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).
6 comments:
Mike Ioane vs the Execution of Warrants .I found this interesting reading on findlaw.com. I think Mike Ioane is right and obviously has done his homework.--The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, 155 method of entry, and the like. It was a rule at common law that before an officer could break and enter he must give notice of his office, authority, and purpose and must in effect be refused admittance, 156 and until recently this has been a statutory requirement in the federal system 157 and generally in the States. In Ker v. California, 158 the Court considered the rule of announcement as a constitutional requirement, although a majority there found circumstances justifying entry without announcement. In Wilson v. Arkansas, Supp.2 the Court determined that the common law ''knock and announce'' rule is an element of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. The rule does not, however, require announcement under all circumstances. The presumption in favor of announcement yields under various circumstances, including those posing a threat of physical violence to officers, those in which a prisoner has escaped and taken refuge in his dwelling, and those in which officers have reason to believe that destruction of evidence is likely. Recent federal laws providing for the issuance of warrants authorizing in certain circumstances ''no-knock'' entries to execute warrants will no doubt present the Court with opportunities to explore the configurations of the rule of announcement. 159 A statute regulating the expiration of a warrant and issuance of another ''should be liberally construed in favor of the individual.'' 160 Similarly, inasmuch as the existence of probable cause must be established by fresh facts, so the execution of the warrant should be done in timely fashion so as to ensure so far as possible the continued existence of probable cause. 161
In executing a warrant for a search of premises and of named persons on the premises, police officers may not automatically search someone else found on the premises. 162 If they can articulate some reasonable basis for fearing for their safety they may conduct a ''patdown'' of the person, but in order to search they must have probable cause particularized with respect to that person. However, in Michigan v. Summers, 163 the Court held that officers arriving to execute a warrant for the search of a house could detain, without being required to articulate any reasonable basis and necessarily therefore without probable cause, the owner or occupant of the house, whom they encountered on the front porch leaving the premises. Applying its intrusiveness test, 164 the Court determined that such a detention, which was ''substantially less intrusive'' than an arrest, was justified because of the law enforcement interests in minimizing the risk of harm to officers, facilitating entry and conduct of the search, and preventing flight in the event incriminating evidence is found. 165 Also, under some circumstances officers may search premises on the mistaken but reasonable belief that the premises are described in an otherwise valid warrant. 166
Although for purposes of execution, as for many other matters, there is little difference between search warrants and arrest warrants, one notable difference is that the possession of a valid arrest warrant cannot authorize authorities to enter the home of a third party looking for the person named in the warrant; in order to do that, they need a search warrant signifying that a magistrate has determined that there is probable cause to believe the person named is on the premises. 167 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.
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?
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.
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?
False arguments about a number of like subjects regarding income tax, all of which erroneously conclude that nobody is liable to pay income tax
These arguments are all false, and demonstrably so. Anyone who advocates them is a liar, and anyone who believes them is either a dullard, a sucker, or a fool.
Don't believe us? Skeptical of us? Well, before your break ends at the tire shop, take a close look at the following:
Daniel B. Evans' The Tax Protestor FAQ
http://evans-legal.com/ dan /tpfaq.html
- and -
Joseph G. Adams' Tax Protestor Hall of Fame -- http://politicalhobbyist.com/ debunked/
This website helps you with the scams on the web. The web sddress is www.etaxes.com
Avoid These Tax Protest Scams Like You Would Avoid The Plague
On a daily basis, we learn about various tax protest scams who will only succeed in leading you down a path of destruction. All of them perpetuate over the Internet. They run from the utterly absurd to the completely ridiculous, from the convicted felons to the merely looney. The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments are complete works of fiction and none have any validity whatsoever. What is certainly most amusing is how each of sites tells you why the other supposed tax experts are quacks. Do yourself a huge favor. Please avoid all of these individuals, organizations and their sites as they are all woefully wrong and will run for the hills when the IRS starts taking your possessions or brings criminal charges against you.
The very worst of them all. The Institute for Global Prosperity is the lowest of the lows. They were recently raided by the IRS and their leaders are being sought on criminal charges. Here is what Quatloos.com by Adkisson Consulting LLC has to say about them:
As we have previously related, the bottom-of-the-bottom in the MLM world is the “Global Prosperity” scam. This scam, as we have previously related, grew out of the old “Global Prosperity Group”, which was one of the biggest criminal schemes of all times and caused a lot of people to lose their money buying in to GPG’s completely worthless materials and other stuff which was marketed as ways to save taxes and become rich offshore.
The scummiest of the scummy, being the crooks who run the “Global Prosperity” scam, recently hosted a seminar in Cancun, Mexico, to try to enlist suckers to help them sell so-called “Pure Trusts” – a fictional trust which the IRS has deemed “abusive” and has of late been very successful in prosecuting people who have set these up to avoid taxes.
Global Prosperity is notorious, not only for scamming people into buying totally worthless tapes and “scripts” to be read
This quoate was commented by Jay Adkisson. As everyone knows his website tells you they helps you with the IRS. They then turn you in. They are informants for the IRS. Be careful.
Post a Comment