IRS statute §7433 enables violations of RICO by IRS employees. RICO is designed to get the corrupting policy maker of an organization. Col. Jessep, in the movie “A Few Good Men“, is an example of corrupting policy maker.
IRS statute §7433 permits lawsuits against the United States for intentional violations of the Internal Revenue Code. §7433 is a taxpayer’s exclusive remedy for such claims (the lawbreaker is thus immune—our constitutional problem with the statute). Also and acceptably, a taxpayer may not sue the United States for deterring damages. Yet, the United States itself has no appetite for punishing IRS employees’ intentional violations of the law when the United States is the beneficiary. Accordingly, §7433 has undone the possibility of any deterring penalties for employees’ intentional violations of the Internal Revenue Code. The problem has become acute and apparently resulted in IRS employees’ inability to tell right from wrong. Now, a pattern of lawlessness by IRS employees to benefit the United States has come to pass.
The RICO statute was designed to ensnare the heretofore un-indictable policy maker (leader) of a corrupted organization. Bosses were unaccountable because their directives were non-specific and expressly not linkable to the wrongful acts of the organization. In RICO, the presence of a pattern of racketeering (lawlessness) is used to establish the presence of a corrupting policy maker.
Because deterrence is defeated, IRS statute §7433, by comparison, enables an IRS policy maker to non-specifically encourage lawless behavior in the furtherance of an unlawful policy. IRS managers are “immune” because their proclamations are non-specific, while employees are “immune” because deterrence (i.e. personal liability) for intentional violation of the law has been eliminated. §7433 unmistakably enables that which the RICO statute was uniquely constructed to stop.
IRS managers have exploited §7433 to set policy for the wrongful acts of our dispute. For example, IRS records show that IRS manager Mary Pittner opined that it is in the “best interest of the public” to take our assets. Ms. Pittner used the IRS’ communications system to direct her IRS colleagues and employees, non-specifically, to “work out the terms” of the confiscation. As a matter of law, IRS employees were prevented from legally confiscating our assets because an IRS Offer in Compromise was pending. As Freedom Of Information Act documents show, IRS Manager Pittner understood this fact. IRS Defendants therefore worked outside the Internal Revenue Code to carry out Pittner’s correspondingly unlawful collection policy against us.
 “We nevertheless maintain that the language in Wilkie, as well as the principles underlying that decision, are broad enough to bar a RICO suit against government employees in any situation where the employees are acting for the financial benefit of the United States.” Emphasis Added (Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tamara Ashford, United States Ninth Circuit RICO Appeal Opposition, 11-56062: Doc. 18; pg. 31, ¶2).
 Because the DOJ could theoretically prosecute the wrongful acts of federal employees, this statement is not literally true. We believe however, that the statement here is nevertheless true in reality. We offer as evidence the numerous abuses of the justice system set forth in this petition. See also the above footnote where Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tamara Ashford argued in their appeals that IRS Defendants should have immunity for a pattern of racketeering when the United States is the beneficiary. We also sought out the help of our Congressman (Rep. Duncan Hunter). An employee at Rep. Hunter’s office told us that the House Ways and Means committee did not want to change IRS employees’ behavior.
 “Even if the Court were to find that plaintiffs had established a constitutional or statutory right that they claimed the IRS Defendants had violated, which they cannot, the actions taken by the IRS Defendants in investigating and collecting outstanding tax liabilities cannot be said to be ‘clearly unlawful’ to a reasonable officer in that situation.” (San Diego United States Attorney Laura Duffy, 10-cv-02105: Doc. 63, pg. 11, ¶2).
 Maybe enacted for the mob, but constructed to ensnare the corrupting policy maker(s) as well as the individuals breaking laws.