Monday, June 8, 2009

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

No comments: