What is not being reported!!

What is not being reported...

1-  Michael Ioane was arrested and indicted for one thing but tried for another.
- Is that legal? I think not.

2- His right to a speedy trial was denied several times.
- What took them 3 years to do come up with bogus testimonies perhaps?

3- Out of everyone who worked with Dr. Steven Booth attorneys, accountants and title companies only Michael Ioane is being harassed.

4- Michael Ioane was only accused of helping Dr. Steve Booth after he filed a motion for wrongful lien which was placed on properties belonging to a trust.
"In 2007 an IRS Nominee Lean was placed on 3 of Michael Ioane’s properties by the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that Michael Ioane was somehow a nominee for Steven Booth. Then Michael Ioane sued the IRS for 2 Million and Quite Title. In retaliation the IRS asked the federal court to stay the proceedings while they conducted  a criminal investigation and prosecution against Michael Ioane.
Attached is the Quite Title Judgment already granted to Michael Ioane prior to the allegations of Criminal actions" read the quite-title
Attached is also documentation stating that Micheal Ioane was never a Nominee for Steven Booth. Read Declaration

What is the IRS trying to cover?

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

Motion to Dismiss Michael Ioane’s Case

Get this the Prosecutors (aka IRS) in the Michael Ioane case refuse to bring the case within the Speedy Trial Time frame. Attached is the Motion that was filed in order to dismiss the case. Due to violations of the Speedy Trial Act.

Speedy Trial Act Defined;Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) of the Speedy Trial Act states in pertinent that: “any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date. Id. at subd. (c)(1).

This must be a record the record, the end of justice hearing is required to continue a case past the 70 day time period. Days to date 700! One would think that after 2 years Michael Ioane, his family and friends, have suffered enough especially for being innocent. Enough with the harassment!

Read Motion to dismiss case here 

Michael Ioane and IRS Agents

Internal Revenue Service through its agent Michael Hoos of Bakersfield attempt to levy Mariposa Holding Inc’s., funds. Michael Ioane sues the depository and wins first battle over $422,000.00 wrongfully released money; View Opinion of the Appellate Court, in that matter.

Related to the, Mariposa Holding Inc., civil action by Michael Ioane is a concurrent criminal investigation involving Revenue agents Michael Hoos and Fred Chynoweth of the Bakersfield, California office for presenting fictitious financial instruments in violation of Title 18 Section 514, to wit: a bogus Notice of Levy uttered to Treble LLC and Bob Bell in the amount of $422, 000, 00. Kay Wirth, of the Tax Advocates office Las Vegas, Nevada, 89106 702-868-5181 informed Mariposa Holding Inc., that the $422,000.00 was no were to be found.

Michael Ioane on behalf of Mariposa Holding Inc., contacted Special agent Russel Klawilee of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s office, 5045 Butler Avenue, Stop 12, Fresno, CA 93727, 559-454-6720 and was assured that the issue was being investigated and that a special prosecutor would be needed because the issue involved not just the two agents but other CID agents and members of the D.O.J., in Fresno California.

Michael Ioane is a known advocate for truth and honesty in government specializing in exposing fraudulent behavior of IRS agents. 

Michael Ioane is also a contributor to the Truth Report at www.truthinlaw.org .

By; Sue Hemingway

Is the Quatloos Sight Run by the State?

This posting was found at FSK’s Guide to Reality we find his accusations regarding Quatloos legitimate and worth reading . Sections in which we disagree with have been removed as we do not advocate for non-taxation but rather rightful and legal taxation.

Imagine if there was a website that celebrated every time a policeman was murdered. The police would find that website very offensive.
I’m very offended by the quatloos website. That website celebrates whenever a “tax protester” is convicted. It’s pretty severe pro-State trolling.
I find the quatloos website offensive exactly the same way that the police would be offended by a website that celebrated police deaths. The quatloos website is celebrating economic terrorism. A person’s life is ruined by something that isn’t a crime according to natural law.
(I noticed that I’m getting good post topics reading the marcstevens.net forum. He recently had a debate with the quatloos website, regarding his “owning an IRS lawyer” tape. Just because an IRS agent couldn’t get his lies straight, doesn’t mean you’ll win in an unfair court.)
The users on the quatloos website are hardcore Statists. I suspect that most of them are policemen, bureaucrats, tax collectors, tax lawyers, or tax accountants. It’s very easy to be ignorant, when your livelihood depends on doing evil things.
It’s offensive to read court decisions regarding “tax protesters”. The pro-State trolling is obvious. It’s “cargo cult justice” and not real justice. They go through the motions of justice, while arriving at the predetermined conclusions.
When a “tax protester” loses in court, that doesn’t prove his arguments are wrong. It just proves how corrupt the State “justice” system is. Judges are pretty consistent in ruling against people who want freedom. Taxation is a key component of the State extortion racket.
If you use one of the standard “tax protester” arguments in court, you probably will lose. In fact, I wonder if undercover State police intentionally promote them, so it’s easy to identify stupid slaves who start rebelling. If you’re serious about freedom, you should work as an agorist. Unfortunately, that isn’t completely risk-free. It’s the best strategy I’ve seen, both for achieving freedom and for maximizing profit.
Most “tax protesters” realize “The IRS is a dangerous terrorist organization. The income tax is immoral.” However, they make the mistake “Something that evil ought to be illegal.” The law is a mess. There are loopholes and contradictions. The law doesn’t explicitly directly say “All your labor is belong to us!”, because that would be too obviously evil. It’s implied by the way the law is enforced, combined with corrupt court decisions and precedents.
Unfortunately, any dispute regarding government taxes is going to be decided by a government judge. The judge and tax collector are on the same team. They’re members of the same criminal gang. A slave isn’t going to get a fair trial regarding taxes in a State court.
Suppose you found a clever and correct income tax loophole. All the judge has to say is “Your argument is wrong. I’ll jail you for ‘contempt of court’ if you make that argument to a jury.” Now, you’re SOL. Even if you’re right, it’s irrelevant. The judge has the final decision. He has a monopoly.
Suppose you present your clever anti-IRS argument. What do you expect the judge to say? “You’re right. The government has been operating illegitimately for 100 years.” Of course the judge isn’t going to say that. He’s going to rule against you.
The standard “tax protester” arguments are a type of intellectual trap. If you make such an argument to an IRS thug, it’s like saying “I’m a dangerous fruitcake. Please imprison me.” Even the “all rights reserved UCC” signature trick is just a red flag for IRS agents. According to natural law, your signature on a tax return isn’t a valid contract, because it’s coerced. Unfortunately, State thugs disagree. Writing “all rights reserved UCC” over your tax return signature is just giving the finger to a bully.
This court decision was really surprising.
Rather than spending his money and time reading the misrepresentations, half-truths and full-fledged falsehoods perpetrated by Tom Clayton, MD, and his ilk, plaintiff would be better served if he were to read a legal text on taxation, its history, constitutionality and application such as Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, by Boris I. Bittker and Lawrence Lokken. If he does not want to make the effort such a text requires, he might find much of interest at www.quatloos.com/taxscams/Tax_Scams_Museum.htm or www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf. At the latter website, he would find the legal reasons why his arguments are groundless, at the former, he would find excellent advice. Among other things, he would be reminded that no one has ever won a civil case arguing the kinds of theories that he is arguing in this case and that hundreds of people who have relied on the arguments have not only lost their cases but have been required to pay penalties to the IRS and have been sanctioned for advocating a frivolous theory to the court. www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm.
The judge said “You should know that your tax protester arguments are wrong. The quatloos website said so.” That’s as legally sound (according to State logic) as “All taxation is theft. Fskrealityguide said so.”
I found that decision suspicious. Is the quatloos website organized by the State? That certain would explain their rabid hostility to people who question the IRS.
Why is a judge citing the quatloos website in his decision? The quatloos website has no official legal standing.
There’s another interesting aspect of IRS criminal and civil trials. If you make a “forbidden argument”, you’re fined for making a “frivolous argument”. In most other areas of law, you aren’t automatically fined for making a rejected argument. Judges are threatened by “forbidden arguments” because they hint at a deeper hidden truth. They are rejected because they might convince a jury to vote “not guilty”.
It seems that “frivolous anti-tax argument” is “anything that might convince a juror to vote ‘not guilty’”.
It’s still interesting to read the quatloos website, in a “know your enemy” sense. It’s offensive and disgusting. For every legal anti-IRS argument you could make, there’s a court decision that rules against it. It’s a bizarre type of partially consistent anti-logic.
Now that I’ve cracked my pro-State brainwashing, it’s obviously wrong and offensive. Citing Supreme Court decisions is missing the point. That assumes the Supreme Court’s authority is legitimate. If the Supreme Court or appeals court makes a mistake, then it’s a precedent and cannot be questioned. All the precedents say “HAHAHA!!! You’re a slave! For every anti-IRS argument you can make, we can make a plausible-sounding counter-argument! We’re going to rule against you and there’s nothing you can do about it!”
There was an interesting bit I found. It had a standardized IRS response to a “show me the law” letter. It was interesting.
The letter said “We don’t give tax advice or legal advice. If we go to court, we’ll win. Nyah! Nyah! We’ve got all the judges in our pockets.”
“We don’t give tax advice” places the slave in a no-win situation. He has an obligation to figure out and pay taxes. Every slave is forced to work for the State as a tax collector and tax accountant. However, if you make a mistake, you’re legally responsible.
You may not receive any official notification that your tax returns are wrong, until you’re prosecuted for criminal tax evasion.
Some small fry get away with the “sovereign citizen” or “tax protester” arguments. State thugs don’t have the resources to imprison everyone. If it’s decent money at stake *OR* if you’re popular, then it’s a priority to kidnap and torture you.
You aren’t going to get a fair trial regarding taxes in a corrupt State court. By the time you’re in court, you’ve already lost. The prosecutors have virtually unlimited resources when prosecuting a political prisoner. Jailing political prisoners is a “cost of doing business” for the State extortion racket. Most people pay their tribute without questioning it. This makes it very easy to violently silence the occasional dissenter. The reasoning is “Get the leaders, and all the other slaves will fall in line.”
Even if acquitted, you aren’t reimbursed for the time and expense and stress of a trial. Even if acquitted in a criminal trial, tax collectors can pursue a separate civil trial, to collect the taxes they claim you owe. If you’re convicted in a criminal trial, the sentence includes a fine for any taxes owed plus penalties, avoiding a separate civil trial to collect the tax.
Via “asset forfeiture” laws, police can seize your property without trial. You might be acquitted, but the police get to keep your property. If you have a State bank account, the IRS can easily seize it. If you have physical gold and silver, the IRS can seize it claiming “Only a criminal would have gold and silver.”
There are many ways a judge can rig a trial. Via biased jury selection, the jury will be packed with pro-State trolls. Some undercover police might be in the jury pool and get picked. The judge will forbid you from making arguments that might persuade a juror. Both a lawyer and a pro se defendant have this problem. Pro se defendants get more leniency, but all the judge has to do is say the magic words “contempt of court” and he can jail you indefinitely without trial. However, “contempt of court” is worth risking, because you’ll be jailed anyway when the jury convicts you. If the judge keeps interrupting you as a pro se defendant, that might convince some jurors that the judge is biased.
Eventually, I plan to work more aggressively at promoting agorism and practicing agorism. Right now, I’m just blogging and promoting freedom with low-risk low-effort things. It is risky if I get more active. Suppose I’m an active agorist *AND* I’m good at promoting agorism. Then, State terrorists will make it a priority to kidnap and torture me. Right now, I’m just some random nobody blogger.
As more people learn the truth on the Internet, it’ll be less risky. I sense that the truth is spreading exponentially, but it’s hard to be sure. Most slaves are very resistant, when they encounter something that contradicts their pro-State brainwashing. However, if it’s repeated many times by different people, then an intelligent slave might start thinking “Why do all these people keep saying ‘Taxation is theft!’? Is there some merit to that viewpoint?”
What is the greater tragedy? Is it to see something evil and choose to not fight? Is it to fight, pick a reasonable strategy, lose anyway, and spend most of your life in jail? Both choices are horrible. It’s the State that forced such a lousy choice on me. I always wanted to understand the truth and how things really worked. Paradoxically, it might have been better to be stupid and ignorant. However, then I would be totally SOL as the system collapses. If I’m a good agorist, I might be more prepared to survive. Now that I’m mostly unplugged, don’t I have an obligation to do something about it? But, if I act, and am reasonably successful, then State terrorists will probably kidnap and torture me. Most high-profile critics of the IRS and Federal Reserve wind up in jail. Once you know how evil the State is, don’t you have an obligation to refuse to cooperate?
The quatloos website is incredibly offensive. They celebrate whenever a “tax protester” is imprisoned. They celebrate jailing a political prisoner. They celebrate jailing nonviolent offenders. They celebrate economic terrorism. They celebrate when State thugs ruin someone’s life.
A pro-State troll says “The ‘tax protester’ ruined his own life, when he questioned the State.” That’s bizarre backwards blame-the-victim thinking. The State thugs are to blame, and not the victim who saw part of the truth but chose a foolish way to resist.
The people on the quatloos website are very hardcore Statists. It’s disgusting and offensive. I suspect most of them work for the State. It’s easy to be stupid and ignorant, when your career is enforcing evil laws.

Steven Booth Declairs Michael Ioane was never a Nominee

This declaration is from Steven Booth and his attorney John Reedy which was filled in Michael Ioane’s Quite Title proceedings against the IRS.


The declaration affermes by Steven Booth that he had and has no right, title or interest in the 3 properties Michael Ioane purchased in Bakersfield.

That he owes no Money to the IRS and that Michael Ioane has never been a nominee of Steven Booth.

See Previous Postings in regards to this case:

In 2007 an IRS Nominee Lean was placed on 3 of Michael Ioane’s properties by the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that Michael Ioane was somehow a nominee for Steven Booth.

Then Michael Ioane sued the IRS for 2 Million and Quite Title. In retaliation the IRS asked the federal court to stay the proceedings while they conducted  a criminal investigation and prosecution against Michael Ioane.

Attached is the Quite Title Judgment already granted to Michael Ioane prior to the allegations of Criminal actions  QUITE TITLE.