IRS attacks non-judicially; Petitioner punctures purported authority for said attack, issues warning to IRS

I have quickly looked over several of your posts and being from Texas in Gun Barrel City (Henderson County) and knowing a little bit about the “law” I am really interested in your case and it will take a few weeks or months to catch up with the entire case, but I appreciate and respect what you are doing. I have shared a couple posts to the C.A.N. Law group on Facebook and reblogged a few of them as well. #Stradog in Gun Barrel City, Texas @fhstralow



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…

View original post 1,526 more words

US attorney ignores all his material failures and asks for a contempt Order; Petitioner responds


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…

View original post 331 more words

Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further


On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal…

View original post 589 more words

Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45


The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.

There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Case”).

Petitioner’s filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14 months.

When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division…

View original post 1,597 more words