Mike Ioane and Ron Paul

It's me again - Series 3 Mike Ioane's punishment for supporting Ron Paul.Well, you know, the public’s interest, are they not represented by these millions of people who have gotten to their congressman and we have these 277 co-sponsors? Aren’t they part of the public interest? Or is it Goldman Sachs and the big banks that represents the public’s interest. These are all code words that people are supposed to roll over and play dead and say, “Well, we don’t really care. They’re caring about the public’s interest. I guess it’s okay. They’ll take care of us.” But hopefully, we’re changing that attitude.Judge Andrew Napolitano: Now, the Goldman Sachs issue that you pointed out is particularly troublesome, Congressman Paul, for a number of reasons. One, the treasury secretary at the time that AIG was bailed out was Hank Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chair. Two, he did this in consultation with Lloyd Blankfein then and still the chair of Goldman Sachs. Three, when the Fed bailed out AIG, actually after the Fed bailed out AIG, we found out that AIG… excuse me, the biggest client of AIG was Goldman Sachs and four, when Lehman Brothers was teetering on the brink and the government decided not to bail them out, lo and behold, Lehman Brothers was Goldman Sachs’ biggest competitor. Question, don’t we have something in the Constitution called the Equal Protection Clause and isn’t that supposed to require that the government treats similarly situated people and entities in a similar way and not pick and choose who it’s going to save and who it’s going to let die on the vine?Ron Paul: Well, remember Animal Farm: Everybody is equal, but remember some people are more equal than others. Now, Goldman Sachs happens to be more equal than anybody else. But the big thing is that the American people are catching on. This is not being missed by the American people, so I’m feeling encouraged that it’s getting some attention, but we still have a long way because they are tenacious and the fact that they’re putting Bernanke out on the stump means that they are very concerned. But ultimately, their system fails because it’s based on fraud. It’s based on a monetary system that won’t work. It’s just a matter of, can we put it together enough to get enough people to understand what we have to do to put this back together? We do have the founders’ advice in our Constitution; I tell people that we’ve gotten into this trouble because we didn’t follow Article 1 Section 8, and if we did follow the precise limitations of government power, even now we could use that as the guide to get back [...] and so I’m encouraged that more people are thinking that way, but not here in Washington because I still don’t have them reading the Constitution here yet. Judge Andrew Napolitano: Well, you’re getting there. Two of your colleagues gave me a little bit of hope this week. Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on my radio show, Brian and the Judge, during the course of which he said absolutely wonderful things about you and your understanding of the Federal Reserve and the free market. It was nothing new to me and our listeners, but it was nice to hear it coming from the lips of a liberal Democrat, but he also said he’s convinced HR 1207 will pass the House and eventually pass the Senate. If he’s right, of course, that’s great news. The other interesting thing this week that I saw came from another Democrat, your Congressman Alan Grayson interrogating Chairman Bernanke and getting him to admit that they have loaned huge amounts of money to foreign central banks. He didn’t know how much. He wouldn’t say what banks and he had no idea what those foreign central banks did with the money to which the American Federal Reserve loaned them. Does any of that surprise you? Is the IRS targeting Mike Ioane – How can they attack Mike Ioane?

MIKE IOANE aka Michael Ioane for Vice President

I thought you would like to see the rest of the conversation. Let's call this Series 2. Again do I think the IRS is targeting Mike Ioane. Keep reading. Mike Ioane is so similar to Ron Paul. I wonder.Ron Paul: Well, there are more firsts. First, they hired a lobbyist and I guess she didn’t do too well, so he’s going to be the chief lobbyist and go on PBS and talk about HR 1207. But he may be right, he might not be the one that ushers in another Great Depression, but it will turn out to be the greatest depression ever because I think it’s going to be worldwide. I think it’s going to be a lot worse and I think we’re going to blame him for perpetuating it. We can’t blame him for the crisis that developed last year because that was the previous inflation that Greenspan ushered in.But the perpetuation of this depression-recession that’s going on now and the deepening of it, we can lay at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve and that will be Bernanke.Judge Andrew Napolitano: It will be Bernanke. There may be a new chairman, but if there’s a new chairman, the policies will undoubtedly be the same. You wrote a letter this week, Congressman Paul, which was signed by some of your colleagues from across the ideological and political spectrum in the House of Representatives with your concerns about Goldman Sachs and your concerns about its use of federal dollars to enrich itself free from certain regulation and again, below the radar screen. Could you tell us what’s that’s all about? Ron Paul: Well, we are not to the bottom of things because the Federal Reserve acts independently, which is in secret. They don’t want to reveal and that’s why the auditing bill is so important. But there’s pretty good evidence that he did. I mean, we do know that he did exempt Goldman Sachs from regulations that gave them greater leeway in using government funds and lo and behold, Goldman Sachs is now very profitable again. They survived. Lehman Brothers didn’t. A lot of little people didn’t; a lot of people are losing their houses, so it’s just who gets protection and who gets the pain and the suffering, and it looks like Goldman Sachs and the Fed have been working in collusion and this is targeting one particular incident that is now public knowledge and we’re trying to get him to respond to it. I don’t expect to get a whole lot of response, but I think this is why he’s become tenacious in trying to get the people to come out against it. You know, one thing that they used is they don’t want transparency of what the monetary policy is all about because they have to protect the public’s interest. Is the IRS targeting Mike Ioane - How can they go after anyone they want. All the facts are there - Michael Ioane is innocent.

MIKE IOANE BEING TARGETED BY THE IRS

If you thought that was interesting. What about this. I am really enjoying researching the IRS.What do you think about Mike Ioane and Ron Paul. They say if you are a backer of Ron Paul you are targeted. Mike Ioane contributed to his campaign is he targeted?Now Ron Paul is targeting the Federal Reserve. Judge Andrew Napolitano: Now, to our continuing series in examining the Federal Reserve. Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in an effort to head off Congressman Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, a bill that now has 277 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives alone, and in an effort to make himself appear human and understanding, actually held a 75-minute town hall meeting. This was produced and broadcast by PBS, thus paid for by your tax dollars, and was taped at the Fed’s branch bank in Kansas City. We did not learn anything new, except that Chairman Bernanke is not the expert on the Great Depression that he claims to be.Now I know that he taught at Princeton. Most of you know that I’m a graduate of Princeton. I’m awfully also deeply grateful to my guardian angel that his failure to understand the lessons of history did not rub off on you or on me. Listen to this, he told his public TV listeners that the one thing he most wants is not to preside over a second Great Depression.Ben Bernanke: I was not going to be the Federal Reserve chairman who presided over the second Great Depression. For that reason, I had to hold my nose and stop those firms from failing. I am as disgusted about this as you.Judge Andrew Napolitano: One would think he does not know what he’s talking about. The Great Depression was great, not because of the depth of the unemployment or the magnitude of shareholder or investor loss, it was great because of the duration of the depression. The Fed at the time, the Congress, FDR and a cowed Supreme Court set the country on a course to centralized control of the economy, which brought rationing of goods, artificial interest rates, minimum wages that shut business down, and the confiscation of gold. When they saw how bad they made the bubble burst from the twenties, they manuevered us into a war and that brought on more rationing and the draft. It was not until the guys returned home from the war that a free market was unleashed and the depression ended 16 years after it started. Some people never learn. Today, as you’ll hear soon, the Fed lends money to foreign central banks and doesn’t know or even care what they do with it. Today the Fed wants to regulate every mom-and-pop shop in the land as well as all the banks and any businesses that it thinks might adversely affect liquidity. It wants higher minimum wages, artificial interest rates and no transparency. It wants to end the problem caused by too much borrowing and spending by employing more borrowing and spending. Einstein once said, “Don’t expect the people who caused a problem to solve it.” But that’s what the Fed and its wistful, historically illiterate chairman wants us to do. It’s always my pleasure to introduce one of America’s great defenders of freedom and liberty in Congress and anywhere today, Congressman Ron Paul joins us from our nation’s capital. Congressman Paul, as always, welcome back to Freedom Watch. Ron Paul: Thank you very much, Judge. Good to be here.Judge Andrew Napolitano: Thank you. I guess Chairman Bernanke is feeling the heat. I guess he’s really concerned that HR 1207, which will require a public audit of the Fed might actually become law and in an effort to put on a human face and in an effort to show an understanding of our situation, went on public television for 75 minutes to tell us something we already knew. What do you think? Is the IRS targeting Mike Ioane – How can they attack Mike Ioane?

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - MICHAEL IOANE aka MICHAEL IOANE

I am a huge fan of Ron Paul. Mike Ioane should not be punished because the IRS mad a mistake. Fix the problem and leave Michael Ioane alone.
For years the Tax Honesty Community and the Freedom Movement in general have allowed the government to pick and choose the cases, waiting for the next prosecution or suit for another gag order and then assuming a purely defensive position. No one ever gains ground by defending, which only permits the question of "How much is lost?" That needs to change.
Truth Attack is ready to go on the offensive. It's time we choose the cases, carefully selecting winnable suits presenting optimum facts and well-supported and properly prosecuted legal positions. Truth Attack is ready to make new law, rein in the IRS and confront the courts with the law for once.
The first cases we file taking them to task for violating the law have to be perfect test cases in order to build a "favorable body of case law" against the IRS. If there is any way out, any crack or chink, no matter how small, the beast will slither through it and escape, setting an adverse precedent for them to use in later filings. Jumping into litigation without carefully selecting cases, without mapping the case out properly to prevent escape, is a mistake that has plagued the movement for years
SINGLE AND ZERO LOCK-IN LETTERS
The IRS's issuance of "single and zero lock-in letters" to employers instructing them to ignore W-4's submitted by employees claiming exempt status has been a favorite weapon of the beast to punish those who stand up for the truth. The only problem is that those letters are against the law and even violate the IRS's own rules and regulations. Someone needs to call them on this criminal bluff.
We are looking for a case that presents the following conditions:
· Victim of "single and zero lock-in letter" within the last two years
· No outstanding assessments, liens or levies (no exposure to retaliation)
· No previous years without filing tax returns (no exposure to retaliation)
· Married with children (one spouse is enough, but the more children the better)
· Prior returns place IRS on notice of marital status and number of dependents
· Financially willing and able (or having supporters willing and able) to pay out of pocket expenses and at least some portion of legal fees (attorneys have to survive in order to fight)
WITHHOLDING CHALLENGE
Withholding is the heart of the income tax fraud because it allows the government to kidnap and hold wages and earnings hostage, forcing us to either abandon the hostages or waive our exemptions by filing tax returns. Truth Attack knows attorneys who are anxious to challenge that practice, which is based upon pure bluff and blow.
We are looking for cases that present the following conditions:
· Employer willing to be sued by his employee
· Employee willing to sue his employer
· In Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming
· Both "current" on tax filings, including 940's, 941's and 1040's (no exposure to retaliation)
· No outstanding assessments, liens or levies (no exposure to retaliation)
· Financially willing and able (or having supporters willing and able) to pay out of pocket expenses and at least some portion of legal fees (attorneys have to survive in order to fight)
PHONY TAX LIENS AND LEVIES: THE MYSTICAL, MYTHICAL "ASSESSMENT"
No collection action can be undertaken by the IRS unless and until an "assessment" has been filed with the Treasurer and notice of that assessment and demand for payment has been made to the "taxpayer". But millions of people are being subjected to liens and levies by the IRS although there has been no actual "assessment" issued or filed in many years.
Amazing! The IRS is violating the law? Imagine that!!
To make matters worse, IRS agents regularly sign off on a "Certificate of Assessment", certifying that an assessment has been made and filed, perjuring themselves, and the courts just as regularly say that lying about it is good enough for them. But it isn't good enough for us and if memory serves, we're the bosses, aren't we?
Refining conditions for this project is still in progress—watch for it!
SMEAR TACTICS AND INVASIONS OF PRIVACY
The IRS usually "softens up" a target by spreading rumors and damaging information under the pretense of "investigation". Agents will often dig into a personal file on one person looking for leverage to get them to do something against someone else. Sometimes those disclosures and inspections are not only unethical, sometimes they are criminal and give rise to a law suit. We need to build a "body of favorable case law" by selecting the cleanest plaintiffs and most egregious violations we can find.
Refining conditions for this project is still in progress—watch for it!
"NOTICE OF LEVY": LAWFUL SEIZURE OR EXTORTION & INTIMIDATION?
Every day the IRS is issuing "demands" that are treated by banks and employers as "orders". Orders require obedience, but demands are just a blunt form of request. Truth Attack thinks it's time that employers and banks learn the difference.
In order to set up the ideal test case(s) it will be necessary to be in control and develop the case in advance of the event, so past "levies" are not yet candidates for this project. There is no real recourse against the IRS in these instances because it can always raise the fact that they did not force the employer or bank, but merely sent them a demand. The employer or bank is the culprit. (Right!)
That is powerful stuff. Mike Ioane should check into truth attach. What is the IRS so corrupt. I though Obama was going to be a good President. I’m thinking Ron Paul for President and Mike Ioane for Vice President.

Mike Ioane Comments on Fourth Amendment

Spoke with Mike Ioane whose hearing was yesterday. It seems the new judge upheld the restrictions of the previous judge.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ioane dictated his analysis of the Fourth Amendment:

Regarding the federal court’s lack of a proper arrest warrant in IRS cases involving indictments. . .the question that repeatedly comes up is whether the IRS is required to have an Oath or Affirmation when executing an arrest warrant. We know that if there is an indictment, that is a conclusive finding of probable cause; however, does that qualify for a fourth amendment Oath or Affirmation as contemplated by the founding fathers, in order to be secure? We do not think so.

The prosecution and IRS have devised a scheme to circumvent the taxpayer’s due process: A) by failing to file a complaint, which the Grand Jury could make a determination or conclusive finding of probable cause from, B) by denying taxpayers a preliminary hearing, C) by allowing arrest warrants to be executed absent an Oath or Affirmation, in support of probable cause, D) by circumventing proper procedures in order to deny taxpayers due process to confront their accusers.

Usually, no one from the Department of Justice, IRS or otherwise are ever willing to take responsibility for the allegations made in the indictments; which is clearly contrary to what was contemplated in the fourth amendment when it said the people should be secure.

Rarely, if ever, does anyone have first-hand knowledge, who claims a taxpayer did the allegations mentioned in the indictment, so why must the taxpayer sue to be secure?

The process that takes place guarantees immunity to all the actors and jail for the taxpayer or huge fines. In order to be secure, the taxpayer must have someone that they can sue in order to be secure. None of us can be secure, as contemplated by the fourth amendment, if someone is not willing to stand up and take responsibility.

If the probable cause finding by the Grand Jury is sufficient to proceed to execute a warrant, why bother with an arrest warrant? In other words, why waste the time obtaining an arrest warrant if the indictment is sufficient? (Just arrest the person with the indictment in your hand.) Does the clerk or Judge who issues the arrest warrant find probable cause from the conclusive probable cause finding of the Grand Jury and then issue the warrant, or was it the other way around? Is finding of probable cause by a clerk or Judge and the conclusive finding of probable cause by the Grand Jury equal or equivalent to an Oath? If so, why didn’t the framers of the constitution mention in the fourth amendment that an indictment is an alternative to the fourth amendment right to be secure? We believe it is not sufficient to execute an arrest warrant without an Oath or Affirmation.

The question we have to ask is, is a document claiming to be a warrant in fact a warrant by definition without an Oath or Affirmation? If the Grand Jury is the Oath where is the Jurat holding the Jurors liable to the facts that they claim first-hand knowledge to?

Is it true that a finding of probable cause is a judicial discretionary act, which carries judicial immunity; but executing a warrant or summons is a ministerial act in which the executing officer is liable along with the judicial officer who allows the execution?

The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals appears to agree that an Oath or Affirmation are required in order to execute an arrest warrant, and so we believe that an indictment is simply not satisfactory without the Oath and Affirmation.

Michael Ioane

Review the Case of US v. Vargas, 389 F.3d 901, (2004).

Michael Ioane - Racketeering Scheme?

On June 16, 2009, Judge Wherry of the US Tax Court issued a decision regarding Michael and Shelly Ioane, which if not reviewed at first appears normal; however, after a short analysis of the cases which the judge cited, Mike Ioane says it is clear that the judge either did not read them, or is attempting to cover up the racketeering scheme attempted by the IRS and their attorneys.

Attached is the Motion for revision filed by the Ioanes, which clearly articulates the cases cited by the judge and exposes what some allege is a cover-up by the US Tax Court.

The Ioanes are demanding that an independent investigation be conducted.

Michael Ioane - Attorneys Defend Ioane and Booth

Attorneys argue that court and IRS are premature in claiming wrongdoing.

John Reedy Letter 1
John Reedy Letter 2
John Reedy Letter 3
Mark Lane Letter

Mike Ioane - Illegal Search and Seizure?

In the lawsuit Michael Ioane filed against Michelle Casarez, he claims there was an illegal search and seizure at the Atwater property. Mike states $30,000 in jewelry was taken and still has not been accounted for by the IRS.

Read the affidavit in which Mr. Ioane asserts this is a violation of Title 18.

America's Debtor Prisons

More IRS conspiracy? Read the story.

Michael Ioane - Dan Meador on Grand Juries

More evidence suggesting that the indictment against Michael Ioane and Steven and Louise Booth is a sham. We’re still asking, where is the Oath or affirmation, as the fourth amendment requires?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See the article below by Dan Meador.

Proper Federal Indictment Procedure
By Dan Meador (Rev. 1, April 14, 2000)

People across the country have called for research concerning Federal indictments and how to defend against or attack them. So far as I can tell, there probably hasn’t been a legitimate Federal indictment in the last two or three decades. Consequently, nearly all Federal criminal prosecution should be aborted and verdicts vacated, with the effect of defendants and prisoners being discharged. Therefore, this memorandum is timely.

I haven’t completed research to support each position with case law, but the basic flaws in Federal prosecution default subject matter jurisdiction. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action, judgment, or whatever is void, it is a nullity, so where there is a judgment, it should be vacated. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time without time limit. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the key to opening old civil or criminal cases. Rule 12(a) & (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be used for pre-trial motions. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be attacked within the existing action, or by an independent action, i.e., via extraordinary writs, including habeas corpus, writ of error coram nobis, writ of prohibition or whatever. See particularly, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. for declaratory judgment, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 et seq., for the original writ of habeas corpus. Motions
within an existing case where there is already judgment should be styled “Motion to Vacate Judgment”, or within an active case, a simple motion to dismiss.

In the course of this memorandum, I will use the phrase “subject matter jurisdiction” to the point readers will probably be sick of it, but this is the key to the Federal prosecution riddle. The basic jurisdictional elements are jurisdiction over the person and jurisdiction over subject matter. Venue, or territorial jurisdiction, is also a consideration, but isn’t treated exhaustively in this discourse.

When working within Federal rules of procedure, it is important to know that the rules preserve constitutionally secured rights. Authority for the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure is at 28 U.S.C. § 2072, and § 2072(b) preserves rights: “(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.”

Federal rules of civil and criminal procedure preserve constitutionally secured rights. Therefore, it is necessary to know and understand the three Amendments that govern Federal criminal prosecution. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments follow:

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The first thing to understand is that all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of limited jurisdiction. So-called common law jurisdiction over contracts, historically recognized common crimes, etc., is reserved to courts of the several States within their respective territorial borders. The Tenth Amendment imposes this limitation:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If a power is not enumerated in the Constitution, primarily in Article I § 8, Federal government lacks subject matter jurisdiction within the Union. This provides the framework for what is known as the “arising under clause” at Article III § 2, clause 1 of the Constitution:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

View the Constitution as a corporate charter. It enumerates powers of the
Government of the United States, with those powers distributed among three
departments or branches, the legislative, executive and judicial. Except in
very rare and limited cases, one branch cannot exercise power of another.
This is called “separation of powers doctrine.” Each of the powers
enumerated, regardless of what branch it is enumerated for, must be set in
motion by legislation, the legislation being in the form of a “statute” or
law. This is specified at Article I § 8, clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Coming to grips with Article I § 8.18 in the context of the “arising under
clause” at Article III § 2.1 sheds light on United States judicial power and
understanding of “due process of law.” Unless a law vests authority in
Federal administrative agencies, or the courts themselves, courts of the
United States do not have subject matter jurisdiction. And in nearly all
cases, the law is complex, not simple. In other words, in very few instances
does any given statute stand alone. Tax law serves as an example. United
States v. Menk at 260 F.Supp. 784 articulates the point:

“It is immediately apparent that this section alone does not define the
offense as the defendant contends. But rather, all three of the sections
referred to in the information – Sections 4461, 4901 and 7203 – must be
considered together before a complete definition of the offense is found.
Section 4461 imposes a tax on persons engaging in a certain activity;
Section 4901 provides that payment of the tax shall be a condition precedent
to engaging in the activity subject to the tax; and Section 7203 makes it a
misdemeanor to engage in the activity without having first paid the tax, and
provides the penalty. It is impossible to determine the meaning or intended
effect of any one of these sections without reference to the others.”

Any of the crimes listed in Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code (§§ 7201
et seq.) such as failure to file, failure to withhold, and the like, is not
a stand-alone statute. In order to prosecute the Government must (1)
identify a taxing statute, and (2) prove application of a liability statute,
before a penalty statute is applicable. Without the first two elements, a
Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to impose a penalty, whether
civil or criminal. This principle applies to nearly all Federal penalty
statutes, whether relating to tax, commerce, securities or anything else.
Without a preexisting liability to perform or refrain from any given
activity, a Federal penalty statute doesn’t apply. Unless all elements are
in place, the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney or whatever has failed to
meet threshold criteria for burden of proof, with the effect being that the
Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Although I’m not going to get into the subject in this memorandum, it is
also necessary for a department or agency of Federal government to prove
standing. For instance, the Department of the Interior doesn’t have
authority to enforce revenue laws. If an agency isn’t vested with authority
by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, so the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. We’ll see this in the Code section that specifies who
has authority to make complaints under revenue laws.

I’ll restate the obvious: All courts of the United States are statutory
courts, i.e., courts of limited jurisdiction. Due process of law is
predicated on statutes of the United States that either compel or prohibit a
given activity. The statutory authority is usually complex rather than
simple, i.e., the need for all elements being on the table in order to
establish subject matter jurisdiction.

There is also an additional important element of proof: What is the
geographical application of any given law or set of laws? In Foley Brothers
v. Filardo (1948) 336 U.S. 281, we find that “It is a well established
principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless contrary intent
appears.”

Congress has two distinct characters: Where States of the Union are
concerned, Congress may legislate only within the framework of
constitutionally enumerated powers, but where territory belonging to the
United States is concerned, Congress operates with the combined authority of
state and national governments much on the order of European governments,
and may do whatever the Constitution does not expressly or implicitly
prohibit. Where States of the Union are concerned, Congress’ authority is
restrictive; where the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and smaller
insular possessions are concerned, Congress has plenary or near-absolute
power.

It may be that Congress exercises a general power enumerated in Article I §
8 of the Constitution, but application is limited to the geographical United
States, i.e., territory belonging to the United States. This, then, is
another element of burden of proof, i.e., proof of subject matter
jurisdiction. The advocate, in this case the Attorney General or U.S.
Attorney, must prove the venue or geographical application of any given
statute.

Just because the Constitution enumerates powers United States Government may
exercise doesn’t mean the power has to be exercised. For example, prior to
the Civil War, Congress exercised power to impose direct taxes only twice,
and until after the Civil War, if then, Congress did not vest Federal
courts, including the Supreme Court, with all available jurisdictional
powers enumerated in Article III § 2 of the Constitution. Although it is
beyond the scope of this memorandum, I am convinced that by 1948 virtually
all Federal statutory authority was withdrawn from the Union and ever since
has been applicable only in United States maritime and territorial
jurisdictions.

We will now turn to essentials of due process of law as prescribed in the
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

We saw at 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) that Federal rules of procedure may not
deprive anyone of substantive rights. In a manner of speaking, rights
secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are carved in stone, and
they are cumulative, they are not independent or elective unless someone
knowingly chooses to forfeit one of the specified rights. If one of the
constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices,
including the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney, and courts of the
United States, lack or lose subject matter jurisdiction. This is the essence
of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without “due process of law.”

Here we see two distinct elements: Not only does there have to be law which
compels or prohibits any given activity, but procedure or process must
conform to that prescribed by the “Constitution and laws of the United
States.” The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments secure mandatory minimum
requirements of due process.

The Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause, “supported by Oath or
affirmation,” is the jumping-off point: “… no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…

Here are two secured rights: There must be an oath or affirmation, a
complaint, that specifies key elements of a crime, and a committing
magistrate must issue a warrant based on the complaint. The complaint is
made in a probable cause hearing. Unless or until these threshold
requirements are met, there can be no Federal prosecution.

We will use Federal tax law as an example. At 18 U.S.C. § 3045 we find
authorization for who may set the criminal prosecution process in motion via
an affidavit of complaint:

“Warrants of arrest for violations of internal revenue laws may be issued by
United States magistrates upon the complaint of a United States attorney,
assistant United States attorney, collector, or deputy collector of internal
revenue or revenue agent, or private citizen; but no such warrant of arrest
shall be issued upon the complaint of a private citizen unless first
approved in writing by a United States attorney.”

This Code section needs an amount of qualification: Whoever makes the
affidavit of complaint must have personal knowledge. In other words, an U.S.
Attorney cannot make the affidavit of complaint unless he was personally
involved with the investigation process and has hands-on involvement with
securing and examining evidence.

Our concern is whether or not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
preserve this constitutionally secured right. We find that they do. Rule 3
of the F.R.Crim.P. is specific:

“Rule 3. The Complaint

“The Complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting
the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate judge.”

We then go to Rule 4, “Arrest Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint”.

Rules 3 through 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve the
proper procedural sequence of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. If any
portion of any of these rules, i.e., of any of the three amendments, is
defective, Courts of the United States lose subject matter jurisdiction.

Before continuing with what should happen, I’ll review what normally
happens.

The first most people know of a Federal investigation is when they receive a
“summons” in the mail, with something akin to an “indictment” attached, or
they are arrested on a warrant with an indictment attached. Occasionally a
U.S. Attorney, the Criminal Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the
FBI or another Federal agency will notify the target of an investigation,
and sometimes the target will be offered the opportunity to testify to a
grand jury. However, whether arrested or summoned, the target’s first court
appearance is at the alleged arraignment after the grand jury has supposedly
issued an indictment. At the hearing, the defendant is asked to enter a
plea. If the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the presiding magistrate,
usually a United States Magistrate Judge, enters a plea for him. After that
ritual, the U.S. Magistrate Judge will either set or deny bond.

Where is the affidavit of complaint, probable cause hearing, et al? Has the
defendant had the opportunity to examine witnesses and evidence against him,
call his own witnesses and present contravening documentary or other
evidence? As we will see, current Federal prosecution practice for all
practical purposes trashes Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment due process
rights, and it employs the services of quasi-judicial officers who don’t
have lawful authority to do what they’re doing. In sum, current Federal
prosecution practice amounts to a criminal conspiracy among administrative
and judicial officers.

Federal criminal prosecution must begin with the affidavit of criminal
complaint required by the Fourth Amendment and Rule 3 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Without the affidavit of complaint, courts of the
United States do not have subject matter jurisdiction, so whatever ensuing
verdict, judgment and/or sentence there might be is a nullity, it is void
and should be vacated.

We then go to Rule 4, the warrant issued subsequent to the probable cause
hearing. Warrants for seizure and/or arrest must issue following, they
cannot issue without a probable cause hearing.

The Federal courts are presently relying on Rule 9(a), “Warrant or Summons
Upon Indictment or Information”. Rule 9(a), in relative part, stipulates
that, “Upon the request of the attorney for the government the court shall
issue a warrant for each defendant named in an information supported by a
showing of probable cause under oath as is required by Rule 4(a), or in an
indictment … More than one warrant or summons may issue for the same
defendant … When a defendant arrested with a warrant or given a summon
appears initially before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall
proceed in accordance with the applicable divisions of Rule 5.”

They then jump to Rule 10, the arraignment, rather than dropping back to
Rule 5, as Rule 9 specifies. Rule 5 is “Initial Appearance Before the
Magistrate Judge.”

Grand juries have certain investigative powers. If in the course of
investigating a cause of action that is lawfully before them, grand jury
members may find evidence sufficient to recommend additional charges, or
name additional defendants, by way of presentment. However, if the original
complaint against the primary defendant for a specific offense is not before
it, the grand jury has no basis for initiating an investigation. There must
be original probable cause determined by a committing magistrate, with the
finding of probable cause being predicated on the antecedent complaint.

We’re going to use Rule 6(b)(1) to demonstrate this point:

“(1) Challenges. The attorney for the government or a defendant who has been
held to answer in the district court may challenge the array of jurors on
the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn or summoned in
accordance with law, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground
that the juror is not legally qualified. Challenges shall be made before the
administration of the oath to the jurors and shall be tried by the court.”

The right to challenge grand jury array (composition) and individual jurors
is antecedent to individual jurors being administered the oath required
prior to a grand jury being formally seated. The government attorney and the
defendant, or the defendant’s counsel, both have the right to challenge
array and disqualify grand jury candidates prior to the grand jury being
seated. If this right has been denied, there is a simple solution at Rule
6(b)(2):

“(2) Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss the indictment may be based on
objections to the array or on the lack of legal qualification of an
individual juror, if not previously determined upon challenge. It shall be
made in the manner prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) and shall be granted
under the conditions prescribed in that statute. An indictment shall not be
dismissed on the ground that one or more members of the grand jury were not
legally qualified if it appears from the record kept pursuant to subdivision
(c) of this rule that 12 or more jurors, after deducting the number not
legally qualified, concurred in finding the indictment.”

Rule 6(c) requires the grand jury foreman to record the vote, then file a
letter or certificate of concurrence with the clerk of the court.

If the original defendant or his counsel did not have the opportunity to
challenge the grand jury array (composition selection process) and
individual grand jurors prior to the grand jury being seated, they’re all
disqualified as the qualification process is among the defendant’s
constitutionally secured due process rights. By consulting Chapter 121 of
Title 28 generally, and 28 U.S.C. § 1867 specifically, we find that there is
no distinction in the voir dire examination and other jury qualification
process for grand juries or petit trial juries:

“(a) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within
seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the
exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, the
defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings against
him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of
this title in selecting the grand or petit jury.”

If a defendant doesn’t know a grand jury is investigating him, he doesn’t
have the opportunity to challenge the grand jury array, or individual grand
jurors. Consequently, he has been deprived of substantive due process, which
is expressly prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b).

We have an adversarial judicial system. All parties to any given action, the
government included, stand on equal ground. The system isn’t set up for
convenience of the government. Government always has the burden of proof,
whether in civil or criminal matters. The defendant has the right to
challenge the qualifications and competency of everyone involved in the
prosecution process, inclusive of grand and petit jurors selected from
“peers” who ultimately have responsibility for determining indictable
offenses and/or final liability. If and when government personnel deprive
the Citizen of any of these rights, constitutionally secured due process of
law is abridged. In that event, courts lose subject matter jurisdiction.

Now consider Rule 6(f), F.R.Crim.P.

“(f) Finding and Return of Indictment. An indictment may be found only upon
concurrence of 12 or more jurors. The indictment shall be returned by the
grand jury to a federal magistrate judge in open court. If a complaint or
information is pending against the defendant and 12 jurors do not concur in
finding an indictment, the foreperson shall so report to a federal
magistrate judge in writing forthwith.”

This section of Rule 6 specifies foundation necessities: Federal government
may prosecute felony crimes only on a valid affidavit of complaint that has
been presented in a probable cause hearing (Rules 3 & 4). Only corporations
can be prosecuted via “information.” Rule 6(f) preserves the antecedent
affidavit of complaint and probable cause hearing in the second sentence:
The grand jury may proceed only on “complaint” or “information” that has
previously been formally processed. Additionally, if the grand jury issues
an indictment, the return must be made in open court to a magistrate judge.

The return should appear on the case docket, and a transcript of the hearing
should be available. A return of an indictment is the same as the petit
trial jury return of a verdict.

In practice, any given grand jury returns several indictments at once.
However, when we understand the indictment process, it is clear that the
grand jury pool may be held over for several months, but any given grand
jury is empanelled to consider only one charge or set of charges in related
cases. To date, we haven’t found where an indictment for any single case or
set of related cases has been returned in open court, and a transcript of
the proceeding made available.

Rule 8 governs limits of the reach of any given grand jury, Rule 8 being
“Joinder of Offenses and of Defendants.”

During any court or jury session, any given juror might sit on one or more
grand or petit juries, but each jury has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. Where the grand jury is concerned, it may proceed only from an
original complaint where probable cause has been found to issue additional
indictments and/or name additional defendants where the crimes “are of the
same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on
two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of
a common scheme or plan.” (Rule 8(a)) Rule 8(b) specifies criteria for
naming additional defendants.

Here is where our reservation of rights in Rule 9(a) comes in: “When a
defendant arrested with a warrant or given a summons appears initially
before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance
with the applicable subdivisions of Rule 5.”

We will first consider Rule 5(b) and the first portion of Rule 5(c):

“(b) Misdemeanors and Other Petty Offenses. If the charge against the
defendant is a misdemeanor or other petty offense triable by a United States
magistrate judge under 18 U.S.C. § 3401, the magistrate judge shall proceed
in accordance with Rule 58.

“(c) Offenses not Triable by the United States Magistrate Judge. If the
charge against the defendant is not triable by the United States magistrate
judge, the defendant shall not be called upon to plead…

What is now known as the United States Magistrate Judge was originally a
national park commissioner. The name of the office has changed, but the
nature of the office hasn’t. This is an administrative, not a judicial
office. It’s equivalent to what used to be the police court magistrate.
Today the only offenses triable by a United States Magistrate Judge are
traffic violations and other misdemeanor and petty offenses committed on
military reservations, in national parks and forests, etc., under
regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense and the Department of
the Interior. Don’t capture wild burrows and mustangs in national parks
without a permit as that is a misdemeanor offense triable by a United States
Magistrate Judge.

United States Magistrate Judges in the several States have “venue”
jurisdiction solely over offenses committed on Federal enclaves where United
States Government has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction ceded by one of
the several States. And as Rule 5(c) specifies, they cannot even ask for,
much less make a plea for a defendant charged with a felony crime. This
prohibition is effective under Rules 5, 9, 10 & 11. When and if a United
States Magistrate Judge asks for or makes a plea for a defendant in a felony
case, he has usurped power vested in Article III judges of the United
States. When this quasi-judicial officer exceeds authority Congress vested
in him by law, the United States loses subject matter jurisdiction and there
are grounds to pursue lawful remedies, both civil and criminal. Government
officials, regardless of capacity, enjoy the cloak of immunity only to the
outer reaches of their lawful authority. The notion of blanket judicial or
any other absolute immunity is nothing more than a convenient fiction.

Rule 5(c), second paragraph, also stipulates that, “A defendant is entitled
to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when charged with any offense,
other than a petty offense, which is to be tried by a judge of the district
court.”

We’re going to continue with this subsection, but it is useful to understand
the term “magistrate judge” as opposed to “United States Magistrate Judge”
or “United States magistrate judge.”

The President of the United States is the nation’s highest “magistrate.” In
other words, the “magistrate” is a ministerial, not a judicial office. All
lawful judges function in a magistrate capacity when they preside at
probable cause hearings, initial appearances and the like. In a sense, this
is an “extra-judicial” capacity that within proper context can be vested in
or exercised by administrative or judicial officers. The United States
Magistrate Judge is an administrative office with quasi-judicial capacity
limited to specific subject matter, where the “district judge” of the United
States is vested with the full range of United States judicial authority,
i.e., his extra-judicial capacity as magistrate judge extends to Federal
offenses of all stripes.

Essentials of the preliminary hearing or examination are prescribed at Rule
5.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

“(a) Probable Cause Finding. If from the evidence it appears that there is
probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
defendant committed it, the federal magistrate judge shall forthwith hold
the defendant to answer in district court. The finding of probable cause may
be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part. The defendant may
cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce evidence…

Now we go back to Rule 5(c), second paragraph:

“A defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when
charged with any offense, other than a petty offense, which is to be tried
by a judge of the district court. If the defendant waives preliminary
examination, the magistrate judge shall forthwith hold the defendant to
answer in the district court. If the defendant does not waive the
preliminary examination, the magistrate judge shall schedule a preliminary
examination. Such examination shall be held within a reasonable time but in
any event not later than 10 days following the initial appearance if the
defendant is in custody and no later than 20 days if the defendant is not in
custody, provided, however, that the preliminary examination shall not be
held if the defendant is indicted or if an information against the defendant
is filed in district court before the date set for the preliminary
examination…

If a defendant is joined to an indictment under Rule 8, he has the right to
a preliminary hearing under Rule 5.1. This assures his opportunity to
challenge witnesses and present evidence before being subjected to the trial
process. The right is particularly important where government prosecutors
routinely play “let’s make a deal” to secure incriminating testimony from
questionable witnesses.

We will now summarize indispensable or “substantive” elements of Federal
criminal prosecution:

The criminal prosecution process may commence if and only if there is an
affidavit of criminal complaint submitted under oath in a probable cause
hearing. (Rule 3, F.R.Crim.P.)

A committing magistrate judge must issue a warrant or summons after finding
probable cause. (Rule 4, F.R.Crim.P.)

The defendant may be arrested and “returned” by the appropriate Federal
authority. (Rule 4, F.R.Crim.P.)

The defendant then has an initial appearance at which he is asked to enter a
plea, and bond, if any, is set. If the offense is a felony offense, a United
States Magistrate Judge may not ask for or enter a plea. The defendant is
entitled to a preliminary hearing unless an indictment or information
(against a corporation) is returned prior to a preliminary hearing. In the
event that the defendant is “joined” by a grand jury under Rule 8 and has
not previously been arrested, the Federal criminal prosecution process
begins here, and the defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. (Rule
5, F.R.Crim.P.)

If the defendant exercises his right to a preliminary hearing, he has the
opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses and he may introduce his own
evidence, whether the evidence is via witnesses or is documentary in nature.
(Rule 5.1, F.R.Crim.P.) The preliminary examination may be bypassed only in
the event that the defendant waives the right, or indictment issues
subsequent to the initial appearance.

The defendant, or his counsel, has the right to challenge array of the grand
jury pool and voir dire individual grand jury candidates prior to the grand
jury being sworn in. (Rule 6(b), F.R.Crim.P. & 28 U.S.C. § 1867).

In the course of its investigation, based on an affidavit of complaint and
the finding of probable cause, a grand jury may by “presentment” issue
additional indictments and/or join additional defendants in compliance with
provisions of Rule 8, F.R.Crim.P.

The grand jury must return indictments in open court, and the grand jury
foreman must file a letter or certificate of concurrence with the clerk of
the court. (Rule 6(f), F.R.Crim.P.)

A warrant or summons may issue against additional parties joined to an
original complaint under provisions of Rule 8 subsequent to grand jury
deliberation and return of indictment in accordance with Rule 6. (Rule 9,
F.R.Crim.P.)

After all previous conditions are met, as applicable, a defendant may be
arraigned and called on to plead. (Rules 10 & 11, F.R.Crim.P.)

From my research, it appears that the Department of Justice and United States Attorneys are convening grand juries under auspices of the “special grand jury” provisions in Chapter 216 (§§ 3331-3334) of Title 18. However,
this is misapplication of law as special grand jury investigation authority
extends only to criminal activity involving government personnel, and the
grand jury is limited to issuing reports. Defendants and prospective
defendants are afforded the opportunity to rebut or correct the reports
prior to public release. Although evidence unearthed by the special grand
jury may be used as the basis of criminal prosecution, the special grand
jury does not have indictment authority.

It appears that the first steps toward securing secret indictments were
taken during prohibition days to shield grand jury members from reprisal.
Although secret indictments were and are patently unconstitutional, the
extreme remedy in the midst of highly volatile and dangerous circumstance
was rationalized in the midst of what amounted to domestic war with
organized crime. Unfortunately, as other such rationalizations, those who
found the extraordinary process convenient incorporated it as routine
practice.

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserves causes to
challenge judgments. They are as follows:

Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

The judgment is void;

The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or
it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or

Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

The rule then specifies, “The motion that shall be made within a reasonable
time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the
judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this
subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its
operation. This rule does not limit the power of the court to entertain an
independent action or relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding,
or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as
provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 1655, or to set aside a judgment, for fraud
upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, bills in the nature of a bill of
review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a
judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an
independent action.”

There are two keys in Rule 60(b). First, Rule 60(b)(4), where the “judgment
is void,” opens the door to vacating a judgment at any time, and second, the
void judgment may be attacked “by motion as prescribed in these rules or by
an independent action.”

A judgment is void where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when and if the administrative
agency has proceeded without statutory authority, or the administrative
agency has deprived the defendant of substantive due process rights. Where
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the judgment is void; it has
no lawful effect, so it should be vacated. The defendant may proceed by
motion at any time, without the encumbrance of time limitation, or may
initiate collateral attack via the extraordinary writs, i.e., an independent
action.

Mike Ioane -Justice Hugo Black Comments on the Public Welfare

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.
– Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 – 1971).

Michael Ioane - Grand Jury Fraud by Tony Davies

ILS Services, Inc.

THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY FRAUD TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT

A. The Grand Jury Fraud by the U.S. Attorneys
Possibly one of the largest frauds perpetrated on the American public by the Department of Justice is the grand jury fraud instituted in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Sometime in the recent past, the Department of Justice was able to get through a change to F.R.Crim.P. 6 to allow the Department of Justice to hold grand jury records. How the people that approve the Rules of Criminal Procedure allowed that to pass is incomprehensible.
That change is unconstitutional on its face and a fraud on the American Public. When we asked a court in Milwaukee to investigate, they stated they did not have jurisdiction, i.e., we had caught them in the act of fraud and they were going to avoid the issue. We knew at the time that they were trying to cover for the prosecutor’s office.

ILS is now taking its clients directly into the Supreme Court on habeas corpus directly in order to get their fraudulent convictions overturned based on grand jury fraud. Since the district court is part of the fraud, as identified in the Milwaukee case by allowing and encouraging such abuse of the system, ILS has a right to take its clients directly into the Supreme Court for relief because the clients can not get a fair hearing from a biased district court which is part of the fraud or has knowledge of the fraud. See 28 USC § 2241, et seq., which allows a habeas petition to be filed directly into the Supreme Court. Since 6 courts have already dodged the issue, ILS now has grounds for filing directly into the Supreme Court, alleging automatic bias and fraud by the district courts. In fact, ILS was the first group to have a habeas accepted by the Supreme Court for direct review since 1925. The Supreme Court has no discretion regarding hearing a habeas petition if the district courts can make an impartial ruling.

A check with 6 different courts on 6 different cases by ILS shows that the district court does not hold the grand jury records. All calls for grand jury logs and transcripts to the clerk’s office in these 6 cases were met with statements that the U.S. attorneys are holding the records. In one case in San Diego, a clerk had a copy of the grand jury log which showed that no grand jury even convened on the day that the indictment was handed down. In other words, no grand jury existed. What did the court do? It tried to cover up the fraud.
A former prosecutor confirmed that the U.S. Attorneys’ office has a rubber stamp with the signature of the grand jury foreman in its office, which is often used on superseding indictments in lieu of actually reconvening a grand jury. That action would constitute fraud on its face, fraud from the inducement, and require not only that the case be overturned but that the prosecutors involved in this corruption be prosecuted and disbarred.
Checks with others involved in the grand jury process establish that although the grand jury is required to present an indictment in open court and prove a quorum was present, usually the prosecutor will present 15 to 20 indictments and get the magistrate to sign them, without any knowledge by the court that the grand jury met or that a quorum was present, and without any member of the grand jury present. The court forsakes its duty to act independently, and acts as nothing more than an arm of the prosecutor, signing whatever is presented. Checks in the 7th Circuit show that over 99 percent of all grand jury proceedings result in an indictment, a number so high it is unbelievable. But it is believable if the prosecutors hold the grand jury records and do not follow the intended grand jury process.
A check of over 100 different docket sheets by ILS shows only one grand jury concurrence form listed, i.e., less than 1 % of all cases can prove that a grand jury actually met and had a quorum present.
That evidence goes with the belief that in many cases the grand jury does not meet, but the prosecutors’ office simply types in the indictment and stamps the form with the grand jury foreman’s name on it.

Any time you allow one branch of government to control such important information of another branch, they violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine and invite abuse of the system. If the prosecutors office is allowed to control such sensitive documents, then abuse is inevitable.

Unfortunately, the district courts have now become part of the fraud. Most judges are former prosecutors, and they understand exactly how the game works in the grand jury proceedings. They typically cover for the prosecutors, and allow them to bring in stamped indictments and protect them with the theory of “grand jury secrecy”. That is exactly why we must take clients directly into the Supreme Court, because the district courts will only try to cover for the prosecutors office related to grand jury proceedings.

Grand jury secrecy only works if it is not abused. Yet in the United States, it is abused routinely. Once again the government has taken a system that was designed to protect the American people, and turned it into a fraudulent scheme to obtain bonuses for U.S. attorneys who win cases. A 99 percent indictment rate is not a win. It is fraud.

B. What the Supreme Court Says About the Grand Jury
The Supreme Court has stated that the independent grand jury’s purpose is to not only investigate possible criminal conduct, but to act as a “protector of citizens from arbitrary and oppressive governmental action”, and to perform its functions, the independent grand jury “deliberates in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry”. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). An independent grand jury is to “stand between the prosecutor and the accused,” and to determine whether a charge is legitimate or is “dictated by malice or personal will”. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 42 (1906). The grand jury is to protect citizens against “hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution and to insure that prosecutions are not dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will”. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962). The independent grand jury is described as “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation”. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)… “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to feret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” U.S. v. Sells Engineering, 463 U.S. 4118 (1983). According to U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), Justice Scalia stated that the grand jury is the equivalent of a Fourth Branch of government, not to be tampered with by any other branch.

C. Conclusion
One of the largest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people is the grand jury fraud where the prosecutors convinced the people who write the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow them to hold the grand jury records. F.R.Crim.P. 6 is unconstitutional on its face, a fraud created in order to allow prosecutors to create indictments on cases without proper procedure and collect their bonuses. The district courts can not be unbiased because they are part of the fraud, because if anyone was to hold the grand jury records, it would be the court. They knew or should have known that the Supreme Court does not allow such violations of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Justice Scalia stated in U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), that the grand jury is the equivalent of a Fourth Branch of Government, not to be tampered with by any other branch. To allow the prosecutors to hold grand jury records is fraud on its face. It is presumed the prosecutors manipulate those grand jury records based on their success with the grand jury. The grand jury is no longer a protector of the citizens, but a tool for the government so prosecutors can collect bonuses. ILS is taking clients directly into the Supreme Court on habeas in order to obtain their relief from the fraud perpetrated by the Department of Justice. Evidence tested to date shows that the fraud is massive.

Article found by authors of Friends ofLiberty

Article Written By Tony Davies

Mike Ioane - The Government's Fourth Branch

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope
this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the
Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years
behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in
the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed
and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is
not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and
quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than
ever.

The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been
subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain
to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United
States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other
legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth.
In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand
jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without
reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been
usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and
legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal
grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution
to the cause:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH
OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few
carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to
hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power
back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar
with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then
we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW,
Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND
JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for
prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors
from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without
governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to
serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a
grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of
the grand jury system in ages past."

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury
Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American
jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and
presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the
government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and
laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result
of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of
its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge,
or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before
it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of
the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to
answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the
accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated
by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the
common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental
prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand
juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times;
they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of
inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source,
including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power
to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to
government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the
present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted
above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the
prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the
judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention
will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative
lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying
what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural
rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform
the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the
area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was
allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand
juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized
powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and
of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document
other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at
least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional
language."[88]"

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by
indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned
in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation,
since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at
least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note
4:

"[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments,
they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to
Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule
6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in
the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in
the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used
in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of
the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge
or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney.
It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand
jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage the grand jury
[to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right
America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record
that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was
intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us
with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term
they chose was, "runaway grand jury," which is nothing more than a
Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally
exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and
balances."

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a
statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today,
as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of
submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution,
since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal
courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that
presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without
the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would
compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the
grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the
gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to
the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation
to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by
hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined
to be inappropriate or unavailing.'" [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can
be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can
dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt
government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious
business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule
6(g):

"At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily
or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person
in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand
jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its
discretion.

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted
that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment)
was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4
does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal,"
although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is
what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation,
since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at
least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use
anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." And therein lies
the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the
Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th
Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble
purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch
sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the
people," and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it
inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would
play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear
to be legally viable.

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY
INDEPENDENCE: "Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors
was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments,
which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35)
Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment
without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment
demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features
in the grand jury system."

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said,
"[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?" The federal
system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was
"obsolete." First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a
law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about
presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides
for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not
mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a
ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding
procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments."
Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of
the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say
that they were "eliminated." Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well
that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it.
Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.


The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were
not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more
rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make
this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which made
independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand
juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with
both judges and prosecutors."

The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes." That's
patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting
as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars
could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn
break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no
legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974),
stated: "The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in
Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for
centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial
persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens
against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the
Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they
provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes
can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf.
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's
historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to
include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a
crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded
criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand
jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the
Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand
jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the
grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams,
504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the
court, laid down the law of the land:

" '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche,
363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand
jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the
Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the
branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional
fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312
(CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487
F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew
context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE
FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a
fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people? when sitting as grand
jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture
in its own right." Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and
what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the
courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch
of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee
between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361
U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards,
The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of
course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional
relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak,
at arm?s length. Judges'direct involvement in the functioning of the grand
jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the
grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504
U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that
it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind
of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The
Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court,
gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people
have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand
jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection
of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as
powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as
you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of
the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning
presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges
agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the
"buffer between the Government and the people."

Mike Ioane - Justice Hugo Black on the Public Welfare

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.
-- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971).

IRS Raids Home of Michael Ioane Without Valid Warrant

In response to a recent story, on June 6, 2006, about 15 armed agents from the Fresno, California Office of the IRS stormed the home of Michael and Shelly Ioane under the pretense of a lawful search warrant.

Having knowledge of IRS corruption, Mr. Ioane demanded a copy of the alleged search warrant. Immediately after reviewing it, Mr. Ioane determined that it was VOID on its face and demanded that the IRS leave. When they refused, Mr. Ioane asked to call his Attorney, which they allowed; however, Mr. Ioane actually called 911 and requested assistance.

Approximately 5 minutes later several Atwater Police Officers responded. The Officers gave various instructions to the IRS agents and informed Ioane that, although the warrant appeared suspicious, he, Mr. Ioane, would have to deal with the matter by filing a civil suit.

About four hours later the agents left the home; although they left a list of many of the items taken regarding various clients and Mr. Booth, they did not disclose over $30,000.00 in wholesale jewelry, which was taken. Mr. Ioane has reported this theft to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; however, as of today the property has not been recovered or accounted for.

Pending before the United States district court, is case number 07-cv-0620, whereas Mr. Ioane and his entire family have sued the United States and IRS for the illegal raid. On September 23, 2008, district Judge Anthony Ishii, denied in part and granted in part the governments motion to dismiss. The most relevant counts were denied.

Shortly after the court denied the government's motion to dismiss, threats of criminal prosecution began and the government moved to stay the civil action, since they felt that they were being taken advantage of. Assistant US Attorney G. Patrick Jennings, specifically and directly intimated that if Ioane didn't drop his lawsuit he would be prosecuted criminally.

Read more: Complaint for Damages for Constitutional Violations, and Order of Judge Ishi on Motion to Dismiss

Attorney Speaks Out on Judges, Corruption

Attorney Richard I. Fine Speaks Out on Judges, Corruption, Circumstances

Excerpts from a Full Disclosure Network Interview

LESLIE DUTTON

March 3, 2009

LESLIE: You've been up against some formidable challenges. But none quite like the one that's facing you today. Would you say that tomorrow's (contempt hearing before Judge David Yaffe) is — how would you compare that to all of the challenges you've had before this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, tomorrow's hearing is interesting because the challenges that I've had before are basically challenges that we can say work within a functioning system. And when I was getting all of this money back and so forth, I was dealing with a system that was functional. I mean, you have a case, you go into a court; it either gets settled, you win it or you lose it, and you're dealing with a system that has integrity. Tomorrow's case, or the case that we have now, is dealing with a dysfunctional system because of the fact that this is now pure politics and retaliation. We are dealing now with a judge who took money from the County of Los Angeles, who then made an order that I should pay money to the County of Los Angeles, holds me in contempt for refusing to answer questions about my personal assets to force me to pay that money, and now wants to send me to jail because I'm in contempt for not obeying his illegal order, which was illegal because he took illegal money from the County. We're dealing with a dysfunctional system and a judge that is dealing with political retaliation. So we're not dealing in a justice system anymore. We're dealing with what some people would call a third-world country; we're dealing with all the things that America condemns about other countries. That is what we have in this courtroom tomorrow. So I wouldn't say that it's really a comparison. We aren't dealing in a system that this country was set up to operate.

LESLIE: Tomorrow when you go into court, Judge Yaffe is going to make a — he's going to give you a sentence; is that it? He's already found you in contempt?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. He's — he's found me in contempt for refusing to answer questions from a commissioner about an illegal order that he has made. And he wants to sentence me to jail until I answer those questions. Now, I have gone to the Court of Appeal with what is known as a writ of habeas corpus, which means "bring in the body," and I have asked the Court of Appeal to enter a stay stopping Judge Yaffe from doing anything. I haven't heard yet, as of today, whether they've entered that stay or not. If they enter the stay, Judge Yaffe is dead in his tracks. If they don't enter the stay, then I'll go into the California Supreme Court, and if the California Supreme Court doesn't enter the stay, then I'll go into the United States District Court. Sooner or later, I will win. Whether I win before he sends me to jail, I don't know. But that — that is what we are dealing with.

LESLIE: Tell us how this all started.

RICHARD FINE: Well, this — this all started in a very innocent type of way. It started back in 1999, and in 1999, I brought a lawsuit called John Silva vs. Garcetti — Gil Garcetti, Los Angeles District Attorney. And that lawsuit was based upon the fact that John Silva had paid money as part of his divorce — child support money. And child support money was being paid into the Los Angeles because the County of Los Angeles, as you know, collects child support money. Now, what we found out is that he had paid his child support money in, but the child support money wasn't going to his wife. The County was not distributing it. And the County wasn't distributing about $14 million of child support money. What the County was doing is, the County was taking this money in and it was holding it. Now, there's a law that says that the County must distribute the child support money within six months or give it back to the father. And they will only give it back to the father if they can't find the wife or the children. Now, in John's case, he knew where his wife was, and he knew where the children were, because his wife was friendly. You know, he was giving the money to the County support system; the County wasn't giving it to his wife. His wife knew that the money was going in, so she was cooperating with us, and we found out that all these other women and children were not getting their money.

So I sued the County to have this money distributed. The County answered and told me how much money was there, where the accounts were. All they had to do was distribute it. They were refusing to do it. I went into court, and we got to the end of the trial. The County moved to dismiss, and the judge dismissed the case. And I was astounded. And I went up into the appeal, and after the trial was over and before I filed my first brief, I found out that the judge, Judge James C. Chalfant, had received money from the County Los Angeles. That's how it started. That was one case.

The second case that it started out with was the case that I mentioned earlier about the County of Los Angeles taking money from the environmental fees, and in that case — that was a case called Amjadi and Lacaoehs vs. the Board of Supervisors of County of Los Angeles. And I was brought into that case to get that money out of the general fund of the County of Los Angeles and into a special fund. And I won that. I got the case, you know, got the special fund established. I got $11 million that they still had in the general fund put into the special fund. I got the fees frozen for three years until that $11 million was used up, and then when it came time to get the attorneys fees, Judge Kurt Lewin, who was the judge in the case, refused to award the attorneys fees, saying that I was representing a County union, and unions shouldn't sue the County. And in addition to that, that unions were always in negotiations with the County for wages. And therefore what the union was really doing, had really brought the case, not to help the public, but really for its own benefit. Well, I also found out that Judge Lewin was getting money from the County. And to pay the attorneys fees, the attorneys fees would be coming out of these funds, which was County funds.

LESLIE: When you talk about these judges getting money from the County, how is it that money is coming to them? For what purpose? Under what..?

RICHARD FINE: Okay. What — the — to answer your question, the way that the money comes from the County to the judges is that every year, the County, as part of its budget, under what is known as Trial Court Funding — if you look in the budget, you'll actually see this under Trial Court Funding, you will see money going to the judges, and that money in this particular year is approximately $20 million, or $46,370-some-odd per judge. Now, how it started was, back in 1988, the County of Los Angeles, decided, through its Board of Supervisors, that they wanted to pay judges — and these are their — somewhat their exact words — to attract and retain qualified judges and qualified candidates to sit as judges in this — meaning L.A. — County. And that was their reason. Now, they knew — and we actually — I actually have a copy of the document — they knew at that point in time that they couldn't do this. They knew that to do this was illegal because under the California Constitution, under what is known as Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution, only the State legislature could prescribe the compensation of the judges.

RICHARD FINE: There's a document in November of 1988 which was written by the — at that point, the County Counsel to Frank Zolin who was the Clerk of the Courts, and it actually went from the County Counsel to the Clerk of the Courts, explaining these things. So the L.A. Superior Court actually got this document. In that document, it said that the Attorney General had given the opinion that this could not be done, and so what the County Counsel tried to rationalize is, he said, "Well, this part of the Constitution really only meant salaries and it didn't mean compensation," so they're gonna try and get around it in that way. They knew they were doing wrong. They also knew that the Attorney General had given opinions that you couldn't pay this money as part of a statute as compensation for judges. So they knew right then and there that what they were doing was wrong. The other thing that they knew is that if you're giving the money to attract people as candidates for judges, judges are elected officials — they're State elected officials under the California Constitution. We vote for a Superior Court judge every six years. So if you're going to be giving money to a judge to attract him to be a candidate, you'd be giving money to his political campaign, and that would be a gift of public money to a private individual, and that would be a violation of Article 16, Section 6 of the California Constitution.

LESLIE: How much was this money that they were giving them?

RICHARD FINE: It turns out that at that point in time they were giving them about 27 percent of their salary, and back in '88 I'm not sure what the salary was, but it was probably, maybe around $20,000-some a year. Now it's doubled to $46,000 a year.

LESLIE: So would they be able to give that kind of money as a campaign contribution?

RICHARD FINE: As a campaign contribution in 1988, they wouldn't have been able to give that amount of money to a judge because the campaign contribution limits the State to $1,000 per candidate.

LESLIE: So would you say, then, that basically the County was buying judges?

RICHARD FINE: The bottom line of it is yes, because the only reason that the County could be giving this money — the only underlying reason — is that the County had — had cases in front of these judges. The County is a major litigant in the California courts, and it's the same thing as if Tony — the fictional Tony Soprano had been giving money to the judges. In fact, the County has an average, as far as normal cases are concerned — when I say "normal," that's excluding child custody cases, that's excluding criminal cases — just taking your regular cases. The County has about 700-800 new cases a year in the Superior Court. So when the County is giving this money, the underlying thought, in my opinion, is that the County wanted to influence the judges to decide the cases in the County's favor. Now, this thought of mine actually came true because we have documents from the County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors that show that in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 and 2007, not one case that was decided by an L.A. Superior Court judge was decided against the County of Los Angeles. So basically nobody won in that period of time. And for the year 2008 — 2007, 2008, in that fiscal year, the documents are a little bit more vague, and possibly two cases were decided by a judge against the County of Los Angeles. But that was about the most. So that gives you the effect of the monies.

LESLIE: Now, you made that statement, "That gives you from the beginning of the payments with respect to the payments," but you've only cited 2005, 2006, 2007. You don't know what the win/loss ratio was from 1988 to 2005?

RICHARD FINE: There — there are no documents that I know of that tells me the win and loss ratio from the years in between, because the only documents that I have been able to pick up are the ones that started in 2005. Now, the County may have internal documents that were not published or that have not been made public that might have — might tell us what's happened in the previous years. And I don't know if the court is keeping internal documents as to what has happened on the various cases. Somebody actually — if somebody wanted to go in and do the survey, you could go into the court system and take every case where the County of Los Angeles is named as a defendant and then go in and look to see what happened in the cases and whether it was a judge decision or a jury decision. That would be a fairly large project, but one could do that. And because you're looking at from 1988 to, say, 2005, you're looking at approximately 17 years of cases, and 700, you know, cases per year. So you're looking at maybe 13,000-some-odd cases. It would take a little bit of time for someone to do the survey and dig up the records. But you could actually find out the exact number.

LESLIE: Now, you have given us the background of why you're coming into this hearing tomorrow. It's basically because of the predicament that the judges are in. What happened, legislatively, at the State level to change the future for the judges?

RICHARD FINE: Well, what happened at the State level is very interesting, and this is somewhat involved with the State Bar proceeding against me also. On February 1st — and it actually was e-mailed in on February 2nd — I filed a Federal complaint against the L.A. Superior Court judges, in particular Judge Yaffe, who is involved in tomorrow's hearing, uh, Judge Bruguera, who is the judge that dismissed the cases regarding Marina del Rey where we, the people in the County of Los Angeles have lost approximately $1 billion of income from the developers in Marina del Rey that should have come to the County, and against Supervisors Antonovich, Knabe and Molina, who voted in favor of the development of the Del Rey Shores project here in Marina del Rey, while receiving contributions from the developer, Jerry Epstein, within a 12-month period of time. And then also against the State Bar judge, Richard A. Hahn, who made the decision recommending that I be disbarred, while in fact he sat on the Board of Governors of the Special Olympics of Southern California that had received $30,000 in contributions from L.A. County. So that was — and I filed this complaint with the Justice Department on February 2nd of 2009. I gave a copy of that complaint, as part of my State Bar case, to the California Supreme Court, on February 2nd.

On February 11th, the Judicial Council — Senator Stein — President Pro Tem of the State Senate, Darryl Steinberg, introduced a bill called Senate Bill SBX2 11 into the State Senate, which stated that all the judges and all the government officials and all the governments that were involved with any activity of judges receiving money from counties received immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action.

LESLIE: Now, why haven't we heard anything about this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, let me just trace it — before we get to that, let me just trace how this came about so you understand the whole story. The next thing that happened is that the — this — my complaint — it is my belief, and I think I'm correct in this — went from the California Supreme Court to the California Judicial Council, because the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court is the Chairman of the Judicial Council. The bill that I just mentioned, according to its legislative history, came from the California Courts Administrative Office. The Court Administrative Office is located in the Judicial Council. So it was written in the Judicial Council. It went from the Judicial Council to Darryl Steinberg's office. It was voted on by the State Senate three days later — February 14th — and passed. It was passed by the State Assembly one day after that, February 15th, and it was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of the budget package on February 20th. And that answers your question as to why you didn't hear about it, because it came up as part of the budget package, and as part of the budget package, every — all the news media and everything else were basically looking on the fact that there's a budget that was passed, and nobody looked at the fact that they had sneaked through this bill that gives these judges immunity. And also the bill says that even though the previous payments are illegal because there was a case called the case of Sturgeon vs. the County of Los Angeles, that held that the payments to the judges are unconstitutional, and the bill recognizes this, and then the bill says, "Well, future payments can be made from the County." So what happened is that the bill admits that the payments were illegal, gives the judges and these other people immunity for their actions of having received the payments, the supervisors the immunity for having given the payments, and immunity for everything that occurred with respect to these payments.

Now, to take this a step further, the effect of this is that every Superior Court Judge in every county in Los Angeles, with the exception of San Francisco County, Yono County, and Mendocino County, has received these payments. So all of these judges are tainted. Every Court of Appeal Justice who had previously been a Superior Court Judge has now been given immunity for all of their actions as being Superior Court Judges, so they are tainted. On the California Supreme Court, you have the Justice Corrigan, who was a former Alameda Superior Court Judge, Justice Chin, who was a former Alameda Superior Court Judge, and one other justice whose name slips my mind, who is a former — Moreno, I believe it is — who is a former Los Angeles Superior Court judge. All of them are tainted because of these payments.

LESLIE: Are we talking about Moreno on the Supreme Court?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. The last three men — people that I mentioned are justices — Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court. So three of the seven Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court are tainted. You then had the tainting going to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice George, who's the Chairman of the Judicial Council, who wrote the bill, and Justice Baxter, who is the — the Chairman of the Committee of the Judicial Council that wrote the bill. So we end up with five of the justices of the California Supreme Court who are tainted. Now, you ask why are these people tainted? Because another thing that happened is that this bill is personal to the judges. This bill is not helping the judicial system of California. This bill says that all of these judges can continue getting the money which is personal to them because the money goes from the County to the judge. It doesn't pass through the State of California. It's personal money going from the County to the judge, and it gives immunity, personal immunity, to all of these people. So what the Judicial Council did is, the Judicial Council took our public money and wrote a bill for the personal benefit of these individuals. Then the Judicial Council spent public money on its lobbyist to go in and lobby for this bill. So you have the tainting of these two supreme court justices. So effective five out of the seven supreme court justices at this point in time are tainted by this action. And the result of this is that by legislation — and I repeat, by legislation, the California Judicial System has been legislated to have been corrupt and to have committed illegal acts and to have been given immunity for the commission of those illegal acts.

LESLIE: Wow! So the legislature itself has basically condemned them as guilty?

RICHARD FINE: Absolutely. They condemned them as being guilty by one, say, that the payments were unconstitutional, and by affirming the decision of — the Sturgeon (vs. L.A. County Board of Supervisors) decision. And then by going through and taking the second step and giving them immunity.

LESLIE: Now, when you say "immunity," are we talking about retroactive?

RICHARD FINE: Retroactive immunity. The immunity is retroactive all the way up to the — as it says in the bill, the effective date of the bill. And the effective date of the passage of the bill was February 20, 2009. However, that brings us to a new problem: And that means that these judges who are sitting in office today are still biased, because the money that they got up to February 20th from these counties is biasing them for any decision that they make on February 21st. So basically every judge that is dealing with a decision of a county, on February 21st, is being influenced by the money that he got or she got on February 19th. So we do not have an unbiased judiciary in the State of California at the present time, with the exception of the judges who did not receive the money, which you —

LESLIE: Are there any?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. Once again, that's Yolo County, Mendocino County, and San Francisco County, and any judge that might be sitting on the California Supreme Court or on the Court of Appeal that did not receive this money. That is what — that is what is left in the California judicial system at the present time.

LESLIE: Let me ask you: Do you believe that the individual judges are aware of what they've been doing is illegal?

RICHARD FINE: Absolutely. There's no question that they knew that it was illegal. These people aren't like you or I, you know, that are unaware of the law. These are judges. These are people that are supposed to uphold the law. They have a code of judicial ethics that makes them liable and makes them aware that they have to uphold the integrity of the court. They have to obey the laws of the California. They have taken an oath to obey the law of the State of California. They have taken an oath to obey the law — the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of the United States of America. And under Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, they are bound to obey the law, the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. There is no question whatsoever that they knew that they were taking illegal money. None whatsoever. They knew the California Constitution; they knew that the Constitution said that only the State could prescribe their compensation; they knew that they're State-elected officials; they knew that they're State employees; they knew that they weren't working for the County; and they knew that this money was illegal. And they took it. No way that they can get around that. And that's why I filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, because they violated the Federal law of what is called the implied or intangible right to honest services, and that's 18 United States Code, Section 1346, because the case law that holds is that when a judge takes money from an individual — or even a government — and then does not disclose it, he violates that particular code section. And he violates it by the fact that he is not giving honest services to his employer, which is We the People, or the State of California. And he's not giving those honest services because we're paying him a salary to go in and do his job as a judge. And what the judge is doing is, the judge is taking money from another source to do the job, and the judge is not disclosing it, because none of these judges have disclosed this money on what is called their Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest, which requires them to disclose any income from another source. And they — they wouldn't have to disclose the income if it came from the County for expenses to go to a convention or something else. But because this is compensation that they're getting, they had to disclose it. They didn't disclose it. And I had called the Political Reform Commission — the Fair Commission on Political Reform, and I asked them about this and they said, "No, nobody's disclosing it." And then I checked on these judges. I checked on Yaffe. He didn't disclose it. And I checked on — you look on the Form 700 on any Supreme — and of the three Supreme Court judges — justices. They didn't disclose it.

So none of these judges are disclosing this income. So consequently, they're violating the Political Reform Act, they're violating the Federal law of the implied or intangible right to honest services. And by doing that, they are sitting in another position. They're violators. They're violating a criminal law. Now, that is a reason why the legislature gave them immunity. It's the reason why the Judicial Council wrote that immunity in — because the Judicial Council knew that they couldn't save them from the Federal law violations, but at least they could save them from the State law violations.

LESLIE: Well, let me ask you — I mean, this is just astounding. It's — it's just astounding. How can our government possibly deal with this when it's so widespread?

RICHARD FINE: Oh, it's very simple. I mean, it's just like dealing with a single judge that took a bribe. Back in — and I'll give you the precedent for it. Back in the 1970s, you had a number of judges getting involved in doing illegal activities in Illinois, and it was called the Greylord Cases. I think it might have been 30 or 40 judges. I don't remember the exact number. Government came in, they prosecuted the judges, got the judges out. So here we're dealing with maybe 1,600 or 1,700 judges. You know, the number doesn't really make that much difference, you know. It's the same violation. The legislature has already said that the violation occurs, so you go in and just prosecute the people.

LESLIE: Now let me ask you: You mentioned the Greylord Case, I guess. Tell me, what type of bribery were those judges getting? Were they getting being bribed by government officials?

RICHARD FINE: The bribery there, I think, was — I think it was private, you know, private individuals. But here the analogy exists because the County of Los Angeles, as far as being a party to a lawsuit, is the same as you or I. You know, just because they're the County of Los Angeles, it doesn't make them any different from you or I, because the employer of the judges is the State of California. And this is where a lot of people seem to get confused. They seem to think that because it is the County, that the County seems to have some sort of a right to be able to pay the judges. The County doesn't have any more right to pay the judges than you or I, because when you look at the government of California, the government of California is the State. It is not the County. The State of California has three parts to it: It has the executive, which is the governor and the governor's office; it has the legislative, which is the State Senate and the State Assembly; and it has the judicial branch, which are the courts, or is the courts, depending upon how you want to look at it, as one thing or lots of courts. Those are the three branches of the State government.

The County of Los Angeles is a subdivision. It is an independent entity, and it is not a governing branch of the State. So consequently, when the County comes into court, it comes in in the same way that you or I come into court. When you sue the State of California, you are suing the State of California with its permission to be sued because it's part of the government that you're suing. When you're suing the County of Los Angeles, you're suing it with its permission as a county, but you're suing it in a court that is run by the State, because the County of Los Angeles doesn't have any courts. We don't have any county courts anymore. There isn't the county judicial system that is existing.

LESLIE: Didn't we have at one time?

RICHARD FINE: At one time we had a municipal court system that was existing, but all that has been unified into a State court system at the present time. So everything now is under the State, and so the County does not have any rights with respect to anything in the State system. And in fact as a litigant, the County never did have any rights greater than you or I.

LESLIE: Let me ask you: You've described the judges and their illegal actions — their knowingly illegal actions. What about the County? Who instructs the County? Are the supervisors liable?

RICHARD FINE: The immunity— the answer to that question is yes. According to — interestingly enough, according to the immunity that was given, the immunity goes to the government entity, which the immunity goes to the County, and the immunity goes to the government employees and government officials. So the immunity actually went to the County and it went to the Supervisors.

LESLIE: Is that possible that they could get away with this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, the — the answer is yes. They — they have gotten away with it. Now, there might be some questions as to whether, under the United States Constitution, you can grant immunity, you know, for past — whether a State can grant immunity for past acts. But the State is only granting immunity under the State's powers. Remember, this immunity is not going to the — any United States law. It is only dealing within the State. So what we still have — and I'm gonna jump a subject here with you — is that you as a litigant still have your rights, your First Amendment rights to petition the government to redress grievances is still existing, and in fact that right has been infringed upon. And your 14th Amendment right to due process has been infringed upon.

So if I can take you one step further in saying what can be done? Every case in which one of these judges has ruled against you, as an individual, or you had a problem with the County, can now actually be overturned, because of the fact that they've legislated this immunity and they've given them the immunity for this bad act or for this illegal act. We have what is known as a writ of quorum nobis. And the writ of quorum nobis says that if there's a new fact that has come in to show that what's happened with the case, you can now come in and say, "Look, I want my case overruled and I want my case redone." So that is a side effect of this legislation. For every person that had a case that went bad under one of these judges, come in on the writ of quorum nobis and ask to have the case re-heard. That's one of the things that can take place.

LESLIE: And that's a case that involved the County?

RICHARD FINE: That is a case that involved the County. Now, to give you an idea of how wide that can be, that can deal with eminent domain, that could deal with any kind of a homeowner case, that could deal with child custody cases. If a county was involved in any type of a custody case or any type of a case with children or children's services, and the County paid the Children's Services Department or if the County gets involved with support payments, or if the County gets involved in a divorce case and suddenly the County's brought in as part of the child custody with respect to an evaluation or something and the judge is following that, you can get that case overturned because the judge could be biased in looking at what the County did in deciding the custody situation. So you have all of these cases that can go in and get overturned at this particular point in time.

LESLIE: Let me ask you: You've been dealing with this for some time now, and I know you're always thinking ahead of what could happen. You're prepared for the hearing tomorrow. You've taken action here to try to head it off — your being incarcerated, if you possibly can. But what if — what if you're successful with your Federal complaint? How does this situation get reconciled? You said 1600 judges could be prosecuted. What would that mean?

RICHARD FINE: It's very simple because when you get down to the bottom line of things, solutions are very, very simple. Let's assume that 1,600 judges are prosecuted. These 1,600 judges either resign or they get impeached. Now, let's assume that they don't resign and they try and stay in office, and let's assume that the state legislature doesn't impeach them. So you now have 1,600 judges who are under indictment who stay in office. Every one of these judges is going to come up for re-election because the judges come up for re-election every six years. So they are rotating into re-election as of now. One thing that the public does: The public looks at the judge who's sitting in office, the public sees the judge is sitting in office — votes him out. So what would happen is that the only thing that would keep an illegal judge in is public apathy. Real simple. If the public is so lazy that they're going to let a judge who they know has taken bribes stay in office, then that judge is gonna stay in office. If the public decides, "Look, we don't want someone that's taken illegal money to be in office," they'll vote 'em out. That would take from now until six years from now dealing with any judge that got elected during the last election. So that would take you six years.

A more pro-active thing that could happen is that the legislature could go in and pass a bill saying that we want to have an emergency election, and every judge that has received money across the entire California system — Superior Court judges, Appellate Court judges who are elected every 12 years, and California Supreme Court judges, who are elected every 12 years — are now up for re-election. We could do that within 30 days. Because you have Superior Court judges. Anyone can run for office. On California's Appellate Court judges, you vote 'em "Yes" or "No." There's only one person on the ballot. So the guy's name is on the ballot. You either vote "Yes" to keep him or you vote "No" to get rid of him. California Supreme Court judge, exactly the same thing. "Yes" to keep 'em, "No" to get rid of 'em.

That would clean up the system. It would actually clean up that system within a 30-day period of time. Then what would take place as far as all the Superior Court judges are concerned, the 1,600, you would have new Superior Court judges that would be elected, and the only thing that you have left is, you would have the Court of Appeal justices and the Supreme Court justices where new appointments would have to be made. And those appointments would be sitting until the next election, normal election for that office. Now, the appointments would be made by the governor. The governor now has a problem because the governor isn't going to be able to appoint anyone who had received this money. They wouldn't be able to pass the scrutiny. So we would end up getting new Supreme Court justices who did not receive the money, and we would be getting Court of Appeal justices who did not receive the money. And we'd have a clean system.

LESLIE: Well, you are definitely doing what it takes to bring this to a head, but even almost — what — two, three weeks after this momentous bill passed giving the judges immunity, admitting that they're criminals and giving them immunity, nobody knows about it. Is the news media complicit in this?

RICHARD FINE: I think it's beginning to get to the news media now. I think what happened is that, number one, the news media first of all probably didn't understand it. That's probably the first thing. And second of all, by not understanding it, they didn't pick up on it. Now that it is beginning to get out, the media will start picking up on it and I have a very firm belief in the American news media. It's like — it's the pack method. Once it begins to get out, then the media will pick up on it because once one person starts publishing it, then the rest will publish it because they don't want to be behind it. Whether they were complicit or not, I don't know. I personally do not believe in conspiracy theories. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories because of the fact, first of all, it is very difficult to maintain a good conspiracy over a long period of time. Self-interest will destroy any conspiracy over any extensive period of time. And second of all, I believe in the "stupid theory," and that is that most people are just too dumb to be able to maintain a conspiracy. I mean, what you really have is, you have mistakes more than you have conspiracies. To put together a good conspiracy really takes a lot of effort, and I'll give you the example of OPEC.

There's no question OPEC is a conspiracy. None whatsoever. But the OPEC members cheat on each other every day of the week, so the only thing that keeps the OPEC crisis going is not the OPEC members. They go out and set their prices in Vienna all the time. They then cheat on their prices, and the only people that are keeping their prices going is the buyers. It's the fact that the buyers are willing to pay their prices that's keeping OPEC going. It's not the fact that the OPEC people are setting the prices and adhering to them. They're cheating on themselves. It's the fact that you've got Mobil and Exxon and these other people that are going in there, that are willing to pay the prices, that will keep the conspiracy going. And so it takes two types of people in order to keep a conspiracy going. It takes one, the people to be able to put the thing together; and second of all, it takes the second group of people to be able to go along with it. And so therefore, I don't think there is a, you know, a, quote "media conspiracy." There might — you know, you might have a certain amount of perceived fear, and I think that this exists in a lot of places. I think people perceive a fear and therefore are unwilling to do things. You'll — you can call it self-restraint, which is a nice way of putting it.

Copyright 2009, Full Disclosure Network