Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9th Corcuit hand HEAD to IRS, Agent ERATH & US ATTORNEY

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Subject: Lynne Meredith Civil UPDATE Date: Saturday February 22nd, 2003 (9:05 PM) UTC GREAT NEWS HERE ON OUR CASES! We are making WONDERFUL progress on our
    Message 1 of 1 , May 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Subject: Lynne Meredith Civil UPDATE
      Saturday February 22nd, 2003 ( 9:05 PM ) UTC

      GREAT NEWS HERE ON OUR CASES! We are making WONDERFUL progress on our
      $100 million dollar action against THE 40 of the agents who raided my
      business and home and my 19 year old daughter's home on July 10, 1998 .
      I have attached a Summary of that case and the Judges ruling denying the
      agents immunity from our suit!

      We withstood three Motions to Dismiss by the Agents' attorneys and
      FINALLY got a ruling DENYING Andrew Erath, the agent in charge of the
      raid (there are also 36 other agents) immunity from suit on the grounds
      that they VIOLATED our clearly established Constitutional Rights in
      executing a search warrant in a manner that was violative of the 4th

      We ALSO got a GREAT taste of JUSTICE from the 9th Circuit last week.
      Erath had appealed his DENIAL of immunity by the District Court and we
      had an Oral Hearing before three 9th Circuit judges.

      The judges only allowed Gayle Bybee to speak - which at first concerned
      me - until the judges explained that, although the District Judges Order
      was a Denial of Immunity applicable to ALL plaintiffs, Erath had ONLY
      appealed the issues against Gayle! I think it was arrogance on their
      part and it worked to our advantage because he has missed an opportunity
      for any appeal against anyone except Gayle.

      Gayle's hearing went FANTASTICALLY! I had such a strong sense of
      justice - it brought tears to my eyes! Here was a Court of Law who gave
      a DAMN about the Constitution and our rights! The judges really gave
      the government attorney HELL! It was obvious that they were NOT amused
      by the agent's blatant disregard for our Constitutional rights! They
      quoted the same case law I put in our brief (I prepared the brief and
      Gayle argued it). The poor attorney had no defense for the agents
      unconstitutional actions! In this type of hearing the issue is whether
      the government violated clearly established law in violating the
      Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiffs and should therefore have to
      stand trial. If you can get through this phase it is highly probable
      that you will win at trial because the issues are IDENTICAL!

      When the government attorney got up to give his closing arument, the
      Judges were so fed up, they interupted him in the middle of his first
      sentence and said,


      This is also a victory for our pending criminal case because we have
      solid grounds for suppressing all of the evidence on the theory of the
      "fruit from the poisonous tree!"
      Erath was a part of every step of the process!

      We also have hired Joe Izen - who I believe to be the best
      Constitutional attorney in America. He won the Troesher case, proving
      that there is NO 5th Amendment exception to tax cases. He also got
      convictions overturned in the Dahlstrom case which is a Trust case,
      almost identical to ours. He proved the trusts were lawful instruments
      and also that the defendants 1st Amendment rights of Advocacy were
      violated. He also had a case in Belize where he got the Supreme Court
      of Belize to rule against the United States Government who was trying to
      seize books and records (the SEC was attempting to seize them to turn
      them over to the IRS). Just last month Izen won a case where he proved
      that the IRS defrauded the Court! The Court was so mad they wanted to
      disbar the IRS attorneys - only to find that they were not licensed to
      practice law!

      Here's the link to Izen's most recent case. I LOVED it!

      Dixon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 00-70858 (9th Cir.
      01/17/2003 )


      I'll keep you posted!

      Love and Liberty !


      District Court Judge, Florence-Marie Cooper, in her Order of September
      19, 2001 [docket 118]. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
      Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

      “The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to, and
      therefore summary judgment is DENIED as to the following claims: “…2)
      plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged use of force in executing
      search warrants at both properties; and 3) plaintiffs’ claims regarding
      the unconstitutional detention of the occupants at both properties.”

      Excessive Force – Sunset Beach

      “It is well established that the use of excessive force in the execution
      of a search or arrest warrant will violate the Fourth Amendment. Graham
      v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989)...

      “The Court concludes that defendants are not entitled to qualified
      immunity on the issue of whether they used excessive force in the
      execution of search warrants at plaintiffs’ Sunset Beach property.
      Plaintiffs have offered evidence that officers entered the premises…with
      guns drawn and pointed at the occupants. At least one officer carried a
      battering ram or an ax. Although a protective sweep of the premises
      uncovered no weapons, the occupants of the property were detained for
      many hours. Plaintiff, Bybee was physically restrained, taken to the
      ground, and handcuffed for some thirty minutes. Her arms were bruised
      as a result of the struggle with Erath, and her wrists were in pain
      because of the tightness of the handcuffs…The occupants were not allowed
      to use the telephone and could not use a restroom unless accompanied by
      an officer.”

      “Upon the team’s entry into the third floor, it is undisputed that
      they almost immediately encountered Bybee…The agent in charge, Erath did
      not have a copy of the Search Warrant because it had been left in the
      car…Bybee called, loudly, for plaintiff Lynne Meredith, expressing her
      concerns that the search was illegal, that the officers had not shown
      her a search warrant…It is undisputed that Erath forced Bybee to the
      ground in his attempt to control and handcuff her, Erath, himself
      testified that he did so notwithstanding the fact he did not find Bybee
      Bybee testified that she did not try to flee from the officers, but
      that Erath grabbed her arms and caused extensive bruising…Kenneday did
      not see or hear her struggling, although he heard her calling for
      plaintiff, Lynne Meredith, and repeating that the agents had no right to
      be there. By Kenneday’s account, Bybee continued to ask for a search
      warrant while in a prone position. Bybee testified that the defendants
      detained her for over thirty minutes in tight handcuffs.”

      “The raid team also encountered Lynne Meredith on their entry on
      the third floor…Agents Molly Molt and another agent encountered Meredith
      in a closet where she was getting dressed. Agent Molt informed Meredith
      that she was an agent with the IRS, that she had a search warrant and
      that Meredith needed to get dressed. Meredith asked for a copy of the
      search warrant.

      Meredith testified that the two agents came running in with guns
      drawn, asking if she had any guns. Meredith informed them that they had
      no weapons.

      Meredith then saw Bybee in the hallway in handcuffs and heard Bybee
      screaming her name. The agents took Bybee to one room and Meredith to
      another in an unfruitful attempt to interview them. Meredith again
      asked for a search warrant about forty minutes after the raid teams’

      Some time after lunch, Meredith was told that she was free to
      leave. Before that time, Meredith was not allowed to go down to the
      second floor and was not permitted to answer the phone.”

      District Court Judge, Florence-Marie Cooper, in her Order of September
      19, 2001 [docket 118]. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
      Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

      Excessive Force - Huntington Beach

      “Plaintiffs have similarly raised a triable issue of fact as to whether
      the manner of executing the search warrant at the Huntington Beach
      property was reasonable. Viewing the evidence in the light most
      favorable to the plaintiffs, the agents forced one young female
      occupant, at gunpoint out of the residence in her underwear, and
      required another young female occupant to get dressed in full view of
      four male agents whose guns were pointed at her – agents who did not
      identify themselves as agents of the government. …Accordingly the
      agents are not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in
      executing the Search Warrant at the Sunset Beach or Huntington Beach

      Jenifer Meredith apparently did not hear the team’s initial entry
      into her residence. It is uncontroverted that Jenifer was sleeping
      unclothed in her bedroom when the team made its entry. It is
      uncontroverted that she heard men’s voices, yelling her name, telling
      her to get up and get out of the house. It is uncontroverted that at
      least four men were standing over her bed with guns pointed at her.

      Jenifer testified that she was frightened and asked them why they
      were there, but that the men did not answer her question and did not
      identify themselves as federal agents…Agent Nichols testified that when
      he entered Jenifer’s bedroom he would have announced who he was and that
      he had a warrant because that’s what they always say. It’s
      uncontroverted that the agents would not leave or turn around to allow
      her to get dressed in privacy, despite Jenifer’s insistence that they do
      so. Agent Nichols testified that, although there was a female agent at
      the scene, he was not willing to get the female to guard Jenifer while
      she got dressed…

      As soon as Jenifer realized that agents were not burglars but were
      from the IRS, she asked for a search warrant but was not given
      one…Britaney’s, Leah’s and Krista’s testimony is consistent with Jenifer
      ’s. Britaney testified that she heard Jenifer screaming and crying,
      asking for a search warrant. Leah testified that Jenifer asked to see
      the search warrant and the agents said, “No.”

      Jenifer testified that the agents did not knock on her bedroom door
      before they entered; instead they kicked in the door. Agent Nichols
      testified that he doesn’t think he kicked in the door but he’s not sure.
      Britaney testified that she did not hear Jenifer’s door kicked in [she
      was outside], but she saw a footprint on the door and the wood was
      cracked on the sides. She was unable to close the door as a result.
      Leah’s testimony is consistent with Britaneys. Leah testified that
      there were big black shoe marks on the bottom of the door.”

      Britaney testified that were kept outside of the residence for about an
      hour…Agent Burget testified that he was instructed to watch over
      [baby-sit] four or five females who were brought out...”

      Unconstitutional Detention of Occupants – Huntington Beach

      “With respect to the Huntington Beach property, plaintiffs have
      offered evidence that Jenifer was kept out of her residence, in full
      view of her neighbors, for about an hour. When expressing her desire to
      go to her mother’s house, the agents said, “You don’t want to go there
      right now” and started chuckling about it.

      Jenifer’s detention added significantly to the public stigma associated
      with the search because she and her friends were detained in full view
      of her neighbors. Jenifer testified that she perceived a change in her
      neighbor’s attitude towards her as a result of the search. The law
      enforcement interest in detaining her do not seem particularly strong.
      There is no evidence that Jenifer posed any risk of harm to the
      agents…Accordingly the agents are not entitled to qualified immunity for
      their 3-hour detention of Jenifer.”

      “Leah Potter, who is not a party to this action but who was present at
      the property when it was searched, testified…she heard, ‘Boom, boom,
      boom, police open up!’ Leah estimated that ten to twenty seconds
      elapsed between the time agents first knocked and when they entered.
      Leah went into the hall and raised her hands. She saw six to eight men
      with guns pointed at her…She did not see any badges on the agent’s
      jackets. They yelled at her to get outside. She was wearing only her
      underwear, and asked if she could get her clothes. She was told she
      could not. Another occupant was eventually permitted to retrieve a
      sweatshirt for Leah and was later permitted to retrieve an inhaler from
      Leah’s purse to alleviate Leah’s subsequent asthma attack.”

      “As noted, the agents detained all occupants of both properties.
      There is no evidence that the agents were attempting to prevent the
      flight of occupants by detaining them…There is no evidence that any of
      these individuals presented any risk of harm to the agents. On the
      whole, the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs
      leads the Court to conclude that the agents are not entitled to
      qualified immunity with respect to their actions in detaining the

      The question of whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity as
      to an excessive force claim is 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2595 (1981) Here the
      Court is dealing with a warrant to search for evidence…As the Summers
      court recognized. ‘Special circumstances, or a prolonged detention,
      might lead to a different conclusion in an unusual case.” Id. At n. 21,
      101 S.Ct. at 2595…[A] detention might be unreasonable in a particular
      instance either because the detention itself was improper or because it
      is carried out in an unreasonable manner.” Franklin , 31 F.3d at 876.
      Here, plaintiffs allege that although only one person was listed as the
      target of the search, all occupants of both properties were confronted
      at gunpoint and detained for many hours while the agents searched for
      records and documents in connection with a tax inquiry…As the Franklin
      Court observed, ‘There is a basic difference between the two categories
      of cases [a search for contraband versus a search for evidence].
      Persons being arrested are ordinarily suspected of having committed
      serious, often violent, crimes….Persons being detained while a search of
      the house is being conducted may simply be visiting a home or business
      for an innocuous if not benevolent purposes.

      A detention conducted in connection with a search may be unreasonable if
      it is unnecessarily, painful, degrading or prolonged, or if it involves
      an undue invasion of privacy.’ Franklin , 31 F.3d at 876

      …Accordingly the agents are not entitled to qualified immunity for their
      actions in executing the Search Warrant at the Sunset Beach … property.”

      ICE - Investigating Curious Evidence
      Web site: http://iresist.com/ice/
      E-mail: ice@...
      IceBucket Information Updates List Subscription:
      Subscribe: ice-bucket-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      Unsubscribe: ice-bucket-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ice-bucket/messages

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      God bless you,

      Tim Kiley


      America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."         ~   Claire Wolf 


      You have learned that the Constitution of the United States of America has been trampled on and ignored through allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve to create paper currency and charge you 47 million dollars in interest per hour - money coming from the mouths of your children and the college education funds of your grandchildren, all the while the children and grandchildren of the owners of the Federal Reserve will never have to work a day in their lives, and that is wrong, on so many different levels."  --Sherry Peel Jackson, former Certified Fraud Examiner, Internal Revenue Service

      This email transmission, including attachments, is intended only for the
      person or entity (or e-mail list) to which it is addressed and may contain
      confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission,
      or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
      entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.