Judges Disqualification, Fraud on the Court

Fraud Upon The Court

–Judges Disqualification–

 

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

 

http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm

 

  1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
  2. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

  1. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court“. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

  1. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

  1. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Posted in Judges Disqualification | Leave a comment

Traffic, show me the law.

Traffic, show me the law.

One of my associates (Bob) lived in a military camp and the neighboring small town cops were constantly using the new recruits as easy picking for the smallest traffic issues.

The officer claimed Bob was driving recklessly when the truth is his car was running poorly and he had to pump the accelerator just to limp it home which caused the tires to act jerky.

He gets the ticket then notices that no violation statute number was on the citation, it just said ‘reckless driving’.

Bob, age 18, went to his arraignment and told the judge before he pleas that he wishes to see the written law he is charged under.

The judge pretended to act like he was seeing a written law in the book before him.

Bod asked to personally see it.

Then after a long search the judge admitted he could not find a specific ‘reckless driving’ statute and the case was dismissed.

Comment – Go to the original ‘Floor Bill‘ debate records where the specific statute you are charged with, it is likely that your activity does not exist in the texts.

Example – failure to use a turn-signal in my jurisdiction 300 feet before you turn does not apply on roads with a speed limit under 55 MPH, yet they use it to write tickets daily in city traffic where the speed limit is under 45MPH.

Always challenge all elements of the crime, personal, subject matter, and territorial, jurisdiction.   Lawyer Hansen – pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com

Posted in Citations | Leave a comment

Court of Record, Defined

Court of Record:

Here is a site put together by Mr. M.R. Hamilton and this link below takes you right to his explanation of a Court of Record:
http://afreecountry.com/?q=court
See text below.
Hamilton also strongly endorses Bill Thornton’s case study of a Court of Record being established by the Plaintiff before the judge, with the judge having no idea what is about to hit him (see below link to Thornton’s website). You will note a dramatic change in the attitude of the judge after the Plaintiff’s filing of Judicial Notice, and then again after the Plaintiff’s filing of Contempt against the judge/magistrate.  This presented a real learning experience for both me and my wife.  I think you’ll find it most informative too.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/example/index.html

I think you’ll find both sites worth the time to walk through as there’s a plethora of information (newer for me than for you, I’m sure) to digest.

>>

Court of Record or Common Law Court M. R. Hamilton’s picture Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on Mon, 08/18/2014 – 09:42 The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] Our court system is based on a centuries old system. There are some misconceptions about what is a court. There are actually several jurisdictions over which a court can preside. There is admiralty or commercial court. There is equity court or fair play court and there is common law court or a court of record. There is also a nisi prius court. A nisi prius court is a court that exist because you failed to object. The vast majority of the time that one is pulled into court, he is pulled into admiralty court. If you hire an attorney, you are typically ceding jurisdiction to this court. That means you are consenting to the court jurisdiction, a voluntary act you must not do. The consent occurs even if done so inadvertently. Equity courts are presided over by chancellors. The chancellor was appointed by the king to oversee simple complaints. (Remember, common law is based on old English law.) The chancellor was permitted to make law as he saw fit to settle a claim fairly. An example of an equity court is the one in which Irwin Schiff was convicted on October 24th, 2005. He was convicted for filing “false tax returns” for the years 1997 through 2002. According to transcripts, during the trial, Schiff’s defense attorney made numerous attempts at quoting United States Code and previous cases regarding income tax that would have resulted in an acquittal had the jury heard the testimony. However, the trial judge, Kent Dawson, actually stated, “In my court I am the law.” He has been criticized for this statement, but he was correct. Of course, since American people are not required to pay income tax or file income tax returns, why would he file a return to begin with? Some people think there are no longer common law courts in the united states of America, because they think that the court is the building that court is held in. That is just a building. The papers filed to start an action is what determines the type of court. People are the sovereigns in the united states of America or any other republic for that matter. As such, no law passed by any legislative branch of government has any lawful force of authority over the sovereign. The appropriate course of action when pulled into any court is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. When you do this, you must make yourself a plaintiff by filing a counterclaim in a court of record. A court of record is a common law court wherein the court is “the person and suit of the plaintiff”. In a court of record, the judge is merely a magistrate and does not have the authority to make decisions, offer opinions or issue orders. So, although Irwin Schiff had this information since Bill Thornton had provided it to him, he could have done so and the judge would not have been able to claim that he is the law, because in that court, the decisions would have been made by Irwin Schiff, because it was his court. As a matter of fact, the sovereign decrees the law, so the law would have been whatever Irwin Schiff decreed it to be which would have been in his papers when he filed suit for his damages for being imprisoned. So let’s take a look at the definitions of a court. According to  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 INTERNATIONAL LAW The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. …. CLASSIFICATION Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual: COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD.  The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt.  Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.  Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded.  3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231. A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial.  Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.  See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. Since, the common law is based on international laws that have been in place for centuries, this definition would apply. It is recognized in the Constitution for the United States of America. All mentions of law in the Constitution refer to the common law, which was the predominate practice at the time. Common law is rarely used now , because it is harder for judges to take advantage of people in favor of government. After all, they are government employees. They know that they are merely magistrates in a common law court and do not have the authority to make decisions or orders. So let’s see what a judge actually is according to  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103. MAGISTRATE Person clothed with power as a public civil officer.  State ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630. A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either judicial, legislative, or executive.  But the term is commonly used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of the peace and police justices.  Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W. 32, 34. …. The word “magistrate” does not necessarily imply an officer exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds.  Schultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336. As we can see, this would not allow the judge to perform the duties of a tribunal. The best way to get a firm grasp on common law is to listen to the four hour seminar given by Bill Thornton. It is a four hour seminar broken into three segments. It will give you a very good comprehension of common law. It is a must if you are to take responsibility for your lawful wellbeing.

>>>

CASE LOG [music] 10-07-98 Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court. 02-18-99 Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite authoritative, tense, and quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted. Defendant’s demurrer was denied. Transcript #1 tells the story. One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely that of “judge,” his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a ministerial capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to “judge” something, or to exercise any discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of the court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as a writ of error coram nobus. 05-06-99 Plaintiff filed Judicial Notice, Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff’s status., and a Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part. Defined 05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and asked the plaintiff “What are we doing at this point?” The plaintiff simply said, “The only business before the Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday. As far as — barring that, there’s no business before the Court today.” The hearing was terminated. When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant’s attorney was heard to ask, “Okay. Am I correct in that the Court’s made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?” The magistrate replied, “I’ve made no rulings. I’ve made — what I’ve done — the record speaks for itself.” Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it. Transcript #2 reports the day’s proceeding. 06-07-99, Plaintiff filed First Amended Action Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a “First Amended Complaint.” Then the clerk’s supervisor refused to file it because there was no court order signed by a magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the filing of a first amended action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded the clerk that she could “file on demand.” She accepted the paper and marked it “FILED ON DEMAND”. 06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a “CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS.” The form lays out a simple procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon the facts. Here the clerk certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her certification, the court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly. 08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions. Transcript #3 is referenced in the plaintiff’s affidavit used in the contempt proceeding. 09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion was accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the papers to protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows: Order: Sealing of Papers and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers: Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Affidavit of Witness in support of motion Affidavit of Plaintiff and exhibits in support of motion An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the plaintiff, or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two supporting affidavits with exhibits. Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are prohibited from holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an employee’s performance is being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated the contempt accusation as if it were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job performance of the clerk and the magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public view. However, the court empowered the accused themselves to make the matter public any time they wished. 10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See Transcript #4. 02-02-00 Ruling in re contempt of court. This ruling brings together the complete picture of the relationship between the people and the government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty, whereas this paper is complete. 04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant’s attorney, and plaintiff were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge. Transcript #5 Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word, and be certain that you personally check every cite–don’t trust anybody or anything; not even what you find at this web site.

>>>>

Posted in Court of Record, Defined | Leave a comment

Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction

Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction:

Wording of the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct tax on all incomes earned within the States of the United States of America or the federal states of the United States. The word “All” is the first word used in the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so the proponents of the Sixteenth Amendment were aware that that amendment could not by law refer to all incomes. The Amendment does refer to the “power (of the Congress) to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source (of the power to tax incomes is) derived,” which means the Congress has other sources of indirect income taxing powers that require no apportionment, census or enumeration and it can use the source of that power to tax some incomes, but not all incomes. The Congress has two sources of taxing power. It has the direct and indirect taxation power within the territory it owns or that has been ceded to it. Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, confirmed the power of the Congress to impose indirect taxes in the Northwest Territory, as long as it owned the land where the subject of indirect taxation occurred. However, since the United States of America initially own all the real property in the Northwest Territory, this changed as some is sold off.  No attempt could ever be made to impose direct taxes on the real property there as a whole. History reveals that some federal land including much of the Northwest Territory would be sold to the general public subject to the alleged Article IV, Section 4, power of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” That general public would be subject to federal income taxation. The second source of taxing power of Congress was claimed for the Congress in Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1&2 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, it was the taxing power over foreign imports that was conceded to it by the States when the Constitution was ratified. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, identifies by name the four different “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” the Congress may lay and collect within federal territory and upon foreign imports. No matter the name of the tax the Congress is limited in its taxation to federal territory which it calls “the United States.” The first bill enacted into law by the First Congress establishes a legislative oath to “support this Constitution.” The second bill lays out imports duties on specified articles of commerce sought to be entered into the “United States.” The first internal revenue statute of the United States government was enacted on March 3, 1791. The statute raised revenue by laying a duty on distilled spirits and the stills that produced them. George Washington himself led the government’s forces against the uprising that arose in opposition to the act. The Federal government’s 1794 success in the Whiskey Rebellion secured its power to impose excise taxes on nearly everything produced for sale. By various lawless means the federal government extended its lawful power to tax within federal territory to beyond (without) those borders to nonfederal America. The federal government chose to create the US individual income tax–a tax on the net incomes of some citizens and residents of the United States which specifically included most federal officers and employees of the federal government. The income of federal officers and employees can be taxed because being employed by the federal government is a privilege when exercised within federal territory. Working for another for pay, off federal territory, is not a privilege– it is an unalienable right not subject to taxation. Learning the written law in law schools like Harvard and Yale has not occurred since the ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so you would be wrong to attend any other law school that holds those two schools in high esteem.

 

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Banking, History Timeline (MS 10097)

To See Chart Click > HERE.

 

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/LegHistoryMoney.htm

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IRS Defense Attorneys, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, Trust, Alan Stuart Richey, Alan Richey.

IRS Defense Attorneys, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, Trust.

See example below:

We (Paul J Hansen) win most all our case without an attorney. [50 plus]

We win none where the client takes on an attorney.   (Beginning to see a pattern.)

Read this article below, I coached Kent Hovind how to win, he got scared hired this criminal lawyer and got the max years of any IRS case of the like. I am now close to getting Kent’s case vacated, as of 3-18-2020.

KENT HOVIND aka DOCTOR DINO WAS SENT TO PRISON BY A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT MORMON (WSBA) ATTORNEY ALAN RICHIE WHO I CAN PROVE INTENTIONALLY LOST HIS CASE ON PURPOSE!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey, WSBA # 30578 is a CIVIL . . . .IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY!!!!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey is NOT an IRS ATTORNEY!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey doesn’t know anything about TAX LAW period!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey, WSBA #30578 has LOST NO LESS THAN SEVENTEEN (17) IRS CASES in a row:

1.) Michael O’Donnell a New York Airline Pilot in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:02-cr-00411-CM-1 serving some serious prison time picking up the soap for Bubba thanks to Alan Richey.

2.) Kent E. Hovind aka Doctor Dino and his wife Jo D. Hovind in the United States District Court Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cr-83-MCR are now serving time in CLUB FED thanks to Alan Richey!!!!

3.) Multi-Millionaire Mannatech Distributor Raymond Gebauer in the U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cr-00122-JLR-1 is now . . . PICKING UP THE SOAP FOR BUBBA IN THE GRAY BAR MOTEL . . . thanks to . . . ALAN RICHEY!

4.) Hamlet C. Bennet in U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cr-00068-SOM-A is now doing time with BUBBA thanks to Alan Richey and a few other incompetent BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS.

5.) Michael Burn in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Ann Arbor) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:06-cr-20582-JCO-MKM-1 was of course found guilty and LOST his case with Alan Richey.

6.) Carl Roger Davis in U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Springfield) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:08-cr-03033-RED-1.

7.) Carl Lee Morris in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE # 4:08-cr-00082-PJC-1 got talked into PLEADING GUILTY by Alan Richey and the other incompetent BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEY.

8.) Neil Stierhoff in U.S. District Court District of Rhode Island (Providence) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #1:06-cr-00042-ML-LDA-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY!

9.) Nadine Griffin in U.S. District Court of Massachussetts for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE # 494 F.Supp.2d 1 (2007) also LOST HER CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY!

10.) Thomas David Weathers in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cr-05487-FDB-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY.

11.) Gordon Ramzan Niamatali in U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas (McAllen) in CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:09-mc-00001 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY.

12.) Beaver Valley Trust in the Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-00158-RHW also LOST their case with the incompetent ALAN RICHEY!

13.) Bryce W. Townley and Charlene R. Townley in the Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 2:02-cv-00384-RHW also LOST their case with the incompetent ALAN RICHEY.

14.) Brett Edward Dirr in U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxsville) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08-cr-00042-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

14.) Steven Pontnak in U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:03-cr-60063-HO-1 also LOST his case with IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

Note: Steven Pontnak at (503) 375-6111 or (202) 507-0540 or E-Mail: <leellenfarms@q.com> told me that ALAN RICHEY RIPPED HIM OFF $40,000.00 to do an APPEAL that he never did!

16.) Sharp Management in the U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00402-JLR also had to cave in and thrown in the towel and moved to dismiss their own LOSING CASE without prejudice “as though they would really try to come back with Alan Richey’s LOSER PAPERWORK,”

17.) Kevin Lynn Terry in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 307-cr-05645-BHS-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

LOSE, LOSE, LOSE AND LOSE AGAIN, THAT’S ALL ALAN RICHEY HAS DONE IN EVERY IRS CASE HE HAS EVER DONE!!!!

Note: The following case is pending, BUT DON’T WORRY, you can count on ALAN RICHEY to LOSE AND LOSE AND LOSE AGAIN just like he did for ALL THE ABOVE DEFENDANTS.

1.) David Opollo Ross in U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cr-00223-HG-1 has been continued to 6/9/2009.

Somebody in HAWAII better contact DAVID OPOLLO ROSS and tell him to . . . FIRE ALAN RICHEY . . . BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!

THAT’S RIGHT, WASHINGTON ATTORNEY ALAN RICHEY IS A . . . 17 TIME IRS CASE LOSER!!!!

Alan Richey prior to taking LAW LESSONS from LUIS EWING had in fact NEVER WON even 1 single criminal case of any significance in any of the State court’s within the State of Washington or in any other State.

Alan Richey has NO EXPERIENCE in criminal law PRIOR to taking LAW LESSONS from LUIS EWING!!!!

The 1 and ONLY criminal case that Alan Richey has ever WON was for a relative which he did NOT disclose to the court that his alleged client was in fact a blood relative and his failure to disclose this to the court was in clear violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct which is clearly grounds for disbarment in the State of Washington.

That 1 and ONLY criminal case WIN that Alan Richey ever got was for his blood relative and was obtained by PLAGIARIZING LUIS EWING’S SPEEDY TRIAL BRIEF regarding the 48-Hour Rule, CrRLJ 2.1 (d)(2).

Alan Richey has NO UNDERSTANDING of CRIMINAL LAW and has virtually NO EXPERIENCE in criminal law matters and in fact has NEVER WON even 1 serious criminal case of any significance here in the State of Washington.

90% or better of all the better case law quotations and citations that Alan Richey uses on his current clients is direct PLAGIARISM of my OLD BRIEFS which I removed and deleted all the better legal arguments and better case law quotations from before I gave him a copy of some of my OLD BRIEFS, so anybody who is using Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney is pre-destined to LOSE and go to PRISON!!!!!

Alan Richey was NOT and is NOT an experienced IRS ATTORNEY!!!!

UNLESS YOU COUNT SIXTEEN LOSSES IN A ROW AS EXPERIENCE????

OKAY, SO ALAN IS IN FACT AN . . . EXPERIENCED IRS CASE LOSER!!!!

HA, HA, HA, WHAT A JOKE ALAN RICHEY IS!!!!

Alan Richey has in fact NEVER WON even just 1 single IRS CRIMINAL CASE!!!!

Alan Richey has in fact NEVER WON even just 1 single IRS CIVIL CASE!!!!

Please forward this E-MAIL to anyone and everyone you know that is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney.

HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I THINK IS FUNNY:

RALPH WINTERROWD FROM ALASKA IS SO STUPID THAT HE BRAGGED TO ME ON THE INTERNET IN FRONT OF HIS YAHOO GROUPS THAT HE LOST NO LESS THAN SIX IRS CASES IN A ROW!!!!

DOESN’T ANYBODY KNOW THAT RALPH WINTERROWD GOT BRAIN DAMAGED FROM FALLING ON HIS HEAD????

ANYONE WHO IS DUMB ENOUGH TO BRAG ABOUT LOSING SIX (6) IRS CASES IN A ROW OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT HAVE ALL THEIR MARBLES IN THE RIGHT PLACE!!!!

WHAT’S EVEN FUNNIER IS THAT SIX (6) TIME IRS LOSER RALPH WINTERROWD NOW . . . “RECOMMENDS” . . . SEVENTEEN (17) TIME IRS LOSER ALAN RICHEY!!!!

QUESTION: YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY DON’T YOU????

ANSWER: . . . “BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.”

Please forward this to all patriot groups and tax honesty groups in Hawaii, Tennessee, Boston, Massachussetts, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Tampa, Florida.

Please send me the NAME, PHONE NUMBER, E-MAIL ADDRESS of anyone you know who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey and please also provide me the actual COURT CAUSE NUMBER for anyone you know who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney.

To anyone who provides me the actual NAME OR NAMES, PHONE NUMBERS, E-MAIL ADDRESSES and conjunctively also provides me the actual Court Cause No.’s: ______________________ of any IRS CASE that Alan Richey is working on, I WILL TELL YOU HOW I CAN PROVE THAT WASHINGTON ATTORNEY ALAN RICHEY IS MOST PROBABLY WORKING IN COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE IRS TO HELP THEM TAKE DOWN TAX PROTESTORS “OR” DISJUNCTIVELY, I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THAT HE IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT BY CITING 2 COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RULE VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY COURT TO DENY YOUR MOTION EVEN IF IT CONTAINED CORRECT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT ANY “COMPETENT” ATTORNEY COULD EVER POSSIBLY MAKE 2 SUCH GROSS ERRORS AND NOT KNOW IT UNLESS THEY WERE JUST PLAIN “INCOMPETENT.”

So please if you know anyone who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey, please forward this E-MAIL to them as fast as possible and have them contact me BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE AND THEY GO TO PRISON WHEN THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY WHICH THEY WILL BE WITH ALAN RICHEY REPRESENTING HIS BEST INTEREST’S WHICH IS TO “MILK THE COW” AND BLEED YOU OF ALL YOUR MONEY WHILE RESEARCHING AND WRITING MORE LOSING BRIEFS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS!!!!

Sincerely

Luis Ewing at (360) 335-1322 or call me at <luisewing> on SKYPE.
PS – You can call and leave a message on my phone: 1 – (360) 335-1322 or my cellular at 1 – (253) 226-3741 or call me at <luisewing> on SKYPE, Monday through Saturday from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm.

HELP – Send me Alan Stuart Richey house address and picture, I wonder what a masterful, intentional, loser can afford. I’ll post it here. pauljjhansenlaw@gmail.com

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Seven Elements of Jurisdiction, a good synopsis.

This is a classic.

I know many of you have seen it, but I wanted to post it for the benefit of
those who haven’t. There is a lot of “meat” here!  For the more advanced student.

* * * * * * *  *

SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

  1.  Accused must be properly identified; identified in such a
    fashion there is no room for mistaken identity.  The individual must
    be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to
    arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense.  Almost
    always the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT, any
    means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates
    the accused without doubt.  (There is no constitutionally valid requirement
    you must identify yourself) For stop and identify (4th Amendment) see

Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.

  1.  The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or
    common name.  A number is insufficient.  Today, a citizen may stand
    in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes,
    regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example:

Colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an
unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail).  If a number were to
be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges
at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as
an offense, it must be declared to be a crime.  Charges must negate
any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense,
by affirmative non-applicability.  In other words, any charge must
affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.

Example of exception: “…. thereof to make a return (other than a
return required under authority of 6015)…..Indictment or information
is defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
case of guilt is stated.  Assumption of element is not lawful.

Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed.  26 USC 6012 is a
necessary element of the offense.  Since 6012 isn’t cited, the
information is fatally defective.  Additionally, information did not
negate the exception (other than required under authority of section
6015).”  After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that 7203 elements
are:

  1.  Required to perform.
  2.  Failed to perform.
  3.  Failure was willful you may wish to ask, “how often is a
    valid 7203 or other information or indictment brought?
    How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally
    defective process?
  4.  The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-preju-
    dicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average
    intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of
    defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained
    of.  The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by
    the language of same.  The naming of the acts of the offense describes
    a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a
    general class of offense.  Facts must be stated.  Conclusions cannot
    be considered in the determination of probable cause.
  5.  The accuser must be named.  He may be an officer or a third
    party.  Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse.
    Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the
    accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid
    means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser.  Also, the
    injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation.  Hearsay
    evidence may not be provided.  Anyone else testifying that he heard
    that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
  6.  The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If
    perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise,
    anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
  7.  To comply with the five elements above, that is for the
    accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
    a. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing
    the charge.  This includes court-determined probable cause, summons
    and notice procedure.  If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a
    citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man
    of his freedom.  All political dissent may be stifled by utilization
    of defective process.
  8.  The court must be one of competent jurisdiction.  To have
    valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in
    accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).

Without the limiting factor of a court of competent
jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty
being imposed at any bureaucrat’s whim.  It is conceivable that the
procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of
facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

Leg 1
1. Court of proper Venue
2. Judge with Oath

Leg 2
3. Plaintiff
4. Sworn Complaint / Affidavit

Leg 3
5. Competent Witness
6. Sworn Affidavit

Leg 4
7. ‘In Personam’ Jurisdiction over the Defendant,

The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue
of personal jurisdiction.  The seventh element (also element #2)
addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.  Subject matter 
     jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial 
     jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court 
     and to any trans-jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties 
     (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial 
     long-arm statutes).

SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless
waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure
against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of
facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction,
should one be obtained.
 Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and
charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense.  Without
lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings
prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the
seven elements is void.  A lawful act is always legal but many legal
acts by government are often unlawful.  Most bureaucrats lack
elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of
constitutional due process.  They will make mistakes.  Numbers beyond
count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to
these seven elements.  Today, informations are being filed and
prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney &
client:  The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public,
not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with
those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of
justice, the former must yield to the latter.  Clients are also called
“wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their
attorneys.  After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to
see a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/lawyer_ethics_regulation/model_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_enforcement.html)  Also Canons 1 through 9.     (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf)

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful
manner.
 If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his
detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law,
including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised
and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar.
(Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of
a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court,
but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.  The burden of
proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.  The court is only to
rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298
US 178.  The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in
Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

NOTE:  Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such as
whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
ratified.  If the courts were to address this type of question
honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron special
interests would be placed in jeopardy.  This potential threat is not
allowed nor will it ever be.  It is much easier for the courts to
label such potential threats as political questions, point to the
lateness of the clock and refuse to hear or rule.  Whatever the
political jugernaut does, it uses the facade of law to justify or
reconcile it.  The only way such questions will have force and effect
is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice
being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.

If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not just
words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten, unspoken,
present public policy, as enforced by the courts in dealing with
challenges to governmental acts and authority.  For documentation, see
US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur’s opinion on
the 16th Amendment.  You will see the beginnings and threat of
disbarment of a certain “aggressive” licensed attorney.

To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a good
understanding of politics.  This is especially so since government and
the courts are primarily concerned with a public perception of the
balancing of the scales of justice rather than the attainment of true
justice under the law.

Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with
politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become
proficient in the political arena.  By politics, we speak, not of the
electoral process, but of the politics of association.

Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man
accused of breaking a “rule” for which he may suffer penalties of
imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or
Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal
charge against himself directly in court and thereby blunt his
adversaries’ attack.  To the uninitiated, this may sound like madness,
but to the political scholar destined to appear before a “master” to
answer to alleged rule violation of the unauthorized practice of law,
the self-accusatory route to the courts may be the only hope of
victory; both legal and political.

The cop can’t be the WITNESS, INJURED PARTY and PROCESS SERVER, all at the same time. It is a CONFLICT of INTEREST….  The same goes for the DA, as well.  The judge is not allowed to prosecute the case, just the TRIER of the LAW and FACTS but yet that should be the responsibility of the JURY, not the JUDGE.  The judge is supposed to be a NEUTRAL PARTY to the case but can’t, as he/she is an EMPLOYEE of the STATE (CONFLICT of INTEREST), who is bringing the charges against you by the SURROGATE (DA).  The STATE is a FICTION and can’t be INJURED.  The DA has NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION about the supposed CRIME (VICTIMLESS), as there is NO INJURED PARTY and NO CORPUS DELICTI).  A STATUTE is not Law but COLORABLE LAW only….  No living man or woman comes forward to state a CLAIM of INJURY… The DA only relies on the STATUTES, which are for those operating as GOVERNMENT Employee or those OPERATING in COMMERCE. When you are going about your everyday task, and going from POINT A to POINT Z, you are not operating in COMMERCE and are to have UNFETTERED movement on the PUBLIC ROADWAYS….

We have NO

—————————————————————–

A fully informed jury is a Constitutionally literate jury.

—————————————————————

 

MAINE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Last reviewed and edited December 16, 2012                                                        Including amendments effective January 1, 2012   

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Maine Rules of Professional

Conduct, effective August 1, 2009. On the same date Maine Bar Rule 2-A

(Aspirational Goals for Lawyer Professionalism), Maine Bar Rule 3 (Code of

Professional Responsibility) and Maine Bar Rule 8 (Contingent Fees) were

abrogated, as they are replaced by the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct.

http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/rules/text/MRProfCondONLY1-12.pdf

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

26 CFR § 1.1-1 – Income tax on individuals. NO rule as to who.

David Merlin brief, held by Dale.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Interstate Commerce, Defined

Interstate Commerce, Defined:

The next time you here of someone getting charged with ‘interstate commerce’ crimes, consider the below.

Few actions in US have the elements of interstate commerce.

>>

Two key factors that determine whether passenger carriers are subject to commercial regulations are interstate commerce and for-hire transportation.

Interstate Commerce

Title 49 section 13501 of the United States Code provides for Federal jurisdiction over motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. A passenger carrier is in interstate commerce when it transports passengers:

  • Across state lines – from one state to another or to a location in the same state when the vehicle passes through another state; or
  • Between the United States and a U.S. territory or possession; or
  • From one place in the United States through a foreign country* to another place in the United States; or
  • From the United States to another country.

In some cases, transporting passengers entirely within one state may be interstate commerce if the passengers began or will conclude their trip outside the state. Refer to the official guidance notice for a full explanation.

((Somewhere in the US written laws it says ‘interstate commerce is transporting cargo or passengers from one federal zone (ZIP) to another federal zone (ZIP).))

Solution – use our templates to challenge the above without shifting the burden of proof, and without giving discretionary authority to some power hungry, statist, US administrator.

*foreign country – can possibly simply mean land foriegn to the united states, which included your private land.

Posted in Interstate Commerce | Leave a comment

Warren Buffett, Susan Thompson Buffett, are they working for a greater condemnation through abortions?

Warren Buffett, Susan Thompson Buffett, are they working for a greater condemnation through abortions?

Buffett’s, the Big Abortion Backer, Over 40 million dollars to death camps.

When it comes to giving to Planned Parenthood and abortion related causes, no one holds a candle to Warren Buffett.

Through the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the multi-billionaire investor’s late wife, Buffett has contributed millions to promote abortion here and around the world.

In its 2014 Form 990 PF, the Buffett Foundation gave a total of $40,620,507 to PPFA for “project support.” That’s $40.6 million, if you thought you missed a decimal point.

It gave an additional $13,472,258 to various Planned Parenthood affiliates across the United States.

That wasn’t all. International Planned Parenthood received $9,669,606 and the Guttmacher Institute received $3,709,208.

Planned Parenthood’s political action committee, committed to electing pro-abortion candidates, got a cool $7,250,000 from Buffett’s foundation.

That’s over $70 million to Planned Parenthood related entities in just one year’s time. (https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2016/08/tax-forms-show-buffett-wealthy-elite-fund-planned-parenthoodworld-abortion-empire-with-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars/)

Posted in abortion | Leave a comment