Congress has never authorized the operation of the IRS as a matter of law, some state that it is as a matter of necessity, and not specific law.
Click on the image to enlarge.
Congress has never authorized the operation of the IRS as a matter of law, some state that it is as a matter of necessity, and not specific law.
Click on the image to enlarge.
(a)In General.—The following definitions apply in this title:
The term “full-time National Guard duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States in the member’s status as a member of the National Guard of a State or territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32 for which the member is entitled to pay from the United States or for which the member has waived pay from the United States.
Fill the form out like the above with the proper affidavit and the court is unable to charge you for your remedy for there damage done you.
Contact Hansen for the proper arguments and averments.
pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com Cell 251.362.8231 CDTime.
I have used it personally to save me over tens of thousand of dollars over the years. One case saved me more than five thousand dollars alone.
Administrator v. Judge, code
“There are no judicial courts in America and there have not been any since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. FRC v. GE 282 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
Fraud Upon The Court
“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
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).
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.”
“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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
To See Chart Click > HERE.
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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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!!!!
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. email@example.com