This is for applicants and attorneys concerned with government employment practice, in this case, the practice of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS practices two methods of employment, one lawful, the other unlawful. The unlawful practice is "activated" when employees of the IRS's Directorate of Personnel Services, seemingly for convenience and "efficiency," immediately remove from consideration an applicant who stated derogatory information in his application. They remove applicant stealthily by failing to act on the application, as though it did not exist, a violation of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A)(i). They also fail to notify the applicant of the nonhiring, a violation of 5 C.F.R.731.402. When the applicant questions the status of his application, the Directorate's employees respond with deception and outright lies to cover up their unlawful practice. IRS failing to act is a quick, "efficient," but unlawful removal of applicant. Because unlawful, it is subject to judicial review (5 U.S.C.702). "Efficiency" rewards IRS employees with "quality step increase" in salary. Thus, "efficiency" may not be dismissed as monetary motive for the immediate removal of applicant. Also, in this case, a district court judge, by deception, refuses to review the complaint against the IRS, despite the IRS's "failure to act" being a lawful cause of action in district court (5 U.S.C.702). To evade review she abets the IRS in its unlawful practice, arguing virtually as "adjunct counsel for the defense," protecting the IRS. In so doing, she stoops to the deception of claiming "issue preclusion" as ground for dismissal of the complaint, but in fact dismisses for "lack of jurisdiction," a different ground, a fraudulent dismissal. This case serves to expose the tactics of deception practiced both by the IRS, with its unlawful removal of an applicant, and by a district court judge with her unlawful dismissal of a lawful cause of action. The result is a travesty of an adjudication, the "perfect storm" of a federal agency (IRS) and a district court judge acting together in violation of law for their own self-interest. Exposure will alert applicants and attorneys to the tactics of deception practiced by the IRS, for example, the IRS's false claim of "rule of three" as reason for nonhiring, false because the "three considerations" claimed by the IRS do not exist. Exposure will alert applicants and attorneys to the judge's claim of dismissing for "issue preclusion" but in fact dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, a fraud. Exposure of IRS deception provides for an effective strategy to invalidate and counter IRS violation of employment law abetted by a district court judge.