Michael Ioane - IRS Agent Obtains Sham Arrest Warrant From Deputy Clerk of the Court

District Judge Lawrence O'Neil on May 1, 2009, denied Mr. Ioane a speedy trial and declined to set a trial date.

Even more bizarre is that no criminal complaint exists.

What prompted this? Interestingly, the request for the arrest warrant was made by the same IRS agent that Mr. Ioane has a civil lawsuit against.

Also interesting--a deputy clerk, NOT the judge, executed the arrest warrant.

Additionally, there is no Oath or Affirmation in support of probable cause. The fourth amendment is quite clear; no arrest warrant is to be executed without Oath or Affirmation in support of probable cause.

Some are calling this indictment and the arrest warrant a sham. The fact is, NO criminal complaint exists against Chiropractor V. Steven Booth, his wife Louise Booth, or their representative Michael Scott Ioane.

After contacting the United States District Court, Fresno, California, and reviewing the file, it is true; there is no Oath or Affirmation in support of the arrest warrant and no underlying criminal complaint charging the Grand Jury.

In response, Mike Ioane stated, "This indictment is like a flashlight--without batteries, uncharged."

This appears to be an infringement on the constitution--an infringement on our fundamental rights. Could what is happening to Mr. and Mrs. Booth and Mr. Ioane also happen to any of us, at any time?

The signature of the IRS agent requesting the warrant is Michele M. Casarez, Special Agent working out of the IRS Campus office, Fresno, California. Michele is a named defendant in a lawsuit brought by Michael Ioane, as Plaintiff, over two years ago, in case number 07-cv-0620, United States district court, Fresno, California and a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Steven and Louise Booth, as Plaintiffs, in case number 07-cv-609 LJO.

Upon contacting the court, we asked if the deputy clerk A. Jessen was also a magistrate Judge or had some special congressional authority to execute arrest warrants. We were told that the deputy clerks have no special authority to issue arrest warrants.

Attached is the entire docket sheet involving this matter, the arrest warrants, and the lawsuits naming IRS Special agent Michele Casarez, as a defendant. After reviewing the documents, verifying the signatures and all facts, we found this mind-boggling.

Docket Sheet Arrest Warrants
Booth Lawsuit
Michelle Casarez Lawsuit

We as Americans assume that our representatives are doing the right thing; we rely on Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck to keep us informed, yet is our constitution under the "protection of the court" being destroyed?

To what extent are the Justice Department, district court and Grand Jury implicit in this activity? Or is it merely a clerical oversight? Are others sitting in jail right now because of similar fraudulent activity?

More about probable cause, lawful arrests, search and seizure below.
______________

Excerpted from Lawful Arrest/Search/Seizure FAQ, by Ahimsa Dhamapada

1.1: What are the elements of a lawful arrest, detainment, search, or seizure?

For your reference: here is the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution:

"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."

So, according the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the elements are as follows:

1: Oath or Affirmation made
2: Probable Cause determined
3: Specific Warrant issued
4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment

(NOTE: the ordering is important! 1 and 2 should happen
before 3, and 3 before 4.) This means, in common language:

1: A civilian makes a complaint
2: Evidence is found linking the accused with
the victim's injury, and that the injury was probably
caused by "criminal intent"; that is, it was not
an accident.
3: A document issued describing what is to be searched,
or who/what is to be seized/arrested, and why.
4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment

Yet today, here is what usually happens:

1: There is no complaint from a civilian.
2: There is no injury, thus there can be no Probable Cause.
3: There is no Warrant issued.
4: The Police Officer executes a standing order to
detain/search/arrest someone for a victimless
"pretended offence".

This is explained further below.

(Note: other Amendments discuss what is supposed to follow
after the arrest: presentment before and accusation by the
people: the Grand Jury indictment, and trial by the people:
the petit or trial jury. READ THE CONSTITUTION!)
________

Excerpted from Lawful Arrest/Search/Seizure FAQ, by Ahimsa Dhamapada

1.2: What is "Probable Cause"?

"The officer had *probable cause* to believe
that the person had violated a law."

Probable cause is NOT a simple synonym for "reason",
yet this is how it is used most often.

Law dictionaries often define Probable Cause as

"A reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed."

While this is close, it is not adequate, as we will soon see...

If this *were* the definition, then the most common
usage wouldn't make sense! Make the replacement in the
above phrase:

"The officer had *a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed* to believe that the person had violated a law."

Huh? Something is wrong here.

Now, if "probable cause" is simply "reason to believe a crime
has occurred", then it offers the people little protection
against harassment, given the number of obscure "laws"
on the books that the people are subject to. Such a
definition would give the police wide powers to detain
just about anybody for any reason at any time. Hmmm....

Also, there is a common misunderstanding as to the definition
of "crime". Many people think that a crime is a "violation
of the law", but this is a circular definition! Which came
first, law or crime? If crime is "things which the law
prohibits", and law is "that which is crime", we have
self-reference, a tautology, begging the question, a circular
reference. Anyone who has studied logic will tell you that
this has no meaning at all. (see any logic text, or:
http://www.wdv.com/Writings/Stories/TheRules/fallacy.html)

The Founding Fathers wrote *probable cause* and not
"reason to believe that a violation of the law occurred",
because they were *defining* the law! They obviously meant
something different.

We must all *begin* with an agreement of what is a crime
BEFORE we codify the Law, or else we end up with a meaningless
law that refers to itself, corruption of the courts, legislature,
and the police, and people going to jail for absurd things like
"possessing forbidden flowers", "not having proper paperwork",
"having a bad opinion about the court" or "talking about doing
something really nasty". (Wait! That IS what we have today...)

So, let's come up with a USEFUL definition of crime:

The body of a crime (Corpus Delicti) must have 2 components [from Gifis]:

1: An injury
2: A criminal cause

A crime is an injury caused by criminal agency (not
an accident or act-of-god). You can injure someone
accidentally: not a crime. Someone can get hurt from a
falling meteorite: not a crime. Someone causes an injury
intentionally: *this* is true crime.

Now replace this in the dictionary definition, and we have
the following:

PROBABLE CAUSE *IS*:
"REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN *INJURY HAD CRIMINAL CAUSE*"

So if a civilian makes a complaint, and a body of the people such
as the Grand Jury, can reasonably assert:

"The accused PROBABLY CAUSED the injury to the victim",

then we have met the Constitutional requirement, and the
origin of the phrase becomes clear. (It could alternately
be interpreted as "Probable Cause of Action", but it is
no different, since a "cause" is a claim, and a claim requires
a right, an injury, and a petition for restitution)

Finally! Now that we know what *probable cause* really is,
now we can define what is required to show or determine
probable cause:

PROBABLE CAUSE *REQUIRES*:
"CERTAIN FACTS LINKING THE ACCUSED WITH THE VICTIM'S INJURY".

There is really more to it than this; for example, certain
human-caused injury may be simple accident, thus it should
be shown that the injury was intentional and malicious.

But here is the *really* important thing to remember:

If there is NO VICTIM, or the "victim" has suffered NO
INJURY, there can be NO PROBABLE CAUSE. Most police
detainments in the United States these days begin as
traffic "offences" (there is no offended party):
speeding, safety checks, no seat belt, expired tags, etc.
In the absence of any injury, these all lack Probable
Cause, and are thus, unConstitutional.

Think: "He PROBABLY CAUSED the Injury to the Victim".

Quatloos = Ongoing False Allegations

Jay Adkisson, founder and editor of Quatloos.  A sight known for being verbally abusive, slanderous and misguiding. See some of the quotes we have gathered from readers comments, reports and articles in regards to this sight that is allegedly trying to help people.

“It has become famous for trashing absolutely EVERYONE who wants an accountable and law-abiding government so far as taxation is concerned”
“In my mind, Jay Adkisson is a control-freak and suffering from delusions of grandeur.”
“The Quatloos website is celebrating economic terrorism.”
“Quatloos places attacks those most vulnerable those in weak positions. he is a like a vulture waiting for his pray, a winch with a “missing eye!”
“Quatloos and its editors act as a veil doing the bidding of the IRS and state in order to destroy those who dare speak up against a tyrannical Internal Revenue Service”

What we find to be even more ironic is that Jay Adkisson is an Attorney specializing in Asset protection. Sounds more than just coincidental that all the people he attacks are involved in similar fields.
Going back to the idea that Quatloos is run by the state we were wondering what IRS agents or employees are funneling him information? Of course in violation of the IRC 6300. I am sure the victims of Quatloos would appreciate that information.
Food for Thought: Perhaps some of his victims should bring a Federal Unfair Trade Practices suit or perhaps maybe it is time to obtain a Declaratory Order from federal court stating that Quatloos is nothing more than a Internal Revenue Service front organization.
By: Friends of Michael Ioane