Minor L. McNeil v. Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; Robert Pugh, Manager; And Wade Gambill, Auditor

2021 Ark. App. 408

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 27, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 408 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS integrity of this document DIVISION I 2023.07.13 11:26:35 -05'00' No. CV-20-616 2023.003.20244

MINOR L. MCNEIL OPINION DELIVERED October 27, 2021 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. TWELFTH DIVISION [NO. 60CV-20-2487] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION; HONORABLE ALICE S. GRAY, ROBERT PUGH, MANAGER; AND JUDGE WADE GAMBILL, AUDITOR APPELLEES AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Minor McNeil brings this pro se appeal of the September 14, 2020 Pulaski County

Circuit Court order of dismissal with prejudice of his complaint for the return of private

property, specifically in the form of taxes he claimed were illegally collected. McNeil argues

multiple issues including constitutionality claims, state-taxation authority, reservation of

power, private-property questions, and de facto government allegations related to his most

recent lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA).

Because McNeil has failed to make any argument on appeal relating to the actual bases on

which his lawsuit was dismissed, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

A long-standing disagreement has been established during multiple previous lawsuits

between McNeil and DFA regarding what the Arkansas Constitution defines as the reserved immunities of its people; what Arkansas taxing statutes clearly state—as passed by the

legislature; and how those laws vary from the way in which DFA interprets and administers

its tax programs.

Since 2006, McNeil has communicated with DFA during each annual “tax return”

period and has submitted requests for the refund of his private property from DFA—

property that he maintains has not been described in the Arkansas taxing statutes under its

definitions found there, as “gross income” or a gain being “derived” therefrom. McNeil

submits that his property was taken pursuant to a payroll-deduction “scheme” authorized

by the state legislature. He maintains that the amount of his private property that has been

illegally taken now exceeds $50,000 and is ongoing as evidenced by records of this history

in DFA’s possession.

McNeil has been before the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding virtually these same

issues. See McNeil v. Weiss, 2011 Ark. 46, 378 S.W.3d 133. He has also raised these issues in

a federal case, which made it to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, see McNeil v. United

States, 125 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2020-2604, (E.D. Ark. June 22, 2020), aff’d, 839 F. App’x

29 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Then, as now, still in contemplation of the alleged unconstitutional behavior of the

State of Arkansas and its administrative agencies, McNeil argues that the State of Arkansas

and DFA’s acts are in violation of its constitution as well as our supreme court’s own

precedent in Simms v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). McNeil argues that, after

many additional years of research, the record of the circuit court below proves beyond any

doubt that the now de facto corporate State of Arkansas is an instrumentality of a unitary

2 military government engaged in war against the American people and using those belligerent

powers to take private property as an act of treason.

McNeil urges that he has been deprived of due process in Arkansas by having been

refused a jury trial on the issues presented below. He maintains that the circuit court denied

his right and followed the directions of DFA’s counsel by dismissing the case with prejudice

in a treasonous act. He maintains that the court’s decision was made despite DFA’s having

made no appearance in court, having provided no testimony, nor having offered any

evidence in response to McNeil’s complaint.

McNeil’s first complaint in this particular lawsuit against DFA was dismissed without

prejudice. On April 3, 2020, McNeil filed his second complaint, which he titled “Complaint

for Return of Private Property for Return of Taxes Illegally Collected 1.26-18-507(e)(2)

Judicial Relief” (“Complaint”). McNeil’s Complaint and briefs appear to contest the legal

authority of the State of Arkansas to levy on wages its income tax and income-tax

withholding on grounds that the State of Arkansas is engaged in treason with the federal

government and therefore does not exist.

On May 7, DFA moved to dismiss for several failures of the Complaint, namely (1)

failure to state facts that would establish jurisdiction over the subject matter with the court;

(2) failure to state facts on which relief can be granted; and (3) failure to join a necessary

party. In its September 9 order to dismiss with prejudice McNeil’s complaint against DFA,

the circuit court “grant[ed DFA’s] Motion to Dismiss for all the reasons set forth therein.”

The reasons stated in DFA’s motion to dismiss included (1) that McNeil failed to state facts

3 upon which relief can be granted, (2) that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject

matter, and (3) that McNeil failed to join a necessary party.

In McNeil, 2011 Ark. 46, at 4, 378 S.W.3d at 135, our supreme court affirmed the

circuit court order of dismissal of Mc Neil’s lawsuit:

To summarize, based on the fact that McNeil has only presented arguments not decided by the circuit court, failed to make any argument on appeal relating to why his case was actually dismissed, and because his brief is almost entirely incomprehensible as a legal brief, this court must affirm the circuit court’s order of dismissal. See Widmer v. Taylor, 296 Ark. 337, 756 S.W.2d 903 (1988) (affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint, in part, because his brief was “an incoherent conglomeration of statements and arguments which cannot be fairly characterized as a legal brief”).

Because McNeil likewise failed to raise any argument in his brief regarding the

specific bases on which the circuit court dismissed his lawsuit, we decline to address the

issues he does raise and must affirm the findings in the September 9, 2020 order of dismissal.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Minor L. McNeil, pro se appellant.

James Christopher McNeal, Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. Off. of Revenue Legal

Counsel, for appellee.