« "Gori in ruins"? See for yourself | Main | Freedom Watch »

Lawman: IRS: Chuck Conces' Legacy Lives On - Thanks Chuck!

XXXXXX,

Thank you for the message.  The silence after Chuck's passing has been deafening.

Fortunately, his legacy lives on.

On April 24th, I faced down the Department of Justice in Federal Court, here in Houston.

The IRS Revenue Officer, who I had been battling for over a year, filed a petition with the DOJ to enforce two summonses ordering me to provide bank statements, earnings statements, and other personal documents in order to assess taxes against me for tax years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
and 2006.

As a result, I received a Show Cause Order to appear at 9:00am in Federal Court to explain to the judge why I should not be compelled to comply with the summonses.

Prior to the court date, and armed with Chuck's data, I had filed a 74 page response to the petition, along with 600 pages of exhibits, supporting my position.

I arrived at 8:30am, prepared to defend myself, but never even went into the court room.

The U.S. Attorney approached me in the hallway and said that she had reviewed my response, and determined that I had, in fact, complied with the two summonses.  Then, she produced, signed, and dated a "Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice".

She handed me my copy and said she would file her copy with the court, and that I could go.

A few days later, I received an "Order of Dismissal" from the judge.

The truth is, I never gave one document to the IRS or the Court.

You can read all about it on my website:

www.ram-v-irs.com

After reading the front page, go to my Blog and read the last 4 posts.

Thank you, Chuck!!

RAM 2 ~ IRS 0

Robert A. McNeil
Houston, Texas

--- In national_lawman@yahoogroups.com, "XXXXXXX" <XXXXXXXXXXX@...>
wrote:
>
> It's been 4 months since Chuck's passing.
> It's time to get back to learning and growing and making a difference.
>
> What have you been doing?
>
> XXXXXX
>

___
Ref:

Robert A. McNeil

vs

Internal Revenue Service

This website was created to share my experience in attempting to resolve a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over an alleged federal income tax liability.

The dispute is this. The IRS claims that I owe federal income tax for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. I claim that I don't owe any income tax for those years, or any other tax year.

The conflict centers on the following points:

- The Internal Revenue Code does not "plainly and clearly" lay any liability for an income tax.
- My activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government.
- My revenue are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government.
- My revenues do not constitute "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Constitution.

My position is supported by extensive research into the writings of the Founding Fathers, the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution, numerous Supreme Court rulings, the Internal Revenue Code, and other relevant documents.

On this website, you will find copies of all of the back-and-forth correspondence with numerous IRS Operations Managers, the U.S. Tax Court, IRS appeals Officers, IRS Revenue Officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

I intend to represent myself in Federal Court as a Pro Se litigant, and, as the proceedings move forward to trial, I will post additional documents, as well.

As you can imagine, challenging the authority of the Federal Government is not for the faint of heart. But, armed with the U.S. Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Law (all of which favor the rights of Citizens over those of "Government Gone Wild"), my faith in God, as well as the support of my family and friends, I am confident that in the end, I will prevail.

The one thing I have learned throughout this ordeal is that the Federal Government prefers to operate in darkness and cannot stand the light of day.

So please pass this website link on to everyone you know, because full disclosure of the truth is the only thing that will defeat the enemies of Freedom.

Thank you.

Robert A. McNeil

___

NOTICE

I am NOT a "tax protester," and am not "anti-government."

I AM anti-corrupt, against illegal government, fraud and unconstitutional activity by any person or agency.

I pay taxes in many forms, including property taxes, state and local taxes on purchases of goods, Federal gasoline taxes, Federal telephone taxes, and Federal customs duties and tariffs when I purchase goods imported from foreign countries.

The documents and links provided on this website are for educational purposes only. There is nothing for sale here and I do NOT recommend that others follow the path I have taken.

Although I am a perpetual student of the U.S. Constitution and the Law, I am not an attorney and do not offer any legal advice.

___

I'm Going to Federal Court!!

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The moment I have been waiting for has finally arrived. I received an Order to Show Cause from Judge David Hittner, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case number is Civil Action 08-MC-84.

The Order, signed March 5th, 2008, states the following:

On the petition of the United States, under 26 U.S.C. §§7402(b) and 7604(a) for an order requiring the respondent, Robert A. McNeil, to show cause why the respondent should not be compelled to obey an Internal Revenue Service summonses served upon the respondent on July 25, 2007 and September 19, 2007.               
The Order requires that I appear in person before Judge Hittner, at 9:00am on April 24, 2008, in Courtroom 8-A, 8th Floor, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, to show cause why I should not be ordered to comply with the Internal Revenue Service summonses.
            
Between now and then, I will be drafting a response to the Order, citing relevant sections of law, various Supreme Court rulings, and a significant ruling in September 2007 by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, supporting my position that the IRS summonses are unlawful and violate Federal law.
 
I will post my response to this website when it is complete.
 
Stay tuned.               
             
Click on the following link for information relevant to this blog:

               

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-84)

 
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in      
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

 

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

___

I've Been Served

Saturday, March 29, 2008

This morning, at 10:00am, Roger Caris, IRS Revenue Officer, showed up in person at my residence and served me a packet of documents, including the “PETITION TO ENFORCE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SUMMONSES” that the Department of Justice submitted to the U.S. District Court.
            
This is the document that caused Judge David Hittner to issue the “Order to Show Cause” that was the subject of my blog of March 12, 2008.
 
The Petition is 3 pages long and contains no date of execution or written signature.  At the bottom of page 3, however, can be found the typed names of Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and M. Kathryn Bellis, Special Assistant, U.S. Attorney.  I imagine that Ms. Bellis will be the attorney representing the United States of America at the show cause hearing on April 24th.

 

Included with the Petition were the following additional documents:

       

  A copy of the U.S. District Court’s “Order to Show Cause”, dated March 5, 2008             (2 pages)
               
  Exhibit 1 - Declaration by Roger Caris, IRS Revenue Officer, regarding the IRS summons    issued September 19, 2007 seeking information for tax year 2002. (2 pages)
             
  Exhibit 2 - A copy of the IRS summons issued September 19, 2007, with attached “Certificate of Service of Summons”. (2 pages)
              
  Exhibit 3 - Declaration by Roger Caris, IRS Revenue Officer, regarding the IRS summons issued July 25, 2007, with attached “Certificate of Service of Summons”. (2 pages)
             
  Exhibit 2 - A copy of the IRS summons issued July 25, 2007, with attached “Certificate of Service of Summons”. (2 pages)             
            
According to the “Order to Show Cause”, I must respond to the Petition within 20 days from the date served.  That deadline is April 17, 2008.
         
Take 5 minutes to read the documents and educate yourself about the process that the Federal Government must go through to bring civil action against a United States citizen in Federal Court.
          
And, as you read them, keep these facts in mind.  As of this date:
              
   I have never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
               
  I have never been arrested.
               
  I have never been indicted
.
              
  I responded four times to the IRS Summonses, in writing, in a timely manner.
             
  I attended three meetings  with Roger Caris, IRS Revenue Officer, and showed him the
law and the relevant court rulings showing that I was not required to provide the information sought in the Summonses.
             
  I sent numerous letters to the IRS, providing all of the reasons why I believe I have no Federal tax liability. To date, the IRS has failed to answer any of those letters.             
               
So, I am at an impasse with the IRS and find myself in court for the mere act of asserting my rights as a free American citizen.  Between now and April 17th, I will be drafting a response to the Petition and will post it to this website when it is complete.
 
Stay tuned.
             
Click on the following links for information relevant to this blog:

               

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-84)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-085)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-086)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-075)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-071)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-063)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-060)

 
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in 
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

                             

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

___

My Response to the Petition

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

After spending many late nights and weekends reading court rulings, studying the law, and writing, I completed my response to the United States of America’s “Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summonses”.  I sent one (1) copy to the IRS and two (2) copies to the Clerk of the Federal District Court, Southern District, in Houston, Texas on April 15, 2008.  United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking documents indicate that both parties received the response on April 17th, in compliance with the requirement that I file a response within 20 days after the Petition was served.
               
My response is 74 pages long (double spaced in 14 point font) and provides all of the reasons I should NOT be compelled by the Court to comply with the June 25, 2007 and September 19, 2007 summonses, issued by the Internal Revenue Service.  
 
In summary, I raised the following issues for the Court’s consideration:

The Internal Revenue Service Petition is defective and should not be enforced.

The Internal Revenue Service Summons, dated July 25th, 2007, is defective, and should not be enforced.

Petitioner committed perjury in its Declaration regarding the Summons dated July 25, 2007 and the Summons should not be enforced.

Petitioner’s Counsel filed a false Petition, and Roger Caris, Revenue Officer committed perjury, by falsely stating that Respondent failed to comply with the Summonses dated July 25, 2007 and September 19, 2007.
The Internal Revenue Service Summonses, dated July 25th, 2007 and September 19th, 2007, violate relevant sections of 44 USC 3500, and should not be enforced.

The Petition submitted to this Honorable Court should not be enforced because the Summonses fail to meet the criteria set forth in United States v Powell.

The United States Constitution, relevant U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and Appellate Court rulings prohibit the imposition of a direct tax on individuals without the rule of apportionment.
 
Included with my response were 42 Exhibits, totaling over 600 pages, containing copies of my correspondence with the IRS since June 2005, along with excerpts from the U.S. Constitution and numerous Supreme Court and Appellate Court rulings, supporting my position that I do not have any Federal income tax liability for any tax year.
 
As with any court action, the outcome is unpredictable.  My success depends on the Judge’s willingness to rule according to precedent law. I’ll find out at the show cause hearing at 9:00am on Thursday, April 24, 2008.
               
In the meantime:
               
Click on the following links for information relevant to this blog:

               

 

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-87)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service

 
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

 

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

               

___

RAM 2 ~ IRS 0

Is it considered a victory if your opponent, when challenged, chooses not to fight?
         
I believe it is.
     
Here are the details.
          
As discussed in my March 12th blog, I received an “Order to Show Cause” from Judge David Hittner, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The Order, signed March 5th, 2008, stated the following:

“On the petition of the United States, under 26 U.S.C. §§7402(b) and 7604(a) for an order requiring the respondent, Robert A. McNeil, to show cause why the respondent should not be compelled to obey an Internal Revenue Service summonses served upon the respondent on July 25, 2007 and September 19, 2007.”

The Order required that I appear in person before Judge Hittner, at 9:00am on April 24, 2008.  I arrived at the courthouse in Houston, Texas around 8:30am, in plenty of time for the hearing. 
               
I took a seat on one of the long, wooden benches in the hallway, just outside of Courtroom 8A, opened one of my 3-ring binders of Exhibits, and began doing some last minute reading.
               
To my left, on another bench, was Roger Caris, I.R.S. Revenue Officer, sitting with a nicely dressed woman, who I guessed was an attorney.  My suspicions were made clear when the woman got up, walked over to me, and introduced herself as Kathryn Bellis, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, representing the United States of America.
               
She told me that she and Mr. Caris had been discussing the September 19, 2007 summons (for 2002 information), agreed that I had complied with its requirements, and were going to dismiss the enforcement of that summons.
               
I told her “Thank you.”, and she walked away. 
         
I went back to reading my Exhibits, in preparation for defending myself against the remaining summons, dated July 25, 2007 (for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 information).
            
About ten minutes later, Ms. Bellis walked back to where I was sitting, and told me that, she had been talking to Mr. Caris about the remaining summons, and they agreed that I had complied with its requirements, as well, and were going to dismiss the enforcement of that summons, too.
               
With that said, she produced two copies of a freshly printed “MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE”, which states the following:

“TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:

The United States of America files this Motion to Dismiss for the reason that the respondent has complied with the summonses.

WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that this court enter an order discharging the order to show cause and dismissing this action with prejudice.”

“With prejudice” is a legal term that means the United States of America cannot issue summonses for my records again for tax years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
               
 
               
I confess that I was a little confused about why the U.S. Attorney changed her mind and decided not to pursue enforcement action in federal court, because I never gave the Government one document required by the summonses. 
               
 
               
I can only assume that there was something in my 74 page response to the Petition that she did not want to argue in court.
               
Whatever the case, Ms. Bellis signed and dated both copies of the Motion, handed me one copy, and said I could go.  She said she was going to file the copy with the court and there would be no hearing.
               
So, I packed up my briefcases and left with signed Motion in hand.
               
               
The United States of America backed down in the face of a challenge.
               
               
Sometimes, the good guys DO win!
               
Click on the following link for information relevant to this blog:

089 DOJ Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice 20080424
___

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

___

Order of Dismissal

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-089)

Robert A. McNeil v US Gov &amp; Internal Revenue Service (RAM-090)

The job’s not over ‘til the paperwork’s done.
 
Today, I received, by U.S. mail, a copy of the “ORDER OF DISMISSAL”, issued by Judge David Hittner on April 24, 2008.
         
This ends the action related to the enforcement of the two Internal Revenue Service summonses.
 
Click on the following link for information relevant to this blog:

               

 

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

          

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

             

___

Related:

Charles Conces Lawman 5 Day, Pro Se, Law Class [Day 1 COMPLETE & Day 2 COMPLETE]
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/09/charles-conces.html

In Memoriam of (Lawman) Chuck Conces
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/08/in-honor-of-law.html

R.I.P. I.R.S.

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2007/03/rip_the_federal.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2007/03/doa_the_federal.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2007/03/todays_death_of.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2007/03/legal_estoppel_.html

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html

August 18, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e200e5540ad83e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lawman: IRS: Chuck Conces' Legacy Lives On - Thanks Chuck!:

Comments

Post a comment