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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Michael Ioane - Racketeering Scheme?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
All I can say is WOW. I am so glad this man had the balls to fight. If this is happening to him what does the average american do. I know I personally could not afford an attorney. When this is all over I would like to personally meet Mike Ioane. I will definately be hiring his services. I will continue to follow this case. I would be interested to hear others voice there opinion. Good luck Mike Ioane.
Mike Ioane vs the Arrests .I found this interesting reading on findlaw.com. I think Mike Ioane is right and obviously has done his homework Arrests and Other Detentions .--That the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as against unreasonable searches was early assumed by Chief Justice Marshall 55 and is now established law. 56 At the common law, it was proper to arrest one who had committed a breach of the peace or a felony without a warrant, 57 and this history is reflected in the fact that the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the arrest is made in a public place on probable cause, regardless of whether a warrant has been obtained. 58 However, in order to effectuate an arrest in the home, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers must have a warrant. 59 The Fourth Amendment applies to ''seizures'' and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants or probable cause in instances in which warrants may be forgone. 60 Some objective justification must be shown to validate all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of arrest, although the nature of the detention will determine whether probable cause or some reasonable and articulable suspicion is necessary. 61
Until relatively recently, the legality of arrests was seldom litigated in the Supreme Court because of the rule that a person detained pursuant to an arbitrary seizure--unlike evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search--remains subject to custody and presentation to court. 62 But the application of self-incrimination and other exclusionary rules to the States and the heightening of their scope in state and federal cases alike brought forth the rule that verbal evidence, confessions, and other admissions, like all derivative evidence obtained as a result of unlawful seizures, could be excluded. The more that I do research on Michael Ioane's case I find my self troubled. If they can take his rights away illegally - What would they do to any of us little people. I would love to get anyone opinion on Michael Ioane's case.
MIKE IOANE DOES DO HIS RESEARCH. I'm glad someone else out there is upset as me. What is the goverment doing to Mike Ioane. I checked out the website findlaw.com and also found some more info on Search Warrants. Check this out. Thus, a confession made by one illegally in custody must be suppressed, unless the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession had become so attenuated that the latter should not be deemed ''tainted'' by the former. 64 Similarly, fingerprints and other physical evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest must be suppressed. 65
Searches and Inspections in Noncriminal Cases .--Certain early cases held that the Fourth Amendment was applicable only when a search was undertaken for criminal investigatory purposes, 66 and the Supreme Court until recently employed a reasonableness test for such searches without requiring either a warrant or probable cause in the absence of a warrant. 67 But in 1967, the Court held in two cases that administrative inspections to detect building code violations must be undertaken pursuant to warrant if the occupant objects.
I also would like to pick other peoples brains. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON HOW THE GOVERMENT - ESPECIALLY THE IRS IS GETTING AWAY with charging Mike Ioane with crimes first it looks like he did not commit and Michael Ioane should have some support from those of us that could not fight like he is.
I agree Mike Ioane should keep fighting. what the heck is going on. Why is the IRS allowed to get away with treating Mike Ioane like a criminal. I have really taken this on as a crusade. The IRS obviously does not have to abide to the 1st -4th amendements. Actually they are allowed to ruin peoples lives. I wish Michael Ioane all the luck in the world.
Post a Comment