THE IRS - ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ARROGANT AND CORRUPT

MOTION IN REBUTTAL

Below is our Motion in Rebuttal to the U. S. District Court in Seattle in response to their order to not issue the summons and dismiss my lawsuit. You will find the Motion both educational and entertaining.

Ronald W. Ewart, a married man, pro se, Plaintiff,


vs.



Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Defendants

To: The Honorable James L. Robart, U. S. District Court Judge:

As PLAINTIFF in the above cited Case Number, I acknowledge receipt of the Judges order to deny Issuance of the Summons and dismissal of the action, pursuant to the court's analysis of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and take issue with the courts denial and dismissal. In rebuttal, I make the following points.

1. Under 26 U.S.C., I was forced to wait two (2) years before I could challenge what I allege as the illegal seizure by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Marital Community's Social Security benefits and only after the total penalty was seized could I file a claim for refund from the Secretary of the Treasury, even though I was convinced that the IRS illegally seized the penalty in violation of law precedent.

2. I was then forced under 26 U.S.C. to wait an additional six (6) months after filing a claim for a refund with the Secretary of the Treasury before I could file suit in U. S. District Court against the IRS. The Secretary of the Treasury never bothered to respond to my two claims for a refund from the IRS. The wait times are excessively punitive and are meant to discourage challenges.

3. Upon filing the lawsuit with the Court under the above Case Number, I have been denied my day in court because the Court, in its infinite wisdom, said my legal argument "did not state a claim for which relief can be granted." That's the great court cop out. My legal argument under Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327, and United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981) and Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433 was a very simple one: TO-WIT: "An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in any court or administrative procedure."

4. The Court's analysis of the three cases cited above (and in the Complaint) ignored the secondary issue in those cases and that is the simple one I just quoted. It should make no difference whatsoever that the secondary issue was not directly applicable to any specific IRS case. The statement is either TRUE or it isn't TRUE.

5. Further, the Court's analysis of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) stated that the IRS ignored the many "letters" I sent to the IRS and overlooked the fact that many of those "letters" contained legal "Affidavits" and "Notices of Default" that went un-rebutted by the IRS. So one can conclude that in any court of law, or any administrative procedure, "an un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth", except in any dealings with the IRS, since the IRS is obviously above the law.

6. I have challenged the IRS on other taxes due in other years resulting from IRS errors, using the very same affidavit and notice of default I used to challenge the IRS over the tax penalty of C/Y 2011, the subject of this lawsuit. In at least four (4) other cases, upon challenging the IRS with an affidavit and notice of default, the IRS has sent me a NO TAX DUE letter. But along comes a $10,000 penalty and they couldn't wait to ignore my affidavit and notice of default. That's arbitrary and capricious. In another situation, the IRS sent me eight (8) copies of the same "amount due" notice for the exact same amount due on the same day. That's blatant harassment and intimidation in order to brow beat the taxpayer into compliance.

7. I'll readily admit that I am no legal scholar and I am well aware that the courts abhor any person who would dare to enter that private closed club called the court without having one of those revered attorneys to plead his case. However, one of your revered attorney closed-club members tried to black mail me over the telephone. After filing a complaint with the State Bar Association, that attorney went away. Another revered attorney closed-club member soaked me for $35,000 for a totally 100% frivolous lawsuit from the person suing me. I had to mortgage my home to pay him. In addition, if I did hire one of those revered attorney closed-club members to defend me against the IRS on the above case, his fees and the court costs would have more than consumed the "relief" I was asking for in my Complaint. And that's called Justice? That's not justice, that's financial enslavement.

8. In this day of high-level government corruption at the Department of Justice, the FBI and the IRS and God knows what other government agency, how do I know that the U. S. District Court, in denying the issuance of a summons, isn't just interceding on behalf of the IRS to get rid of all those "pesky" little lawsuits, in an act of collusion with the IRS? IRS Commissioner John Koskinen provided false testimony to the Congress and obstructed justice by withholding e-mails. Koskinen got off scot-free. Lois Lerner was instrumental in illegally targeting conservative groups for extra IRS scrutiny and she gets a big government pension. Former FBI Director James Comey, without authority, spoke FOR the Department of Justice when he gave Hillary Clinton a pass before interviewing her, or her accomplices. Comey lied before Congress as well. The government FIX was in. That's corruption. High level FBI officers decided they knew best for the American people who should be president and inserted a little "insurance" in the mix to make sure Donald Trump didn't get elected president. (More missing e-mails and possible obstruction of justice) How do I know that the Court's analysis of 28 U.S.C. 1915 wasn't purposely slanted because I just happen to be a national conservative author, or the court was just shielding the IRS? How can I trust any government institution, including the U. S. District Court, that I will receive fair and impartial treatment, given the level of distrust by the American people of ALL government, local, state, or federal because of recent exposure of high-level government corruption? All of what I have portrayed here may be irrelevant to this lawsuit but it isn't irrelevant to the way I THINK about the case.

9. The Honorable judge purports to have the authority to issue this order "denying the issuance of a summons and dismissal of the cited action." However, any American has every legal right to question or challenge the government, even a judge, about the judges legal authority and jurisdiction: TO WIT: "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power." (Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 384 (1947) Therefore, before the PLAINTIFF can accept or reject the judges order he must ascertain that the judge has legal authority and jurisdiction. Such legal authority is partially evidenced by the required credentials. Consider this Motion to include a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA - 5 USC S 552) for the judge's 1) Oath of Office; and 2) a signed and notarized Appointment Affidavit that should be on file with the Clerk of the Court. The judge has the time allowed by 5 USC S 552 to comply. The PLAINTIFF is privy to past credential issues with the judge and the Clerk of the Court, McCool.

10. Finally and in conclusion, my Complaint stands as written. I declare so within the 14-day time period granted by the court to re-submit the Complaint, in the court's "Motion to Deny to Issue the Summons and Dismissal of the Action." However, if the court sees fit to not issue the summons under their "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted" ploy, there is nothing I can do about that. However, as a national author, I'm obliged to share this injustice and this motion with my thousands of readers. As far as I'm concerned and I am firmly convinced, the IRS stole, with malice, $10,000 from my wife and I and they did it in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law." Evidently, I'm supposed to swallow that injustice and lick my wounds. Not likely!

The Honorable Judge may think me to be impertinent, but I'm just expressing what millions of Americans are feeling like today.


Signed and dated this 25th day of January 2018.



By: ___________________________________
Ronald W. Ewart, Pro se

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -