failed to state a claim (of its own) upon which relief can be granted.
All the above monkey business is evidence of unclean hands on the part of alleged “United States of America,” a factor which, according to the rules of equity, deprives alleged “United States of America” of relief in this or any other such forum.
In respect of the foregoing, Petitioner on March 12, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, to which the US attorney has until April 2, 2018, to file a response in opposition or concede by omission that he does not oppose it.
Whereas, the last time we heard anything from the US attorney was December 20, 2017 (three months ago), and the likely reason for his failure to respond to either of the first two above motions to dismiss is fear of self-incrimination, it is not likely we will hear from him on the third.
The judge is an impartial referee whose job it is to help the litigants resolve their dispute.
When one litigant files a case-dispositive motion and the other fails to oppose it, the equitable thing for the judge to do is dismiss the case as requested by the movant.
Further, he who brings suit (in this instance alleged “United States of America”) has the responsibility to prosecute it, and failure to prosecute (called non prosequitur) is ground for judgment against him (and the US attorney seems to have disappeared).
Shortly after Petitioner provided evidence that IRS is engaging in evil practice against Petitioner in this case, the judge on February 5, 2018, brought in the magistrate for the purpose of producing reports and recommendations regarding all pending matters—and thereafter Petitioner filed the above three case-dispositive motions.
Whether the US attorney responds to the third above motion by April 2, 2018, or not, the magistrate will have at multiple sufficient reasons to recommend that alleged “United States of America” be denied relief in this court of equity for unclean hands and evil practice against Petitioner or that any one of Petitioner’s unresolved motions be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice.
Conversely, there appears to be no equitable reason why this case should be allowed to continue.
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.