This account documents the outright abuse of political power of officials Colorado. The story starts with an experience with the IRS. Because of her involvement with a criminal defense IRS attorney, Sanders was intimately exposed to unscrupulous IRS employees. She thought that reporting these abusive agents to the courts would result in justice for the victims. Instead, she learned that without the assistance of abusive judges, public officials could not have been abusive to citizens for so many years.

Instead of holding the executive branch accountable, the Colorado courts had Sanders' evicted from her own property at gunpoint. Read how the courts violated all Colorado Title Conveyance Laws to take Sanders' property and leave her homeless and destitute. Read how the Colorado courts suppressed evidence and denied Sanders a jury trial. Read how Sanders fought back, resulting in the Senate Hearings in 1998 and in changes to IRS laws. Linda names all officials who are guilty of lawless acts, including judges, the District Attorney, the Public Trustee and the Clerk and Recorder. Linda documents the illegal acts committed against her. The courts attempt to cover up their abusive acts with insulting, unsupported orders. The most obvious facts that prove Sanders was 'right' in her legal position, and that this case is not a case of "disgruntled litigant," is the fact that the courts illegally and arbitrarily denied a jury trial (thereby controlling the outcome of the case) and the public records which show Sanders was evicted by court order - not by foreclosure procedure, (the only legal way a title can be conveyed involuntarily). After this major violation, the courts had to violate one law after another to cover up. If Sanders had been "so wrong" and deserving of plundering and pillaging, then why couldn't the courts take her property without violating the laws?

A True Story About The Abuse Of Judicial Discretion

In Littleton, Colorado And The Remedies Employed Against It

 by Linda Sanders

 TO:  MY THREE CHILDREN

 Whose childhood wisdom and acceptance of life's adversities exceeded that of my own.

November 8, 1999

                             "We all know how careers are made.

                              Integrity is something you sell." *

                                                     * Steve McQueen's line from the film "Bullitt."

Author's Note

Littleton, Colorado. Everyone in the civilized world has heard of this town. Within the span of one year this community suffered three tragedies: First the Columbine School massacre, then the teenagers shot in a local Subway shop, then the little boy's body found in the dumpster in the local Bowles Crossing shopping center. Someone suggested it was karma. Well, if a community's leaders have anything to do with bringing on karma – then Littleton qualifies.

The events in this account all take place in Littleton, Colorado's jurisdiction.

Everything in this story is true. Every name is the true name of those involved – except of course the IRS pseudonyms, which they have been using to protect themselves from personal responsibility. Some of the people quoted had asked me not to repeat them – but alas. They abdicated their obligation to help me, so I abdicated the assumption that I would honor that request. As they say, the gloves are off. I imagine there will be more retaliation against me at the hands of those who don't like what I'm exposing here. I will probably be charged with something and accused of all sorts of awful things to shut me up. But, until then, I remain an advocate of Truth. An unlicensed, and therefore, uncontrollable, lawyer.

No one's dignity has been spared here. All these events are public record. I deem this information beneficial to the "health, peace, safety and welfare" of the general public – since they need to know what their courts are doing. I am sure that some of this material is going to outrage these judges. But, as they say, and as they have had rammed down my throat for the past 6 years, life is full of little disappointments. Besides, I think I'm a better, stronger person for having been so abused as described in this story. The Judges here must stand proudly by their decisions – deeming them "fair and just". They have shown me that they are impervious to answering for any wrong-doing – so what harm can I do them with the disclosures?

Now we have the impartial Internet which owes no political favors nor can it be bribed. AHA! The computer! Is this the multi-colored jeweled blinking instrument (the color of rubies/amber/sapphires that John saw in Revelations??) All America – Europe – Asia etc. can read the unedited version of the Truth.

Enjoy. And learn who your leaders are. And – as "they" are so willing to tell "us" - conduct yourself accordingly.

Introduction:

I imagine that everyone - at some time - has suffered the indignity of knowing they are "right" but unable to prove it. That's one kind of frustration. Mine was different. I could prove I was "right" with hard core, documented evidence from published legal authority, but the courts said that application of law is discretionary. All the law is there in row upon row of library shelves, for the illusion that we live in a civilized society - governed by the fair and impartial application of law to everyone. Perhaps minorities reading this will scoff, and say they've known for years about the "discretionary" nature of law. But what I point out here is that there has never before, as in recent years, been so many cases where Orders have been written with such blatant disregard for fact and law. The courts are in anarchy. In my case, I had presented evidence at Congressional hearings, the witch hunts of 1998 as the IRS calls them, showing how an IRS agent committed perjury and falsified documents to "get me". Rather than apply the laws that govern perjury and fraud, the court determined that because I was a political nuisance, then perjury and fraud is acceptable, the "law" be damned. Abuse by government is justified if visited upon a person who criticizes the executive branch. Theft by court order and perjury is "harmless error."

Knowing that the legislature has provided a remedy to the public when judges are wayward I pressed on, and challenged that arrogant presumption with "the remedy". I brought a lawsuit through Quo Warranto, against the judges who violated the published law or deemed it inapplicable to me. I was shocked that that case went before the same judges who were the subject of the action. I petitioned the State Supreme Court to make those judges remove themselves from the case. The Supreme Court denied my petition. End of remedy.

Such was my baptism into the reality of available remedy. There is none. Legal precedent does not exist per se in today’s courts. The new standard is "judicial discretion", a pervasive practice which has all but destroyed The Rule of Law in America. Without law there is anarchy and the worst kind of anarchy is that which is mired in a shapeless art-of-words where every phrase is meaningful by context and desired results only, and which changes to protect the agendas of the privileged at the expense of objective truth. Flexible standards depending upon who the victim is – not what the law is.

None is more expert at manipulating words than William Jefferson Clinton. The litmus test of the New Truth was established during Clinton’s impeachment proceedings. Now perjury is a perfectly acceptable practice if one is privileged to operate under governmental immunity. The public witnessed outright lying by the government’s chief executive and cared little because he was "doing a good job". Machiavelli has become mainstream. Lying is now acceptable in all venues, from the bedroom to the boardroom to the oval office to the courtroom. Only fools operate on complete integrity or believe it exists in the business world. Even bigger fools enter the court room believing that "truth, law and justice" influences the proceedings because it's the "American way". This book is a "caveat emptor" to all potential applicants of the judicial process. The following pages will hopefully give the reader an insight into a judicial system that is a far cry from the carefully manicured images shown on television. I challenge any law professional – especially judges – to prove otherwise. The events here show that either the judges were innocently unqualified in their field or blatantly corrupt.

Either way, they shouldn't be sitting on the bench.

Prologue:

I awoke from the nightmare bathed in sweat. In this horrible dream I was a child. in a darkened room. There were many adults milling around in black robes speaking in hushed tones. Their attention seemed to be focused on something I couldn’t see. I pushed through them to get a better vantage point. Finally breaking through the forest of adult bodies I saw a casket bathed in a lone spotlight. I immediately recoiled as an overwhelming sense of foreboding rushed over me. Because I was small, I couldn’t see who was in the casket and I didn’t want to see. At that moment, large hands grabbed me and pulled me up high enough so I could see inside the coffin. I looked into all the faces of the adults and screamed, "I don’t want to see! I don’t want to see!" It did no good to scream. They had no ears. And it did no good to struggle against the adult who held me. He was too powerful. Finally, I was directly above the coffin my head was being turned forcibly by another adult. I had no choice but to open my eyes to look at the dead one. The dead one was me. How was I to know that this nightmare would become a metaphor for a real-life episode which changed my thinking forever? How was I to know that the adults in black robes would be judges in Colorado courtrooms lifting me up to show me the death of truth, honor and objective law?

As an American I could not believe that the courts could legalize the theft of my home through a tax sale which violated every procedure required by "the code". As one trained in law, I was astonished that every available remedy under the law was denied me. I was incredulous to the fact that the courts were using their power to punish me for my outspoken criticism – instead of addressing the lawlessness.

While this manuscript was being written, one reader asked me - "Why didn't you just sell the house and pay the IRS? It seems to me that you were either very naive or very arrogant."

Well. Let's get that question out of the way.

How long does it take to get a buyer or get a home equity loan? The tax laws say 40 days and for that reason requires two Notices – a 10 day notice and a 30 day notice.

I was given neither. IRS skipped right to the Notice that says your house is being auctioned.  I refused to redeem the house after the sale because the illegal sale had tacked on much more costs and expenses that I believed I shouldn't be forced to pay.

I guess I was "naive". Naive to believe that the courts feel obligated to enforce the law even when their friends break it.  As I pressed on, investigating the people involved in violating me, I discovered these very suspicious facts:   The person who bought my house (value:  $250,000) for the lien ($26,000) was himself an auctioneer.  I learned through public records that he’d been involved in at least two other windfall property takings by the same IRS agents and same judge; the judge involved was an investor in many “distressed” property sales; when I demanded (through discovery) for evidence that the investor/auctioneer paid for my lien I was given copies of the checks he used to pay the IRS – they were certified checks made payable to HIMSELF.  This begs the question:  who really paid for the lien and who got the profits ?  I also learned that since no commercial Title Company would insure the titles of properties sold by the IRS in such a questionable manner, these defective titles have to be insured by a private title insurance company.  Coincidently, the Title Company that insures these titles is privately owned (no public records) and the only way they would ever have to pay out for a defective title is if a court held them liable.  When I took this company to court with evidence from the Senate Finance Committee Hearings and a confession from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (that the proceedings in my case involved exposed lies and cover-ups by the IRS agent) the court dismissed my case.   The name of the Title Company that the judge so earnestly defended is:  Attorney Title Guarantee Company.  Hmmmm.  I wonder who the stockholders are in this company?  After I took an abundance of evidence of all this corruption to the local D.A. for prosecution - I learned that his wife is an IRS agent and worked at the same office as the agents who illegally seized and sold these properties!!  The D.A. is also very good friends with the County Clerk and Recorder, and the Public Trustee – who I also charged with allowing the recording of a defective title conveyance.  (The public record still shows that my foreclosure was withdrawn by the bank and title was never conveyed pursuant to Colorado title conveyance statutes, Title 38).     The Clerk and Recorder is now a Colorado Senator.    

Here’s the story:

Saturday November 6th, 1999

"Did you open it?" I asked.

He shook his head. Chuck, my companion, handed me the envelope. This is what I'd waited for, worked for, was obsessed with, for the past four years, 6 months and 26 days. The adrenaline rush was both good and at the same time, sickening. Half of me believed that the court order could not be anything but victory after the evidence I'd presented two weeks earlier - but the other half of me realized that what I'd exposed was very embarrassing to "the dignity of the court" and their essential partners, their co-conspirators, the "executive branch". The truth had been suppressed before - and I knew that it was possible it could be again. But all I needed was one good judge. Did I have that this time?

I tore the envelope open, and skipped down to the last paragraph. My eyes saw the words "frivolous, " "dismissed" and "defendants may submit a bill of costs".

That sick feeling that accompanies despair poured into my belly. First thought: HOW could any judge do such a dishonorable thing? How could she sign something like this with no conscience? Something so obviously unfair, and contrary to the truth and evidence? How can they destroy lives with such blatant disregard and still sleep at night? I looked at my watch – it was 5:30 p.m. I imagined the judge laughing and enjoying dinner on this Saturday night - oblivious of the fact that she had insured the destruction of my home - and that of my children's - all to protect an IRS agent and my adversary's lawyer, an "officer of the court" who had knowingly permitted his client to omit facts in a deposition, to conceal fraud. Since when were judges allowed to abet the obstruction of justice instead of mete it out? How could this be happening? Stupid questions, I know now. There is no place for naivete in the justice system. But, I reasoned, I had presented impeccable evidence. I had an expert witness and an official government report under Rule 803(8). And no one presented a rebuttal. Isn't that a slam dunk for me? Rules of Evidence says so. Oh - unless I misunderstood. The Rules of Evidence are there to suppress evidence as necessary - not expose the truth. Any criminal defense attorney will tell you that. The legal arena is not a "search for the Truth". At best, if the rules are applied, it is a "game of wits" - "Truth" has nothing to do with it.

I read the order more carefully and saw that the judge had effectively destroyed any potential appeal by wording the judgment in that magic language which closes the door to appeal, because appeals can only reverse a decision if there was an error in the court procedure, committed by the court, like failure to apply a rule fairly. I knew full well that a "finding of fact", as opposed to application of a procedural rule, is declared “not reversible”. Her "findings" were absolute - and how many times had I been told that you can't ask the appeals court to reverse "findings". To add insult to injury, she demonstrated how hastily she wrote the order because she didn't even have the subject matter identified properly in the opening paragraph of her "Order and Judgment". The entire litigation which involved my home identified "Rowland Drive" - but her Order, in the first paragraph, identified some other property. She didn't even read my legal arguments, and she ignored my evidence. How contemptible to take her sacred job so lightly. Not even the courtesy to pretend she was being impartial and reviewing both sides of the argument. I had heard that this Judge, Judge Ruthanne N. Polidori had a son who had been in trouble with the cops. I secretly hoped he would do all the drugs he wanted, drink like a fish, crash as many cars as he liked - and humiliate his mother as much as he could. This same judge, again, disclosed her contempt for the nuclear family when she entered a ruling in another case, stating that "parents have no right" to be noticed when their minor children are cited for breaking the law. Right on, Ruthanne, baby. Enforce the Global Village – children belong to the state. Anyone who has been involved with social services knows what I am talking about.

Go through the order, I thought. Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it clues me in on what I did wrong.

It didn't. Each of the judge's "reasons" for denial were in such contradiction to the law, it was impossible to accept its false and corrupt pretense of justice. The order stated,

Relief denied because the court is not persuaded by the testimony of the IRS Expert nor the Senate Report. The expert and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are full of shit.

Relief denied because the taxpayer was too poor to pay the tax lien in cash lump sum so the IRS was justified in taking a $250,000 house for a $26,000 tax lien, notwithstanding the tax liability was being paid off through wage garnishment.

Relief denied because taxpayers are too late for justice. The order said IRS sale took place in March, 1994, and the case was brought in 1999. Too late for justice – even though Colorado title law, CRS 38-41-111 allows 7 years to bring a real property action.

(Even if the court used the 3 year Statute of Limitations, the clock started in April '98, when the IRS confessed to the misrepresentation in their Senate Report regarding the issue, since exposure of a defect starts the clock, not the asserting of a purported defect).

Relief denied because Linda ratified fraud by accepting an IRS check sent to her illegally without her application, after the illegal sale, for a meager amount, representing a fraction of the stolen equity in the house.

This is preposterous because I screamed fraud from the start, and used the reservation clause under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. 1-207, "under protest") to preserve my argument when taking the IRS check to pay my lawyer. Besides that, how can fraud be ratified? Crimes can be ratified? I even asked Jefferson County, Colorado District Attorney Dave Thomas to prosecute the fraud. He didn't. His wife, Shirley, is an IRS agent and friends with the one who committed perjury.

As I read the order, I tried to make some sense of how a judge could do this to me. I now knew the meaning of the term, "speechless". The throat closes up, vision darkens, and the mind disconnects from the body. After a few moments of confusion, a voice from somewhere says, it's only a bad dream. The hapless victim of this illusion then opens their eyes. Looks around. It isn't a dream. It's happening. Forget about positive thinking. At that moment, I completely regretted having been so deceived by the walls of books at the law library which describe every law for every little circumstance. I had relied upon an illusion. Those law books are ignored by the courts. They are there only to placate the public into thinking that we live in a predictable civilized society, governed by civilized law. "Judicial discretion" voids all law. A judge can follow the law or ignore it in order to "reach the public good". And it's in the "public good" to eliminate laws that are in harmony with the Constitution, because now, 200 years later, it's too much trouble to respect the life of any given individual - over the masses - which is all the Constitution does.

I wanted to justify the loss. Could I have been wrong? Could it be that the court was justified in doing what it did to me? Maybe I deserved what I got. I re-played the whole story in my mind, from the start.

October, 1988

Three little hands, age 6, age 10 and age 12, held out their wine glasses. Each had a wicked gleam in their eyes - anticipating a taste of the forbidden fruit. My husband and I had opened a bottle of champagne - oohing and ahhing appropriately to enhance the significance of the moment. Our little family was standing in the sunken living room of our new home. We were about to spend our first night in the house "that the Burge's built". All of us. Each pair of little hands had helped clear the land, plan the foundation, paint the walls and lay the floors. One year of work had come to an end, and indeed, as God said, "it was good". We poured the champagne. The 12 year old, Jeremiah, maintained his dignity as he stoically sipped the god awful tasting stuff. The 10 year old, Daniel, simply stated "yuck, here, you can have mine" and the 6 year old, Emily, who thought she was 21 when she was born, promptly began sneezing.

A treasured moment. We settled into our dream existence. A cedar and glass dwelling, designed to enhance the blessings of mother nature on eight and half acres of a hill that had been untouched since the Indians were displaced in New York State.

October, 1989

It wasn't long after we'd moved in that the tax assessor came along and inspected the number of bathrooms, and bedrooms and acres we had. He decided that we owed a good deal more to the community than he'd originally estimated, in light of the fact that our town had became a "bedroom community" for the white collar employees of New York City. The population boomed, new schools and roads had to be built. Real estate tax went up. And up. And up. And our salaries stayed the same. Not being psychics, we had not planned for this. We started to choke on the monthly mortgage and tax payments at the same time we wondered if the grass was greener somewhere else. Our little town of Blooming Grove had been infiltrated by the "White Plains" residents who moved to our town for the "cheap taxes" - but their definition of "cheap taxes" was $5000.00 per year. We locals were used to $1000.00 per year. Before we knew it, the school bond issues included designer swimming pools and tennis courts – and higher property taxes requested by the "city transplants" that came to Blooming Grove and drove into the "city" every morning. Reluctantly, we decided to sell the house - take the money and do something outrageous. Tell the boss to fly a kite.

                    August 1991

The decision was made. We were leaving New York. We felt quite smug that we were about to do what others only dreamed about. We were going to shout - "You ain't gonna have us to kick around anymore!! Heh Heh! Take this state and all its taxes and - shove it!"

During a brain storming session, wondering how we could pack up and "go west" most efficiently, Emily (who was now 40 going on 8) suggested that we buy an old school bus. (We were behind a school bus at the time of the discussion). We knew that school buses were maintained impeccably, and even though the only ones you can buy are ten years old, we knew we could get across the country safely in it. We had the seats cut out, and began filling the cavity with the only belongings left after the moving sale. We decided to go some place where the taxes were low and the government was small enough to be beneficial and effective. We thought that place was Colorado, because some of our family was there, and that's what they said. (Hah! From the frying pan into the fire.)

When the house that the Burges' built was sold, we paid off all our bills, packed up the school bus and our car, and headed west. It was a warm and happy time, filled with anticipation - and the feeling of freedom as we tooted on down the highway was something to experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the intimate time in the car with each of my children. As a captive audience, they were duly informed of how wonderful life is for those who have initiative and courage to "work hard" and take chances. If only we'd known then what we know now!

On the fifth evening on the road, we arrived in Colorado. Eleven weeks later, we were sleeping in our new home, and both Harvey and I had new jobs. We weren't earning very much money - but we didn't care or need it, because we'd put all the remaining money we'd brought from New York, into the down payment on the Colorado house. We figured with a low mortgage payment, we could survive on near minimum wage salaries, which would cover food, utilities and everything else. You'd think so, huh? We filed our tax returns that January. Because we paid a "tax preparer" to work out our Income Tax returns every year, my husband and I did not know specifically about "capital gains" taxes, and that essentially, one is taxed on any profit from the sale of their home or other investments. The system was not designed to permit one to benefit from sweat equity and "buy down" because, at that time, buying down meant a sizable portion of the profit had to be paid to the IRS off the top.  One of the greatest evils of the U.S. income tax system is that it encourages, even rewards, cheating or creative bookkeeping as it is euphemistically called.  Fortunately for others, my work against this terrible policy has changed the law.  Today, a couple can keep up to $500,000 profit on the sale of their home before paying a capital gains tax.  See publication 523 at page 12. 

    Completely honest returns are only filed by self righteous fools who believe they'll receive compensation in the great here after reward program or for those who trust the wrong tax professional to take care of them.   We fell into the latter category.  Through our tax preparer, we reported the sale price of the New York home, ($270,000.00) and the purchase price of the Colorado home ($170,000.00). We paid off bills and received no credit or deductions for using the profit to pay off our obligations.  Had our tax preparer been more qualified in her field before taking money for her trade, she would have explained to the us the repercussions of buying down and the creative bookkeeping techniques necessary to eliminate the "profit" on the Form 2119. 

    "Oh honey", said one Californian, "You were supposed to put down that you fixed up the old house to sell it, and improved the new one so there was NO profit! Silly!!"  I also later learned from a lawyer what a Starker exchange is, e.g., you and a friend or relative (preferably senior citizens who were allowed tax free profit prior to the reform of the capital gains laws in 1998) take out liens on each other's property, so that there appears to be no equity in the house when it's sold.  But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.  Because we trusted our tax preparer, Ms. Perrego, we naively signed our 1991 tax returns and sent them in.  We had no idea we'd signed our own financial execution documents.  The Nightmare had begun.

                    October 1992

There was a little yellow postcard in the mail box, summoning me to the Post Office to pick up certified mail. Rarely having received certified mail, I had no idea what it could be. I even imagined that it was good news, some inheritance perhaps.... When I picked it up, it was a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, along with a letter from the local IRS telling us to "pay the tax". It was $26,000.00. It may as well have been a million. That amount, said the IRS is due because it represents the United States share of the profit on the sale of our New York home, otherwise known as a "capital gains tax". My first thought was - why? Why should the government get a percentage of the profit on the house that WE built? I mean, where were THEY when we were up at dawn chopping the trees, hammering, nailing, gluing, tiling, painting and otherwise ripping skin off various parts of our appendages? What is this capital gains tax? I called the IRS and set an appointment with the sole intent of venting my opinion.

"What a ridiculous tax! It penalizes the hard workers. What? I wasn't supposed to buy down!? I was supposed to buy an "equal to" or "greater than" priced house!? Well - then HOW does anyone get out of debt that way?"

"You're supposed to go bankrupt," said the IRS agent with all the sympathy of Attila the Hun. (Attila the Hun is described as the “scourge of God” by Webster).

Oh. We were supposed to max out our credit lines, and take a home equity loan, default on it, and stick the banks and creditors with the liability.

But we were NOT supposed to pay our bills and buy down. No never.

During my interview with the agent in charge of "collections" I pointed out that in order to pay the tax, we would have to sell the house we were living in.

"Right," said Attila. "You don't qualify for monthly payments because we can see from your 433A Financial statements that your income is not sufficient to assume another monthly payment. No liquidity."

"Well, let me get this straight. So if we sell this house, and give you your $26,000.00 - then we won't have the down payment for another house, so we won't be able to buy another "equal to" or "greater than" house - and you'll want another capital gains tax from us again next year due from this sale, right?"

"Well ma'am," responded the IRS agent, "I don't make the laws - I just enforce them."

March 1993

Within a month, we received a Notice of Intent to Levy and Seize our home. We were noticed that the home was going to be sold at auction and if we didn't find the money from somewhere, we should plan on getting out. I was outraged. I wrote to Congress, I wrote to the local newspaper editors, I wrote to the White House and George Bush himself, I wrote to the White House Liaison Committee. Sally Kelly, of the White House, wrote to the IRS for me.

That did the trick. They released the seizure. I heard no more from the IRS. The dogs had been called off.

However, the experience had made me bitter. I wanted to know how the United States government could be so quick to render good, honest people homeless. How the legislature could make laws that penalized financial responsibility. Indeed! I was supposed to go bankrupt said the IRS agent. I was supposed to have maxed out my charge cards, and taken out a home equity loan and THEN, when I couldn't pay it back - go bankrupt. Of course you get to keep everything you bought with the loan money and charge cards because those items are either perishable or are "unsecured". How preposterous, I thought. That only transfers the debt to the banks, and ultimately to consumers in the form of higher prices and interest rates. My quest to make sense of the whole rotten system of tax law took me into a labyrinth of evolving American policy and law. I engaged everyone I could in conversations about tax law. I learned about a whole group of people labeled "Tax Protestors" and Constitutionalists". I thought is was funny that the two labels described the same group - meaning the constitution must have been written and supported by tax protestors who today, are reviled by the public. But that was what Samuel Adams, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson and all the other early patriots. I began by reading the Constitution. The words of the Article I Section 9 jumped out at me. No capitation or other direct tax shall be imposed - meaning no tax on labor or one's "head". So what was the Income Tax doing being enacted? I was told that the 16th Amendment modified that organic portion of the Constitution. But then, by reading Supreme Court decisions, I learned that the 16th Amendment did no such thing. The conflicts between modern reality and the original Supreme Court decisions were blatant and shocking. In all cases the Supreme Court supported the literal language of the constitution. The income tax, said the Supreme Court, was not a direct tax applicable to wages of state citizens, but only to gains severed from capital, Bruschaber v Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, and Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111. Additionally, the federal income tax was limited to only the federal jurisdiction , U.S. v Worral, 2 Dallas 384, 393. and U.S. v Collins, 920 F. 2d 619 at page 629. So federal law was not applicable within the states unless it pertained to an area or jurisdiction granted to the federal government, by the constitution, e.g. forts, magazines, postal roads, etc. So the big question raised by the "Tax Protestors and Constitutionalists" (a/k/a "anti government" types), was, "How can the federal government make a law that directly affects the people in the several states when the constitution prevents the federal government from having jurisdiction inside the states?" According to the early Court decisions, the constitution limits federal legislative powers to only national concerns and requires that any income taxes needed by the federal government, be collected by the state governments. The only amendment to that requirement, was the 16th Amendment, which removed the "apportionment" requirement. But the tax still had to be administered by the states, because the Federal government had no jurisdiction to legislate for the states, pursuant to Article I Sec. 8 which limits the federal legislative powers to the 10 square miles around Washington, D.C. and "federal forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings". While legal scholars have debated that the supremacy clause of the constitution gives the feds power to supercede any state law, this theory is in contradiction to the wording of that clause. Article VI of the Constitution states that the fed laws are supreme only when they are made "in pursuance" to the Constitution. And the Constitution limits federal law to the jurisdiction of the 10 square miles surrounding Washington, D.C., forts, magazines, etc. So the supremacy clause doesn't give the federal government power within the states – no matter how you look at it.

If The Constitution Has Anything To Do With It.

These apparent contradictions between enacted law and the modern application of it was the issue in which I became most interested - and determined to force an answer from the government. I intended to utilize the citizen's right to "redress grievance" in the courts just like Rosa Parks did, and to demand answers to the discrepancies. Little did I know then what bliss ignorance is. For, once you are exposed to Truth, there is no turning back. Only a lobotomy can free you from the feeling of responsibility that Truth gives you. That is how you can tell the difference from real "truth" and the distorted truth that government sponsored religious groups give you. [Government controls churches and their teachings through the privilege of tax exempt status.  Churches that are not tax exempt, e.g., not incorporated under 26 USC 501, can be more Christ-like]. You instinctively know when you are being deceived – when something you are being told doesn't seem right. The "Truth" is written on your "heart".

            April, 1993

I began working for an attorney who was defending a group of people in Texas and Colorado from a criminal indictment for consumer fraud and tax evasion. These people, who called themselves the "Pilot Connection", had been accused by the government of putting forth the lie that "Income Tax is Voluntary" and that anyone who files a 1040 Form does so under a voluntary waiver of their right not to be taxed on their labor. Indeed, an Income Tax Form requires a signature under penalties of perjury - which essentially requires the signer to waive their 5th Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves (should they be cheating, of course) and requires that they contribute to their own potential prosecution. Definitely not in harmony with constitutional law - or even the Rules of Criminal Procedure. While this perjury clause sets the taxpayer up for compulsory incrimination, the defendants for whom my attorney worked, were being prosecuted for exploiting this little problem to demonstrate the inconsistencies between tax law and the Constitution. The Pilot Connection acquired members into their association by showing the public some Supreme Court decisions which supported their theories. The attorney, hereinafter identified as "HT" for reasons I shall get to in a moment, was a great scholar who researched so deeply into Constitutional law that he traced it back to the Bible. HT led the defense for these people by showing that legislative history and Supreme Court decisions declared the income tax constitutional because of the very fact that it could not directly tax labor. Therefore, argued HT, the federal income tax had to be voluntary to be lawful, since the constitution forbade a direct head tax. Ultimately, said HT, the assertion "income tax is voluntary" could not be incorrect and therefore to refuse to file and contribute, could not be breaking the law, nor qualify as tax evasion. HT presumed that this fact eliminated the "intent" necessary to get a criminal prosecution, and proceeded in this direction when defending the leaders of the "Pilot Connection".

While some of the Pilot Connection people were being prosecuted in Texas, others were operating an office in Parker, Colorado under the name "Liberty Foundation". These Pilot Connection leaders in Colorado came under investigation for the same reasons the group in Texas had. HT was retained to defend the members in Colorado and during the preliminary criminal process, HT maintained an office in both Texas and Parker, Colorado. One of the most significant rebuttals HT offered in defense of the Pilot people was what he called the "Fletcher letter reply". This letter rebutted the arguments put forth in an IRS boilerplate letter signed by phantom "Teresa Fletcher", which was sent to anyone who had asked the IRS for

their authority. The IRS's letter would begin by saying, "We will not enter into a debate with you about the legality of Title 26 of the United States Code. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws over the past 6 decades." I always thought that the "won't engage in a debate" part of the letter was a cop out. HT would rebut by saying, "yes, IRS, the income tax laws are constitutional - if they are applied as interpreted by the Supreme Court decisions that first interpreted them." HT found it interesting to note that many of the cases used to prosecute challenges to the tax laws were cases of federal courts, which are inferior to the decisions first entered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, HT noted that the mother of all tax protestor cases, the one most frequently applied to all challenges, including his Pilot Connection defendants, was Lonsdale v U.S., 919 F. 2d 1440. HT asserted that this case should not settle all other challenges to the application of tax law because the facts and circumstances in that case were different to the arguments presented by his clients. HT discredited the use of the Lonsdale case against his clients because the Lonsdale case involved a couple who had raised arguments against paying income tax, but were taking federal benefits. No wonder, HT said, the court ruled that Lonsdales arguments were meritless, even if only supported by the court's dictum alone, [dictum is a judge's say-so, unsupported by higher authority], because a maxim of law is that you cannot benefit from, and then reject a benefit, (quantum meruit) because receiving the benefit is ratification unless under "under protest". But, HT also asserted that a taxpayer could challenge the "voluntary nature of the tax laws" even after receiving a benefit, because it constituted fraud on the part of the government for failing to disclose that one has the "option" of filing voluntarily.

But, the one question that had never been addressed by the courts is how a person becomes "liable" to pay the income tax when all the early Supreme Court decisions say that a direct tax on labor cannot be constitutional and therefore, is not mandatory. The income tax, the Supreme Court said, is applicable only to the profit gained after being severed from the basis of the capital. Of course, all of this is impossibly confusing to a layman but HT knew he'd raised a significant question in defense of his clients. If the prosecutor couldn't overcome this question, the Pilot Connection could not be convicted of deceiving the public with the phrase, "Income Tax is Voluntary". HT's logic was impeccable.  His passionate defense had the prosecution cornered.  Then, for no apparent reason, he motioned to withdraw from the case - essentially abandoning his clients.  Without missing a beat, the court granted the motion and assigned a public defender.  (Eventually this public defender won the defendants a reversal on appeal - but without addressing the "income tax is voluntary" argument). 

          December 1993

I started to notice how HT was looking a little more stressed each day that he came into the office. His eyes became red rimmed, his skin became pasty, and he developed an incredibly raw looking rash on his face and hands. Unbeknownst to me, the stress he was suffering was incredible. I later learned that he'd been the subject of several Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") interrogations. He had been threatened with personal and professional ruin for his stand in defense of his clients, with exposure of his personal preferences. Finally, HT announced to the office that he was withdrawing from the Pilot Connection case. He simply announced his departure and regrets. He told me to "be careful" and wished me the best. Within the next week, he had packed a truck and moved back to Texas.

I was appalled. I thought that this was an act of abandonment because many of the people I did research for under HT were associated with the defendants in the Pilot Connection, and were in various stages of litigation in Tax Court and federal court. I was painfully aware of how HT's departure would affect these people. I was distressed that these people, who had relied on HT's defense arguments for their own, were going to be thrown to the wolves. More importantly, I wanted HT to take his argument to the finish. I thought he'd found a way of proving that the application of the modern Income Tax laws were unintended by the legislature based upon the research of early court decisions. If only HT had explained to us back then, that regardless of the intent of early tax laws, they had been re-interpreted since the 1940's and supported by the majority of citizens - creating a custom and policy superceding constitutional law.

I unilaterally decided to correspond with each client until they could find alternate legal help. For that reason, I was in the building on the Friday evening, December 7, 1993, when it was raided by the IRS criminal investigation department.

I had just walked back from the mail box just outside the Liberty foundation building, when Liberty Foundation's office manager, Chet Quance, met me at the front door. I immediately commented that the parking lot was unusually full for quitting time. More cars were entering the lot than leaving. Chet said maybe the insurance office upstairs was having a meeting - then he commented on the beautiful sunset. He successfully distracted me and I participated in conversation with Chet, all the while wondering what the commotion was in the parking lot. I disregarded it, and went upstairs to pack up my books and materials since I was leaving the office, since HT had already gone.

While talking quietly with another Liberty Foundation paralegal, Robert, we heard Lynette, a clerk who had just left for the day, running back up the stairs yelling that the parking lot was filled with men wearing black windbreakers with "FBI" and "ATF" written on the back.

"I think you guys are gonna get raided! Get out! Get out! I'm outta here!!"

Just as quickly, she ran back down the stairs to leave the building. Hot, liquid adrenaline poured into my bloodstream. My stomach clutched in anxiety. Robert, another officer worker, Rich, and I ran to each of the inside doors and locked them. We ran from window to window to see what was happening, but by now it was already dark and all we could see was many men in black clothes. During the commotion, Rich, Robert and I discovered that the office manager, Chet had swiftly left the Liberty offices for the safety of an office in another part of the building, outside the Liberty Foundation office area. I ran to different telephones and called friends, asking them to leave the line open to listen to what was about to happen. Robert, a young man working at Pilot Connection put a mini tape recorder in my shirt pocket to record whatever was about to happen. We heard the thumping of heavy boots running up the stairs. Our hearts were pounding. There was Robert, Richard and me. With violent pounding on the office door, a voice yelled, "Open the door! This is the Justice Department. We have a warrant! Open the door or we'll break it down!" Robert yelled back, "slide the warrant under the door!" The booming voice answered, "We have a warrant - open this door NOW or we'll shoot!"

Imitating Laurel and Hardy, Robert winked at me and said, "Well, then. You'd betta let them in, Ollie...". And he opened the door.

The following is an actual transcript of the tape recording that was running inside my shirt pocket, which hadn't been discovered because I had refused a "pat-down" by a male agent, as was my right when no female agents were available:

Agent: "Hands up! All of them! Hands up! You, you too! Anybody else in here?"

                    Robert: "No."

                    Agent: "Ok, let's turn around."

                    Robert: "Hey, you have to show me a warrant, sir."

                    Agent: "Yeah?"

                    Robert: "You have to show me a warrant."

                    Agent: "Put your hands up"

                    Robert: "I'm sorry".

                    Agent: "Put your hands up".

Robert: "Don't push me around. You have to show me a warrant."

                    Agent: (yelling) "PUT YOUR HANDS UP!"

                    Robert: "What's your name sir?"

Agent: "My name is Rossfield Clondike. {????!!!! yeah right, and I'm Minnie Mouse.]

Robert: "All right. (to another agent) What's your name?"

                    Silence.

                    Robert: "What's your name sir?"

                    Agent: "Special Agent Robert Smith".

Robert: "Robert Smith. Thank you Robert Smith. And what's your name?"

                    Silence.

                    Robert: "I want to see your warrant. I want to see ..."

                    Agent: "We have a warrant."

                    Robert: "Then show it to me."

Agent: "We're going to secure the premises before we show you a warrant."

Robert: "Excuse me. Don't push me around, buddy. You don't have any authority to push me around."

                    Linda: "What's this agent's name?"

                    Agent: "Ok Just calm down, ok?"

Robert: "No. Stop pushing me around. Show me your warrant."

                    Agent: "Ok. Calm down."

Robert: "You stop it. Don't push me around and don't put... Look you have to show me a warrant..."

                    Agent: "I'm telling you to calm down right now!"

                    Robert: "Hey, let go of my body. Let go of my body."

                    Agent: "We're in control here."

                    Robert: "You are not in control. Let go of my body."

                    Agent: "We're in control here."

                    Robert: "You are NOT in control. Let go of my body."

                    Linda: "As soon as we introduce ourselves...."

                    Robert: "Don't point that thing at me. Is it loaded?"

                    Agent: "Yeah, it might be."

                    Robert: "Ok. I'm telling you don't harass me."

                    Agent: "You just have to calm down. Ok?"

                    Robert: "Then let go of my body."

                    Agent: "Calm down..."

Robert: "Thank you..." [Agent released Robert's arm.]

                    Agent: "....or you are going to be handcuffed..."

                    Robert: "...thank you." [Responding to the release].

                    Agent: "...and go downtown, ok?"

Robert: "Sir, you haven't shown me any authority at all. Show it!"

Agent: "You got it. You got it. Let's go stand over here."

                    Agent 2: "Do you want to leave the place?"

                    Robert: "I would like to, yes."

                    Agent 2: "Then show us some identification."

Robert: "I have no...You have nothing to show me, then I have nothing to do with you.

Agent 2: "Stay right here, and you'll see it. OK? You're not free to go. Stay right here."

Robert: "I'm not under arrest. You have no authority over me."

                    Agent: "You stay right here."

                    Robert: "Don't give me that."

                    Agent: "You stay right here."

                    Robert: "Sir, DON'T touch my body."

                    Agent: "Then just stay right here."

                    Linda: "How do I know who you are?"

Robert: "I have no idea who you are. You're showing....what are you showing?"

                    Agent: "We'll identify you and then...."

                    Robert: "Can I see the number on that, please?"

Linda: "I cannot identify myself to you if my rights are being compro..."

                    Robert: "4494"

Linda: "...if I have to compromise my rights. I can't do that."

                    Robert: "What's your name sir?"

                    Agent: "Just relax."

Robert: "What is your name?... [silence] I didn't see that."

                   Linda: "I didn't see..."

Agent: "You don't need to see. I said stay there or you're going..."

                    Robert: "I didn't see...."

                    Agent: "Keep your hands out of your pocket."

Robert: "You haven't shown me your search warrant. Either of you".

                    Agent: "When the black and white gets here...."

                    Agent2: "Take your hands out of your pockets."

Robert: "Hey, you haven't shown me a search warrant, this guy's already...."

                    Agent: "Take your hands out of....."

                    Robert: "This guy's already roughed me up."

                    Agent: ".....your hands.."

Robert: "Don't push me around, buddy, show me a search warrant, then you've got some substance. Alright? You haven't shown anything. Don't point that at me."

Agent: (background) "..... treasury..."

Robert: "Yeah, he's a nobody."

Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."

Robert: "Don't give me that. Show me a search warrant."

Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."

Robert: "Show me a search warrant and then we'll talk".

Agent: (background) "We don't even know who you are, we don't have to show you a search warrant."

Robert: "Well then, there you go, so then get out of here. Don't touch me!"

Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket now."

Agent2: "We're going to search you for our safety."

Robert: "Then show me a search warrant!"

Agent: "We are executing a federal....."

Robert: "This fellow here has already done something like that."

Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."

Agent2: "Take your hands out of your pocket."

                    Agent: "Put them up behind your head".

                    Robert: sigh ..... exhales loudly.

Agent: "Just be quiet. Thank you. Carrying any weapons?"

                    Agent2: "Got some identification?"

                    Robert: "Got a search warrant?"

                    Agent: "I asked you for some identification".

Robert: "I have a right to remain silent. You've got nothing on me buddy."

Agent: "You're not under arrest. Ace. I'm asking you for some identification".

Robert: "And I'm saying I got nothing to say to you. If I'm not under arrest then you are violating my rights and acting unlawfully."

                    Agent: (to Rich) "How 'bout you sir?"

                    Rich: "No."

Agent: "The black and white's here. And the black and white, they can F.I. 'em if he doesn't want to F.I. ........"

Robert: "There you go".

Agent: "The black and white's here?"

Agent2: "Yeah, right....."

Police Officer: "This one is Linda."

Robert: "Sir, you look like you have an official badge. Do you have a search warrant that these gentlemen claim they are working under?"

Police Officer: "Do you have some I.D? Would you mind showing me a copy of it?"

Robert: "No sir, they say they have it."

Linda: "We can't show you I.D. because we don't know what they are here for and we're going to compromise our rights if we just.... oh here, here we are. We gotta know what's going on."

Police Officer: "I have to know who I am talking to.

Linda: "So do we."

Robert: "We need, we need to see what these men's authority is here. They claim they have a search ....."

Police Officer: "I need to see your driver's license."

Linda: "Under what authority? I would rather get counsel."

Robert: "It's got nothing to do with that."

Linda. "Do we have time to get counsel?"

Police Officer: "Come on, let's just see your driver's license."

Robert: "We want to see ... we want counsel, We want to see the search warrant, the rest of this otherwise is just illegal."

Linda: "We have no .... we have been accosted by all these men. And we have no idea what we've done wrong. We're packing up to go home. I've gotta cook dinner for three kids and these men are treating me like a criminal. Pushing us around and screaming at us."

Police Officer: "Under state law you are required to identify yourselves to us."

Linda: "Baloney. What state law says we have to....."

(background mumbling)

Linda: "Can I call counsel?"

Agent: "No."

Linda: "Why not?"

Robert: "Of course you can.

Police Officer: "You don't have to have counsel....:

Robert: "Then she's free to go? Is that right, sir?"

Police Officer: "No."

Linda: "Well then, am I under arrest?"

Robert: "Is she under arrest?"

Linda: "If I'm under arrest then I won't tell you who I am. I have the right to remain silent."

Police Officer: "You are being detained at this point."

Robert: "Okay. Under what probable cause?"

Silence.

Police Officer: "We're....."

Linda: "Yeah."

Robert: "See? See?"

Police Officer: "We're here to ......"

Robert: "To what?"

Linda: (imitating Russian accent) "Giff me your pa-pers....! You know. Come on. "

Robert: (laughs)

Police Officer: "We're going to find out who you guys are."

Linda: "But..."

Robert: "Well, sure. You're not here to find out who we are. This gentleman here came in and says, "We coming in with a search warrant, or - open the door!" So we open the door because the man says he has a search warrant and he produces nothing....just lies."

Linda: "And they come in and point guns in our faces."

Robert: "Absolutely nothing. So you know..."

Linda: "I'm a housewife."

Police Officer: "Why do you have a problem telling us who you are?"

Linda: "Because we don't know what they are after."

Police Officer: "Does that matter?"

Robert: "Absolutely it does. This isn't Russia and this isn't Nazi Germany".

(Note: compare the "police state" of Germany to today's police tactics and decide.)

Police Officer: "That's right. But you also.........do have to ....."

Linda: "I want counsel. We don't...."

Robert: (to Rich) "Do you know what Wessel's phone number is? 'Cause this is just baloney. I don't have his phone number."

Rich: "I don't have his phone number, but I'm sure we could...."

Robert: "You two gentlemen, I understand are under the authority of the sheriff. For these gentlemen to work they're supposed to be some sort of federal agents, they have to be in here under permission of the sheriff."

Police Officer: "You have the right to counsel..."

Robert: "I haven't seen any paperwork..."

Police Officer: "We're just asking who you are."

Robert: "therefore, they have nothin'. They have absolutely nothin'. As far as my understanding of what our state laws are."

Agent: "Sir, we have a federal search warrant."

Robert: "THEN SHOW IT TO US! Show it to us. You know, don't tell us about it."

Agent: "No, we are....we are going to identify you. You can do it hard or you can do it easy."

Robert: "Oh don't give me that baloney, sir. You have to follow the law like everyone else in this nation does."

Agent: "That's exactly what I'm doing."

Robert: "OK, then, show us the search warrant."

Background mumbling.

Robert: "....firstly. Tell me your probable cause. If there's no probable cause WE are free to go. End of issue."

Agent: "They're bringing in the search warrant."

Robert: "End of issue."

Agent: "Ok, we're going to bring the search warrant and then show it to you. And then you are going to identify yourselves."

Robert: "No. I will then allow you to search the premises. You have nothing that says anything that..."

Agent3: "I like to know who I am talking to. Would you mind showing me your I.D? That's all I'm asking for."

Robert. "Yeah, I WOULD mind. I absolutely would. I gotta whole bunch of men coming into this building absolutely frightening the daylights out of us, have no idea what's going on here, and they allegedly have a search warrant. So, show me a search warrant then we'll go from there.

Agent3: "What's your name ... do you have any....you're not going to tell me your name either?"

Robert: "No. I have a right to counsel."

Agent3: "You have a right to counsel when you are under arrest. You are not under arrest."

Robert: "Then I'm free to go? I'm leaving....."

Agent3: "....right to counsel if we're questioning you, we're not questioning you."

Linda: "You're questioning our names."

Agent3: "We can do that."

Linda: "No you can't. Brown v Texas."

Robert: "Hey, if I'm not under arrest I don't have to give you my name. Bottom line."

Agent: "We have arrest warrants for several people, so we're going to find out if you are any of those people."

Robert: "Fine. Get your search warrant and read out the names and then we'll see where we go."

Agent3: "We'll do it our way."

Robert: "Well, however you want to do it fella, just do it according to law. And you haven't identified yourself. Who are you?"

(background voices..."

Linda: (yelling loudly). "Don't you touch my purse! Don't touch my purse!"

(many voices over each other.)

Robert: "How can you do this? How can you detain a person like this? Don't touch her personal stuff or there's going to be liability for all sorts of infractions on her rights."

Agent3: "We'll find out about that later, won't we?"

Linda: "ooooh. Their guns are bigger than our guns".

Robert: "yeah, I guess so."

Robert to police officer: "Am I understand that this is a search warrant that gives these people the right to arrest the people on the premises?"

Police Officer: "We don't know who we are arresting. If you can't tell me, will not tell me who you are I will take you into custody until I do find out who you are."

Robert: "Well, bottom line is that you have a search warrant and on it states certain things, right?"

Linda: "So who's being arrested? I'll tell you if I'm not them."

Robert: laughter.

Police Officer: "Back to work. I'm going to ask you who you are."

Linda: "No. Tell me who you're looking for and I'll answer...."

Robert: "You haven't given us probable cause, officer. So, until you give us that...."

Police Officer: "I will take you into custody, I will take you down, I will fingerprint you, I will send those to the F.B.I...."

Linda: "You can't fingerprint me."

Robert: "You can't do any of those things without probable cause. You have no probable cause therefore you're dead in the water."

Linda: "Brown v Texas says you can't just pick someone and say, "Tell us who you are"".

Robert: "You can't do that. This is America."

Silence.

Agent: "OK. There's your search warrant."

Robert: "Great, read it Linda."

Linda: "OK. Alright. They're searching East Dartmouth Avenue. That's not here. Wrong place. (Sound of turning paper) Wrong one. Sorry, guys. This is not Dartmouth Avenue..."

Agent: "Ma'am, if you'll continue to look at those attachments, because this is just a cover sheet.....documents pertaining to Phillip and Marlene Marsh, Darrell, Jill, John Campion, Robert Singleton, Greg Golaski...."

Robert: "Who are these people?"

Linda: "Let's see, let's see if it's the right address.....wrong address! Wrong address! You had no business bursting into here. I'd like to call counsel right now. You've got the wrong address. (voice trails as Linda walks away) Sorry guys, you've got the wrong address. It's too late. You've got the wrong address.........(yelling into phone off the hook on desk) Hey Jeff! Did you get all that? Are you still there?"

Agent: "Wha'? Wait a minute..."

Agent2: "At this point you are about 90 seconds away from being arrested...."

Linda's voice in background, "What! Deal? You want to make a deal? (to phone on desk) ....do you have that tape recorder on Jeff?"

Agent2: "You, and you, and you outta here now or you're going to get arrested, OK? I don't want anything over on you.... I just want ....out...."

Robert: "Hey, but you don't have the right to search these premises, it doesn't say on that warrant that you...."

Agent: "The address is correct...."

Agent3: "These three outta here now......"

So. At first they wanted to detain us, but as soon as we exposed the fact that the search warrant failed to include the building in Parker, Colorado - they couldn't get rid of us fast enough. It was a very disturbing encounter with "law enforcement officers" because it was clear to me that having a search warrant was not important to them - the Constitution be damned. It demonstrated to me that it was likely that "law enforcement officers" couldn't care less about following the law - that the paperwork procedures otherwise known as due process - were just a nuisance, and worse, the constitution which mandated these "due process" procedures was treated with contempt for causing the nuisance. More disturbing was the fact that the warrant produced for the press the next day was in order and had the correct address – but it was not the order produced during the raid. I truly believed then, that if the Courts knew the executive branch was out of control and acting lawlessly, something would be done10. I even thought that my "whistle blowing" would get me a pat on the back. Robert and I called every newspaper, radio and T.V. channel we could to invite them to hear the audio tape of this warrantless raid. We were well received. And I became well marked as an "anti government - tax protesting - militia type - radical" who thoroughly embarrassed the IRS. Only I didn't know it at the time. I knew even less how the IRS - and the Department of Justice - hates to be embarrassed.

I was determined to raise my questions about the discrepancies between the way the law was written, and the way it was currently being followed by the policing agencies of government - the executive branch, and their subcontractor, the IRS. I had been told that in this civilized land of the free, the proper way to test a legal argument was through "civil disobedience" and the judicial forum. If Rosa Parks hadn't "violated the law" then blacks/African Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus. I thought that if I shed light on the way law enforcement actors, and IRS agents, were violating the law, they would be re-trained to follow the law and treat their fellow "Americans" with respect. How little I knew then.

                    January 1994

By now I had attended every local seminar that had anything to do with American law. I learned the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. I learned what the Anti-Federalist papers were. In short, I'd learned that since 1934, Congress had been making laws that were slowly evolving our country out of what it once was, a Republic which rewarded the independent producer - into a communist society - which destroyed incentive and reduced the hard worker's standard of living for the benefit of the "majority" (who didn't work hard). The same policy that killed most of the early settlers for the first two winters, at the Plymouth Bay Colony, under William Bradford. History recounts how William Bradford required that the community put all their produce into one storage area – accessible to all. The family with 10 children could take as much as they needed, as could the family with no children – each according to their needs. However, the small families soon produced less and less – since they were not consuming it. After the colony starved for two winters, the policy changed. Suddenly, when everyone was responsible for their own needs, production exceeded demand.

My conclusion that America had abdicated her principles which formerly favored individuality and entrepreneurism, was based upon the United States' Army's Citizenship Training Manual. It explained that America offered impartial opportunity to all who wanted to work for their dreams. The manual educated immigrants as to the meaning of the word "Republic" versus "Democracy" versus "Socialism". It again explained these important points in the United States Government publication, " The Citizen's Handbook". That pamphlet was also used to teach immigrants in citizenship classes that democracy was despicable because it resulted in "mob-ocracy". The pamphlet explained that "mob-ocracy" resulted in economic failure because the "majority rule" concept requires one class of people (the hard workers) to support another class (the non-producers) and it wouldn't be long before the industrious worker questioned why he was getting only as much as the lazy man and why he should not be lazy too. I've worked in a "Union" shop myself and experienced this defective theory first hand. While not a smoker, I decided I would go out and take "smoke breaks" with the smokers, when permitted since it was time to relax - or - to work – all for the same pay.

While the Declaration of Independence had laid a foundation for a man to reap the fruits of his own labor, fostering industriousness, today's society was killing that philosophy with the theory that everyone should be compelled to contribute to his brother's needs - which is also the fastest way to kill incentive. The Citizenship Training Manual said that everyone in America had the same opportunity - to make their fortune - but not by taking someone else's. The philosophies published as the American way in that pamphlet motivated me to move forward - requesting the assistance of the Courts - to address the violations of the constitution committed by the executive branch offices that I perceived were running rampant. I had gathered evidence from the Congressional and Legislative News which I believed supported my theory and supported the philosophy taught in the Citizenship Training Manual of 1934.

My mistake was thinking that the principles and definitions of the "American" system as taught to immigrants in 1934 was still applicable today and that the Court's were bound to follow it. Even more erroneous was my presumption that the Court's were just waiting for someone - anyone - to turn things around.

After appearing on the news and on radio shows, with the tape recorded "raid" on Liberty Foundation a/k/a Pilot Connection, I began speaking to coffee groups attended by people who studied the Constitution, American History, the Common Law Courts, the Militia and the like. I didn't know it at the time, but these groups were being investigated and attended by undercover F.B.I. agents who had been trained that these people, myself included, were dangerous, "paper terrorists" and "anti-government" for ascribing to the principles of the constitution and the theories put forth in the Citizenship Training Manual. [Hmmm – why aren’t lawyers called paper terrorists for using the courts?  Why just pro se’s?]  Without realizing it, I was putting a big red target on my chest. I was about to be "silenced".

The IRS, still smarting from my blatant appearances on radio and T.V. with the tape recording from the warrantless raid, served my now ex-husband with a wage levy for that old, uncollected capital gains tax. Harvey informed me that my child support payments would be reduced by the corresponding amount of the wage levy. I couldn't survive on that, so I once again demanded a deferment as provided by the Code, 26 USC 6335(f) since the lien on the house secured the tax liability until it was feasible and equitable to pay it – with interest. They were not amused - but neither was I. They wanted blood now, but so did I. I became more involved in studying the IRS, their authority and their collection tactics. I was motivated by a feeling that I perceive is equivalent to the religious martyrs - like Joan of Arc. I was obsessed with "making the courts" require a confession from the IRS regarding the violations perpetrated upon all taxpayers. Little did I know then, that without the courts, the IRS could never have abused so many for so long. (Finally later, in 1998, under the leadership of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Bill Archer and a few others, Congress televised hearings into IRS abuse).

I wrote to the Senators again, Wayne Allard and Dan Schaeffer (currently retired). I complained that the IRS would render me homeless if they garnished my ex husband's wages right now. The wage levy stopped without explanation or notice. Instead, the IRS had decided it would have a more detrimental impact if they took my home. The house did have a great deal of equity in it, but I could not take out a loan against it because I did not have the weekly wages sufficient to pay a larger monthly mortgage payment which would pay the home equity loan. This situation left my home, and life savings, available for plundering and pillaging. This was exactly what the IRS wanted to "punish" me for my outspoken criticism of their lack of respect for the law and the public. They decided to exploit this situation ("cash poor and house rich" a situation experienced by those with low mortgage payments through either a large downpayment or many years in the same house) by taking the whole house, and all it's equity ($160,000) for the $26,000.00 tax lien AND getting a judge to sanction me an additional $50,000.00. As I look back, it all falls in to place. This cruel and unusual forced sale, in violation of the intent of the tax laws which intended a 20% profit for investors in tax sales, 26 USC 6337(b)(2), rather than the 300% profit made here, (a distressed sale with a huge potential for windfall) was something reserved for special bidders in tax sales. Indeed, public record reveals that Judge Perricone himself, made some money on distressed property sales, and Mr. Behr, the purchaser who made the windfall in this case, himself an auctioneer, referred to a special list of "tax protestor" property sales – see appendix.

March 13, 1994

I came home from grocery shopping at about 5:30 in the afternoon. A blue mini van was pulling out of my driveway. For a split second I made eye contact with the driver - a woman about my age. She looked frightened and gunned her gas pedal. I had absolutely no idea what she was doing there. I noticed a white letter size paper on my front door and presumed it was just some solicitation. With my arms full of groceries, I went to the front door. There, with scotch tape on the varnished wood door, was a sign that said, "NOTICE OF SALE". My stomach turned to water. I hastily tore it off the door and went inside. Upon examination I discovered that the lien on my house was to be auctioned off in 2 weeks. My first thoughts were, "How can they do this? I was supposed to get due process. They can't do this. They didn't give me the 10 day notice nor the 30 day notice first. No WAY. They can't do this. I'll show them!"

Of course I had no idea back then - that the courts do not require strict compliance with the law from the IRS. My noble intentions to use the law to make a point was seriously misguided by my training as a paralegal - because my training in law had deceived me into believing there is integrity in the "system".

I was furious. I realized that this act of vindictiveness was revenge for my radio and T.V. appearances. I determined that my remedy was to appear at the illegal sale and pass out flyers warning the bidders that the house was being sold illegally in violation of statutory procedure and I would sue the purchaser.

During the next two weeks I was inundated with visits from potential bidders. One woman, an Asian, came to my door clutching a newspaper ad with my house featured for sale with the bidding starting at $27,000.00. The market value of the house was $250,000.00.

"Ahhh, how you say? How many baff rooms?" she looked at me intently. I looked back at her and laughed.

"It doesn't matter". I told her the ad was a misprint. The house was not for sale. I chastised her for even believing a $250,000.00 house could be for sale for $27,000.00. What a fool. Shaking my head I said, don't they tell you in Japan that if it seems too good to be true – then it's not true?  We have property rights in THIS country!!!  Protected by the courts!! J

March 28, 1994

Auction day. A few of my friends gathered at my house and we drove together to the auction location in the neighboring county. That was just one of many "technical defects" that I planned to attack to void the sale for procedural violations. (The law required that a tax sale take place in the same county as the property - unless a special Order was signed by the Director. No such Order had been signed in my case). If the law provided for various conditions to be in place for a tax sale - I assumed that those laws had to be followed - otherwise what were the laws there for? I divided the violations in taking my home into "technical defects" and "fatal defects". I already knew that "technical defects" were not enforced by the courts - failure of a government entity to follow them is ignored. But I also knew, from working with HT, that the only way the IRS could lawfully take a home was with strict compliance with the noticing requirements. The courts had held that the "notices" were the only way an IRS taking, without a prior court proceeding, could be construed as "constitutional". Without all the "notices" there would be no "due process". The IRS was the only entity that could lawfully take a home without a prior court judgment as long as the notices had been served. IRS was supposed to follow all the "statutory" steps as a substitute for a court supervised property taking. I pondered all this while we traveled to the auction location.

I passed out flyers in the auction hall, pointing out that all IRS auctions are done under caveat emptor, [“buyer beware”] and the purchaser assumes all liability for title defects. I warned the bidders that my tax lien was being sold without compliance with the tax laws. This effectively reduced about 18 bidders down to two. With that, the bidding for this $250,000 house began at $27,000.00. I was appalled at the cruelty with which the IRS agents were proceeding. It was so obviously unfair, that I gave up trying to ask someone to make sense of it. It was simple revenge - not "tax collection". One man and a woman sitting next to him bid back and forth until the bidding reached $50,000.00. The auctioneer called a break. Confused, I watched as the man and woman huddled with the IRS agents, conferring over something. The auctioneer began the bidding again. The woman and the man went back and forth until the woman stopped - and the man, Paul C. Behr, was announced the successful bidder at $69,000.00.

I went up to him and asked him how he spelled his name - I wanted to get it right on the pleadings when I sued him over the title.

The law provides 6 months after the auction as a "redemption" period, during which time the taxpayer can buy back his lien – in addition to expenses and 20% interest. I refused to participate in this extortion because it had been executed unlawfully. I spent the summer pondering the strategy I should use. Should I be the Plaintiff and sue the investor who purchased my tax lien? Or should I be the Defendant, and wait for the foreclosure process which the law would require the investor to go through, to liquidate the first mortgage and acquire possessory rights? I decided on the latter.

October 1994

Someone had taped a letter size notice to my door. Here we go again. This time it was from Paul Behr, the investor, and his lawyers, Arkey and Reha, Littleton, Colorado. It was a Notice to Vacate. Yeah, right, let me just give you the keys to my children's futures. Let me just forget that the IRS sold this place without compliance with any law which is how you got a $250,000 house for $69,000.00. Well stand by, buddy. You bought the house, "as is," with no guarantees from the government as to the marketability of the title, see 26 CFR 301.6335-1(c)(4)(iii). What? You didn't read that one? Well, as they say, life's a bitch and then you die, asshole. (How easy it is to be flippant with confidence before one experiences judicial corruption).

The Notice was kind enough to advise me of the procedures which would be employed, should I decline the invitation to clear out my belongings immediately. It said I would be served a complaint under Colorado's Forced Entry and Detainer Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-40-101, et seq., otherwise known as the eviction process. I thought, cool. This was the first evidence of the twisted process the investor and his "noble officer of the court" was using to plunder and pillage my property, illegally. Section 104 of the eviction statute, the code they were using, says that you can't evict someone in Colorado unless (a) they defaulted on a lease or rent contract - and oops - that didn't apply, or (b) the occupant defaulted on a mortgage contract and oops, that didn't apply or (c) the person doing the evicting has a judgment from a prior court proceeding and oops - an IRS Deed from an auction is not a prior court proceeding. Hah. The idiots weren't even using the right statute to argue this, I thought. They should have been using Title 38, which governs challenges to Mortgages and Deeds - and THEN - if they won that - if I didn't prove that the IRS violated the noticing requirements - THEN they could use the eviction statute.

I ignored the Notice to Vacate.

Within three weeks, a toothless little man who parked his car several houses away, (I guess he'd been told I was a dangerous radical), came to my door with an envelope. "There!" he growled, "You're served". I took the Complaint which asserted that I should be evicted because the Plaintiff, Mr. Behr had an IRS Deed which wiped out my title. Wrong! U.S. v Fox, 94 US 315, 320-321, and U.S. v Brosnan, 363 U.S. 237 says a federal proceeding (like an IRS auction) cannot convey property rights, because property rights are governed by state law. The feds can only convey a partial interest in property but not the title. An investor would have to perfect that interest through state real property conveyance laws. Behr hadn't done that - he hadn't foreclosed on the interest in the property which he had purchased from the IRS. (But there I was, relying on published law again.)

The Complaint was asserting the eviction statutes instead of the property conveyance statutes, as the jurisdiction to establish the rules they wanted to employ. By using the eviction statutes they were avoiding a full trial procedure and substituting that with a short, "summary hearing". I immediately objected to this in my Answer, pointing out that an eviction proceedings could not be employed without first liquidating the first mortgage under a full foreclosure proceeding, with a full discovery process. The hearing for the Complaint was set for January of the next year, more than three months away - in violation of the eviction laws, which required that the procedure take place within 10 days, CRS 13-40-111. The legislature added that 10-day logic to the eviction statutes to avoid allowing the landlord to accrue extra "rent" - and thereby become unjustly enriched by the delay in proceedings. Unknown to me at the time, this was exactly what the investor's attorney, John Reha intended. He figured I could maintain the house until the big moving season, (best time to make money on the sale of a house) and accrue a "rent" bill for Mr. Behr, the investor, while being his caretaker! The Notice of Setting also advised me that there would be a Quiet Title Trial on March 21 - two months after the eviction hearing. Geez. More defects. How, I wondered, could any judge permit such ridiculous settings? How can you schedule an eviction first and then a trial to discuss title rights eight weeks after that? How come these people aren't following ANY of the law - not even the set of laws they picked? First they use the eviction statutes instead of the statutes enacted for Title issues, and then they don't even comply with the eviction statute procedures. Do we get to customize, consolidate and merge the law from two sets of statutes as we go along?

I guess that's what you have to do when you are acting illegally.

I filed a counterclaim. I asserted that the Behr's had no claim to my title because their interest wasn't acquired with compliance with law. I figured they had to go talk to the IRS about that little problem, but leave me alone. I also asserted that the eviction statute wasn't the right statute to give the court jurisdiction - and without it, the court couldn't hear the issue. I threw in the part about how the eviction statute required a court hearing in 10 days - not 3 months - further proving that the wrong statute was being used. The disadvantage to me, I said, was that I was being deprived a proper foreclosure with all the provisions for a discovery process. The way they were going, was permitting suppression of evidence, I said. An eviction hearing is too "abbreviated" - we should be proceeding under Title 38, the body of law governing Mortgage and Deed conveyances.

I had confidence in my arguments. The Judge would have to enforce the law. Everything will be straightened out at the hearing, I thought. I decided to see what would happen if I served interrogatories on Mr. Behr. He indulged me and answered them with his attorney's guidance. He lied about the number of IRS tax sales he'd enriched himself with. In particular, he and his attorney [John Reha] suppressed the fact that Behr had been involved with the purchase of other IRS tax sales which procedures were conducted very differently than mine – they knew the difference between a lawful procedure, and the one employed against me. These lies by omission were considered "harmless error" by Judge Polidori.

January 25, 1995.

Here we were. The Eviction Hearing. As soon as I was invited to talk, I pointed out to the court that it had no jurisdiction to hear the issue because the Plaintiffs, Behrs, had no previously acquired court judgment, which was necessary - essential - for the court to have jurisdiction over a hearing under Title 13 - the eviction statute and the one used as jurisdiction for the case at bar. See article 40, subsection 104. I pointed out that an IRS Deed acquired at an auction was hardly sufficient evidence of a pure title claim necessary to evict me. It only represents a partial interest in the property - not 100% interest which is required to assert property ownership and the right to evict the occupants. An auction does not provide a "court judgment" as required by the statute to begin an eviction. I pointed out that under Colorado Law, titles can only be conveyed under Title 38 and by a court order in a proceeding involving the Public Trustee, not by an auctioneer at an IRS auction. Look for yourself, your honor, C.R.S. 38-39-101, of 38-38-701, or 38-35-117, 38-39-102(a)(1). And, your honor, as soon as we get into Title 38, with procedures for discovery, depositions, evidence gathering, I'll prove that the IRS violated the law and provided the Plaintiffs with a defective, null and void, interest in my property.

I motion to dismiss the action, your honor, the court is without jurisdiction to hear the issue. Wrong statutory procedure. Can't evict me. Let's all go home.

Motion denied. Let's get on with it. We're here for an eviction proceeding. We'll talk Quiet Title on March 21 when we have trial. We're still scheduled for trial in March aren't we counsel? Yes.

My head bounced back and forth from one side of the room to to the other. Oh. Geez. This is what they mean by being blind sided.

How can we have an eviction first and a trial later? Shoot first ask questions later? Mr. Behr's attorney, John Reha was asking a woman to the stand - the IRS woman who supervised the illegal sale of my home. Was the sale legal? Reha asked Ruth Williams. Yes, of course. Did the IRS follow all the procedures? Yes, of course. Did you serve notice on Linda some time before the sale? Yes, silly, she was there wasn't she? Okay. Due process over. Everything was fine. We got Linda Sanders house fair and square.

I was woefully unprepared for this testimony. How can you presume to "prepare" for perjury? I started to argue about the Tax Code and about the 10 day Notice and the 30 day Notice that I was supposed to have had. The court did the most outstandingly ridiculous thing I've ever seen before or since. He said, don't tell me about federal law. I don't take jurisdiction over federal law. This is a state court. We take jurisdiction over state law. Well this whole thing is federal law, I said, if we can't discuss it, let's all go home.

Get on with it, he said.

Look. Look at my documents here. It shows that the house was sold under record number 94-0088 and there are no Notices entered under that record. Well, so what? Linda got notices a year before, under a different seizure process. That seizure was terminated, I said, so how was I supposed to know that they were getting ready to sell the house again, in 1994, a year later, at the same time Harvey was paying a wage levy? They swooped in and surprise attacked me for the sole purpose of depriving me of time to settle up.

Well, said the agent, we did give you notices, all that we were required to give you. It didn't matter "when".

Oh, you noticed me with this? I stepped forward with my exhibit.

Don't go near the witness! Yelled the Judge, Speak from the podium.

I have to show her an exhibit, your honor.

Then tell her what page it's on in the exhibit book.

Mr. Reha switched the exhibit book letters since we prepared the joint exhibits. I don't know which exhibit it is in the book.

The judge looked at John Reha, the investor's attorney.

I apologize your honor, said Reha, someone in my office must have mixed things up a bit...... some bad ole secretary did it – guess we can't use the exhibits now.

What sleazy tactics, John, no wonder people hate lawyers.

I found the exhibit and directed the agent's attention to the notices in the exhibit book. I identified the old Notice from the first (released) seizure, dated a year before the sale, which had a number of 93-0062. I pointed out that it had been altered - handwritten over with 94-0088 to reflect the number of the second seizure process, a year later. The old notice from the closed procedure was inserted into the records, to look like I'd been served the Notice of Seizure for the second process.

Quit harassing the witness, interrupted the judge.

I'll answer your honor, said Ms. Williams. The reason for the hand written alteration is because......we have to change seizure numbers on all the records when the fiscal year changes. Her case was active during the fiscal year change in October, so we had to renumber it. We had to renumber that seizure process to access the seizure budget to pay for the title search, the O & E report, things like that.

Bullshit. Expenses are paid after the sale from the sale proceeds not from a "seizure budget" 26 USC 6342. You falsified the record to make it appear as though I'd had all the notices required by law for the second seizure. Instead, by depriving me of the 40 days of notices, I was deprived of time to apply for financing to protect my property. You wanted to leave me homeless. You wanted to wipe me out – not collect tax. You're lying! You didn't follow the law with me!

I glanced up at the judge to see his reaction to my accusations. His forehead was resting on his clasped hands on his bench. He was asleep. Your honor? Silence. Hey. Your honor?

(I later learned that Judge Perricone suffered from some disease that causes him to fall asleep during intervals all day. And he'd been meting out justice this way for 18 years).

Judge Perricone then lifted his head. Without further delay, he said he was ready to enter his findings into the record. If the IRS agent says it was done right, then it must have been done right. Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs. Sanders has to move out by February 5th. We'll have a pretrial hearing on February 13, 1995 and proceed to trial in March.

Okay. This is crazy. How can this be happening? I have to "get out" on February 5, but we're going to trial on the issues in March? No time for emotion, I thought. Got to find a lawyer. Right. For contingency. I'm bound to win. The whole this is a farce. There isn't any law that they've followed yet. I can't lose.

I orally Motioned for Stay of eviction, pending trial. Motioned denied. But you can't deny that motion! The statute requires giving a stay if the defendant asks! CRS 13-40-117! Motion denied. Court adjourned.

After the initial shock, I went out hunting for a lawyer who did tax law. Declan J. O'Donnell. Nice Irish name. I'm Irish. Gotta be a good sign. (It's funny how desperate people look for any sign that suggests spiritual intervention!) He took a minimal retainer in exchange for 33% of the restitution. He entered an appearance. I felt safe. He refiled another Motion for Stay of Eviction, pending trial scheduled for March 21. He told me that the motion would be heard at the pretrial hearing on February 13. We talked about how we were going to rebut the IRS agent's lies about "changing seizure numbers" every fiscal October. We talked about how the court would have to see that the most essential and fundamental procedures of due process were violated, and therefore, the Behr's IRS title was fatally defective. We talked about how we would challenge jurisdiction - and how the court was operating without it. Declan said he would employ an IRS Expert Witness and submit a Witness and Exhibit List for the trial to prevent my opponents from objecting to rebuttal testimony under the theory of "surprise".

Okay - I thought - NOW everything will be alright. I've got a lawyer. It's much easier for the court to listen if the words are coming out of a licensed mouth. We'll get some good rebuttal evidence for trial and show that Ruth Williams to be the liar she is.

February 6, 1995

"Deputy Taylor, Jefferson County Sheriff's department".

I hung up the phone. I was at a copy store, using the phone to call home. It was about 8:00 a.m. Must have called the wrong number. How in the hell did I get the Jeffco sheriff's office? I redialed. Once again, the same voice, "Deputy Taylor, Jefferson County Sheriff's department." After a moment of silence, I said,

"I'm calling my home. I must be getting the wrong number."

"Who's this?"

"This is Linda Sanders. Where have I called?"

"You've called your home, ma'am. We have an Order to evict you. We're in the process of evicting you."

"WHAT?" Those outraged commentators that editorialize life's events in our heads were dispensing expletives, advice, and demands all at the same time. What the hell are cops doing in my kitchen, answering my phone? This is unbelievable. When does this nightmare end? "You can't evict me! We're going to trial on March 21st. What are you doing evicting me before trial? Hold everything! I'll be right there, and I'll show you the court papers. We're scheduled to try the title on March 21. We have a hearing scheduled on February 13. You can't evict me before that. It's only February 5th!"

"Hold on ma'am. I'm just doing my job. I'll suspend everything until you get here and we can straighten this out. It's possible there is a mistake because I've never seen an eviction with the criminal division involved. I work in the civil division."

In a pathetic display of overkill, the investor's attorney John Reha, had asked for "protection" while plundering my home. In case I got violent, he said. So the district attorney (whose wife is an IRS agent) had loaned him a team of armed deputies at taxpayer expense. They basically used the pretense of eviction to search every nook and cranny in my home, without the benefit of a warrant (so what else is new) and much to their disappointment, did not find anything illegal. How odd for an "anti-government radical" not to be armed with bazooka's and grenades. Not even a 55 gallon drum or peroxide.

By the time I arrived home, my children were gone. My sons, home from school because of a teacher workshop, age 18 and 16, had been told by the sheriff's deputies to take our cat and dog somewhere off the premises. Little Emily had already gone to school. Jeremiah and Daniel went to my mother's house, about 45 minutes away in a Denver suburb. My furniture was piled up on the front lawn. About 10 strangers, day workers from a temp agency, and sheriff's deputies, were swarming through my home with boxes, packing up everything in site. Even my personal belongings, underwear, bathroom products, photos, art, music. I suddenly knew the meaning of the word "rape". When privacy is violated to the most intimate degree. The feeling of complete exposure and humiliation. I had no more adrenaline with which to handle this latest outrage. Mr. Reha, was sitting in his car, on the curb. He was delighted. He'd won. The court had blessed his vicious, illegal, and dishonest pursuit of my money. Several neighbors had gathered under one of their front porches with cups of coffee, the steaming vapors floating upwards, as they watched from a distance. I surveyed this scene with absolute confusion. Hey, God, DO SOMETHING. No time for tears. Think. Think. Damn them.

I went inside and asked for the person in charge. I was told to talk to Lt. Burchett. I showed him the Notice of Trial Setting set for 7 weeks hence. "Why are you evicting me before the trial?" I stared at his face while he read the Notice of Trial. He was genuinely confused. He walked to my phone, and called the Judge. The Honorable Judge Gaspar Perricone. He got straight through. For a second, I felt relief. Calm. He was asking the Judge why he was conducting an eviction on a case which was going to trial in the future. He nodded. He quoted the Notice of Trial Setting. He nodded again. He hung up the phone.

"Ma'am," said Lt. Burchett, "Judge Perricone said, "Get her out". So now I gotta do my job. You'll have to get a lawyer."

"I'VE GOT A LAWYER! SO STOP THIS!"

I went to Declan J. O'Donnell's office. I burst into his office telling him to DO SOMETHING. He assured me that he sympathized. He assured me that the world was full of injustice. He assured me that he understood. He said to save my energy to find a place to sleep that night. We'd deal with it at "the hearing on the 13th". He reminded me that we had retained an expert witness to rebut the lying IRS agent that convinced the court that the law had been followed. Don't worry. We'll turn it around. You'd better go home. Isn't it time for your daughter to get home from school?

It had started to snow. I rushed back home. As I approached, I could see that that my furniture had been removed from the lawn. Emily was sitting on the porch. When my car pulled up to the driveway, she ran over, indignantly telling me that the key we kept hidden under the window didn't work. She was locked out and by the way, where was all our furniture? Her little friend, down the road said her mom told her that the cops came today and kicked us out because we didn't pay our bills. I was appalled at such a humiliating lie. I was the only one following the law - but I was the only one being labeled the deadbeat. I told her what happened. It was way too much for me. I couldn't hide my tears which frightened her. "Don't cry, mommy".

Chuck took control. He found a place for my daughter, Emily and us to sleep. My sons were still at my mother's house. We shopped for toiletries and underwear for the next few days – since John Reha had stacked up everything that had been in the house, in the garage and changed the locks.

February 13, 1995

The Court called the case for a motions hearing. The Honorable Gaspar Perricone presiding. He advised the parties that the hearing was for the purpose of dealing with the Defendant's Motion for Stay and for signing a Pretrial Order, with witness and exhibit lists intended for use at trial. Declan walked slowly to the podium. Good morning your Honor. We respectfully withdraw our motion for stay of eviction - in that the issue has been rendered moot. My clients have vacated the property "having been invited to do so by the Jeffco sheriffs". Was this supposed to be funny? No. But if not funny – then totally illegal – but we can't suggest that.

The court signed the pretrial Order, which identified our intended Expert Witness who was flying in from Idaho. According to the rules, we had also filed his preliminary opinion supporting the exposure of the IRS Agent Ruth Williams' lies. After confirming the trial date, which was set for March 21, 1995, the hearing was over.

March 7, 1995

Declan called to tell me that he had a check - from the IRS made payable to Harvey and me for about $46,000.00. So what is that I wondered. A surplus check. It's the leftover money paid by the investor over the price of the lien. He paid $69,000.00 for the $26,000.00 lien. I don't want that money! Am I supposed to take $46,000.00 in exchange for the $160,000 equity that was in my house? In exchange for letting them violate the law and leaving me homeless? In exchange for humiliating me and my children with lies? In exchange for all my work – my time with my children that was sacrificed when we built our New York house? Well, said Declan. We have this little problem of attorney fees and expert witness fees for travel and testimony. How are you going to pay them? The contract says "from the proceeds of the litigation." As I see it, this check is the proceeds from the litigation. Declan persuaded me to cash the check with a restricted endorsement. By cashing it under protest, he said, I would be preserving my objection to the proceedings. I could then use the money to pay for the litigation. No. I didn't want that money. Give it to Behr as restitution for the IRS giving him a defective deed. I want my house back.

Complying with my wishes, Declan filed a pretrial brief with the court and offered the IRS surplus check to Mr. Behr, indicating that our Expert Witness Report would prove that the law had not been followed in the sale of the property, then it would be in Mr. Behr's best interest to accept a refund of his purchase. Mr. Behr basically said shit no, I'll stick with my $160,000.00 profit thank you very much.

March 21, 1995

For once, in the last few weeks, I was excited, even in a good mood. At least tonight, I thought, we'll be back in the house. The court was called to order.

The first announcement the judge made was that he had canceled the trial. There would be no taking of expert witness testimony. He was just going to address the issue of damages. Figure out how much money - besides the house - the investor was going to get from me. This will be for attorney fees, rent and sanctions because of putting the investor's attorney through frivolous litigation.

Declan objected to canceling the trial. We flew in an expert said Declan. We have other witnesses. Objection overruled. He was told that he could file an "Offer of Proof" with the expert's report, but that was it. The court wasn't interested in "re-litigating" Sanders' assertions. (Hey – when was it "litigated" for the first time? THIS was supposed to be the trial!) The title issue is over said Perricone. The investor's title is good. Shut up, sit down and stay out of the way. We're about to really *&%$ Linda Sanders now.

I walked out of court that day without having had a chance to put on a defense. I was homeless and now had a judgment against me and my ex-husband, for $50,000.00, for rent assessed between the time the notice to vacate was served upon me the previous October, until the day of eviction in February, and attorney fees. How could I owe "rent" when I never had a lease with the investor? I was ordered to pay the investor's attorney fees because my argument, and accusing the IRS of lying, was a frivolous defense – not that I'd had much time to indulge in a defense – frivolous or otherwise.

Feeling pity for me, Declan offered to appeal for me. I was to assist him with research and writing, but he would file the paperwork. He was confident, he said, that the Court of Appeals could not ignore the fact that the entire process had been done under Title 13 - eviction statutes - rather than Title 38 which governs property conveyances. Therefore, no title was conveyed. Without the right procedure, the court had no jurisdiction so the order to evict was void. He also felt that the Court of Appeals could not ignore the Expert Witness report, demonstrating that Ruth Williams had lied when she said the seizure numbers were changed to match the new fiscal year, which hid the fact that the old seizure records had been altered and no notices had been served for the second seizure process.

I cashed the IRS surplus check Declan had been holding, and paid his fees. I also used the money to pay the expert witness, along with his air fare, the costs of litigation and moving. It was clear that restitution was going to take a lot longer than I'd thought. I had to find a place to live.

May, 1995

I received notice from my mortgagor. They were going to begin foreclosing because I had missed three mortgage payments. I had quit paying the mortgage from the month I was evicted. I was amused. I was already evicted but the Foreclosure Notice informed me that as the owner of record, I had property rights protected by law which I had to exercise if I wanted to save the property during foreclosure. And by the way, the notice informed me, I had the right to occupy the property for six weeks after the Rule 120 Foreclosure hearing, to be held in August. Right. Then why was I evicted in February? I guess confusion reigns when a judge doesn't follow the law.

I drafted an Appeal brief. The alleged errors committed by the court below were listed on the first few pages. There were 12 of them. I asserted that the Court had unlawfully voided Title 38, the entire body of statute that governs title conveyance. The state court had effectively permitted an IRS auction to substitute for the statutorily mandated judicial procedures governing distressed property sales. In Colorado, only the Public Trustee had the power to convey titles in forced property sales. For some reason, the district court was ignoring that fact. I pointed out that even Federal Court decisions confess that an IRS Deed does not convey the title, but only an interest in the house, U.S. v Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 320, therefore, the eviction without foreclosure, was illegal. Colorado law requires that all mortgages be foreclosed, and that a title cannot be conveyed absent a foreclosure process, CRS 38-37-117, CRS 38-39-102(a)(1) and that a state (or federal) foreclosure is necessary after an administrative tax lien sale if there is still a mortgage on the property.

The only way the title could be conveyed, if not through judicial foreclosure under state law, was through court proceeding under federal law, 26 USC 7403, and 28 USC 2001 and 2002. They hadn't done any of this. All they'd done was have an auction of a lien. Not a title. And you can't claim 100% title ownership with a lien. And you can't evict an occupant when you hold only partial ownership. Right? In fact, I pointed out, if the property had been properly foreclosed, the Bank wouldn't be filing foreclosure documents with the local courts and notifying me of my right to cure and live in the house after I'd already been evicted! I used all the foreclosure notices, recently sent to me, to supplement my argument in my appeal brief. See, your honors, if the title had been conveyed lawfully, the Bank wouldn't still think I was the owner of record and be notifying me of my cure and redeem rights. Confident that I couldn't lose, I settled in to wait. I made lists of damages I'd suffered. By now, I had moved into a filthy little condominium, the only thing I could afford that was available in the middle of a month in dead of winter. We had to give our dog away, a Bishon Frise, because the landlord had the nerve to say dogs ruin carpeting. His carpeting was already disgusting. My daughter cried endlessly, not understanding why everything was happening and why she couldn't keep her puppy. We had to get up before dawn so that I could drive her to school, because we'd had to move way outside the school district. On the way to school on those icy mornings, I reassured her that the bad experience we were going through was going to have it's advantages. We were building an inventory of life experience upon which we could assess and evaluate future decisions – an invaluable asset, I said. We are experiencing the full range of emotions available to humans – disappointment, despair, fear, anger, anticipation ..... Our ability to appreciate the important things was being enhanced, (lucky US!) I said. Sorta like surviving a near death experience. You suddenly don't care about things like, a bad hair day, or a dent in the car – or someone cutting in line. She failed to see my point. She was 12. Her grieving made it impossible for me to enjoy anything any more – I couldn't laugh at comedies – I couldn't share someone else's joy. My heart was handicapped and I could not sever my constant emotional pain from my daily reactions to everything. I was described as "abrasive", "cold", "unfriendly." I now understand the relationship between people who appear unfriendly and the possibility that they suffer some undisclosed personal pain. The only time my own pain wasn't surfaced was when I numbed my brain with un-prescribed painkiller.

Jack Daniels.

June 1995

I filed a grievance with the Judicial Review Committee over Perricone denying me a trial and suppressing my prepared evidence. It took only two weeks for me to get a letter back saying that the committee had declined to investigate my allegations. If you don't like a court decision, they said, take it up on appeal. "Not liking" a court decision wasn't the case here, I thought. The issue is Aiding and Abetting theft and perjury. But silly me, I learned through public records that many judges – Perricone especially – were investors in distressed property. Maybe they all made a little money buying up "bargains" and turning a blind eye to silly details – like the law.

I thought that I could intercept the cruel and obvious injustice of the Perricone court order by bringing a criminal action against the IRS agent. I believed that the IRS expert who I had employed for my trial, but whose testimony was precluded from the record by Perricone, the judge, would provide the basis for a criminal investigation of perjury committed by the IRS agent, Ruth Williams. I made an appointment with Detective Mike Gallagher. I told him that Ms. Williams lied to cover up a major denial of due process when taking my home. I told Mike Gallagher that the IRS said seizure numbers change with the fiscal year and to match the budget just so she could make it appear that the IRS had followed the law in taking my home which took 20 years to work for. She committed perjury, I said, and it cost me my home. Do something. Prosecute. Make them give me my home back. Mike said he would submit my complaint and get back with me to advise me whether or not my case would be accepted for prosecution. You know, he said, the District Attorney makes those decisions and you know - his wife Shirley is an IRS agent? In Denver? With the same office as the woman you're accusing? His partner, Ray Ketcher reminded me that prosecutions such as I was asking for, were political issues. He suggested I wait for the next election, which hopefully, Dave Thomas wouldn't survive. (He did).

For the next few weeks I called, pestered and insisted until Mike finally told me I could pick up my record and I would be informed of the department's decision. Mike sat at a table with me, while the District Attorney's deputy, Frank Oldham, told me that they couldn't see anything wrong. I looked over at Mike. He averted his eyes by looking out the window behind me. I argued with Mr. Oldham. How can you people accept this perjury? The agent lied for the sole purpose of upholding theft! Look! She said "they change seizure numbers with each October!" That's ridiculous! I gave you a tape recording of my conversation with IRS data headquarters in Maryland, where the clerk said they absolutely couldn't change seizure record numbers – it would cause a data entry nightmare! And this lie about paying expenses out of a seizure budget that begins with the new fiscal year – I gave you proof that the only bill from the year before was a title search – and that was paid by VISA – not a seizure budget! How can you accept these lies? Mr. Oldham stammered while he answered my questions. "Well, see, the IRS doesn't pay off the VISA card every month – so you see, the money they borrow on it rolls over to the new fiscal year – so I see how they could say that....".

Oh. I get it. No matter how ridiculous you look by doing it – you will protect the IRS with any excuse whatever. Even one that makes you look foolish.

I knew that they knew what was happening was wrong. But hey, Mike Gallagher said, life isn't always fair. Some one always gets shit on. Even the law.

July, 1995

I decided that since the state judge, Perricone, had stated for the record that he didn't adjudicate federal law, then I should take the federal question into federal court. I thought it was my chance to present the issues thoroughly, with all the discovery procedures I should have been allowed in the state court proceedings. I filed suit under the Tax Code provision for demanding damages for an "erroneously or illegally collected tax". I named the IRS as the defendant, and left the investor out of it. The first thing the United States did was to file a motion to dismiss under res judicata, (issue already decided by another court) or if that didn't work, said the United States, then how about collateral estoppel (issue should have been decided by the other court, but wasn't brought up). Next, the U.S. Attorney moved to have a stay on discovery pending the ruling on their motion to dismiss. The court didn't rule on either. We began moving forward through discovery supervised by the magistrate, Judge Pringle.

August, 1995

Meanwhile, back in state court, I appeared for the state court proceedings under Rule 120 (foreclosure) in August, as commanded by the notice I had received earlier. The bank attorney was there. Out in the hallway, he asked me if I wanted to cure the 4 months of delinquent house payments. I said yes. He said great. Let's tell the judge. We appeared before the judge and the judge said great. Case closed.

I said, just one question, your honor. Am I allowed by law to live in my house during foreclosure?

Of course.

Okay, can you give me an order to that effect?

Why?

I need to get back in my house. I was already evicted.

The judge looked confused. By whom?

The judge down the hall, Perricone, I said.                                                       

Well then, said the judge, go ask him for an order to re-occupy your house. I don't want to get involved.

I thought it was your job, your honor, to get involved with legal process and procedure. I was illegally evicted before this foreclosure. Aren't you the one in charge of foreclosures and the related evictions?

Shaking his head, the Honorable Christopher J. Munch announced that the hearing was over. And to this day, the public records show the foreclosure was withdrawn – and title was never conveyed from Harvey and Linda Burge as required by Colorado's Title 38.

The kangaroo proceedings in Perricone's court were a joke to the dignity of the law but Munch wasn't going to admit it, much less correct it. Take it up on appeal, he said. I was to learn that this attitude – this blatant abdication of responsibility in the face of absolute lawless conduct on the part of colleagues, was the rule, not the exception. But, ruthlessly, I pressed on, in search of one good judge. So far, I had a state court appeal in progress, a state court foreclosure in progress, a federal court case in progress and I was about to add another court to the mix. Somewhere around here, I thought, there's got to be ONE judge who support the law impartially. Was s/he in bankruptcy court?

(Any professionals reading this will be saying it's impossible to have the same issue simultaneously in several courts. I agree. UNLESS of course, no one is following the law. Then the fun begins. Jurisdiction, when not followed, becomes a free-for-all).

Right about now, Behr began to garnish Harvey's paycheck for the bonus award (a $50,000.00 judgment) which he'd been given besides the $240,000.00 house. He filed a wage levy against Harvey's paycheck which forced Harvey to declare bankruptcy so we could catch our breath. But the Bankruptcy court judge, Donald Cordova, not only sided with the IRS, but dismissed the bankruptcy, leaving Harvey unprotected from Behr's collection efforts. This judge even told Harvey that he was a fool for joining his ex-wife in defending his property from the IRS. The bankruptcy was dismissed as an unscrupulous filing which was intended only to deprive Behr of his bonus – since Harvey had no other outstanding debts.

While Harvey was in bankruptcy, I filed an adversary proceeding against the Trustee of the estate, asserting that the appeal on house litigation should be severed from the "bankruptcy estate" in that the house was still in our names because the state foreclosure process said so. At the same time, I demanded that the state foreclosure process stop, since the house was in bankruptcy. The entire mess was a joke. Had the house been properly foreclosed by Behr before the eviction process – there would have been no confusion about who was on the title to the property. Behr said HE was the owner – but the Jefferson County Public Trustee said Harvey and Linda Burge owned the property until it was foreclosed, so Harvey and Linda were receiving all the "right to cure" notices. Until foreclosed, the mortgage on the house was still active and in our names – according to Colorado foreclosure law. The foreclosure sale of "the Burge" property was advertised to take place on August 23 – 5 months after I'd been unlawfully removed from my own home – which title was still in my name because no lawful process was used to convey it out of my name. If it had – the Public Trustee would not have had me on record as the owner upon whom to serve foreclosure notices.

I presented the previously suppressed evidence regarding the misrepresented tax code as explained by the expert witness – the one Perricone had precluded from my "trial". Eventually the bankruptcy court judge presiding over my adversary proceeding, Marcia Kreiger, dismissed my case without hearing the issues. Talk to the state court of appeals she said. Well no – I said – doesn't your federal bankruptcy law supercede and stay all state proceedings? She wouldn't get involved if the IRS was involved.

September 1995

In a moment of madness – as I see it now – I wrote to the Regional Director of the IRS – the Director who was in charge of disciplining renegade behavior of IRS agents, an "Internal Inspections Department". I supplied him with all the evidence of the fraud committed by Ruth Williams, and asked if he would repair the damage administratively. Within a mere few days of my letter, Gary Bell wrote back that after a "thorough investigation" he could find nothing wrong with the procedures employed in collecting tax from me. This Gary Bell was included in the Shelly David book, "Unbridled Power", in 1998, about corrupt and abusive IRS Officers. Gary Bell, like many others within the IRS structure, was the reason the public had been so long abused by the IRS, necessitating the exposure through books, whistleblowers, and finally, congressional hearings in 1998. Undaunted, I narrowed my focus to the remedy within the courts. Still looking for that elusive "one good judge."

December, 1995

At last, the State Court of Appeals had entered a decision. Declan had forwarded their opinion to me. The opinion was written by Metzgar, Roy and Hume. (Claus Hume is Chief Judge now).

We find no error. Maybe the rent calculations are little excessive, but hey, we've decided that this IRS auction was just as good as a court proceeding to convey property rights, [statutes be damned] and the resulting IRS deed represents 100% ownership, even if there is an active mortgage on the property and the bank owns some of the house. Compliance with Colorado Statute isn't necessary if it becomes a nuisance to enforce. And since Sanders' was at the auction, even if only to complain about not getting proper notices, her presence was equivalent to "adequate" due process. Due process is anything we say it is. IRS decided she couldn't have gotten a mortgage anyway, so why bother with giving her time to apply for one? And Sanders' cashed the IRS check to pay her attorney, so even if it was issued illegally, as she asserts, she waived the issue of fraud. Fraud – perjury – whatever – can be made legal when we say so. Far be it for us to invite an argument with the IRS. We don't want an audit. Judgment affirmed but remanded to recalculate the rent.

I was amazed at my ability to withstand pain. My heart had already been ripped out, glued back together, and now - it was being crushed again and.......I still wasn't dead! I decided to go up on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The state court had interpreted IRS auction to be equivalent to a state foreclosure procedure – in violation of all Colorado title conveyance laws. That was an unconstitutional application of law, in contradiction to previous Supreme Court decisions, and in conflict with other state interpretations of federal tax law. I also raised the issue of the trial being cancelled and my expert witnesses' testimony being suppressed, as an obstruction of justice. Not surprisingly, the petition was denied.

Meanwhile, my case in federal court against the IRS agent herself, was still alive under the supervision of Judge Pringle.

January 1996

After filing a Motion to Compel the Department of Justice to cooperate in discovery, I uncovered more and more evidence of the lies which had spewed forth from Agent Ruth Williams mouth in the state proceedings. I acquired the contract between the IRS and the local auctioneer – the one agent Ruth Williams had said required the changing of my seizure number because that contract required paying the auctioneer from a new fiscal year's "seizure budget". I discovered that the contract didn't even begin until the autumn after my illegal sale. The auctioneer had been operating on a free lance basis, being paid from the proceeds of each sale according to Section 6342 of the Code.

When I pointed out this contradiction, the U.S. attorney filed a blizzard of self serving "rebuttal" affidavits from IRS agents involved in the sale, as evidence of the proper procedures. This scramble for an explanation contradicted the written record, so I moved to have them thrown out under the Rules of Evidence and the tax laws, 26 USC 6340. (Records prepared especially for litigation are invalid, and if not part of the official IRS Record 21, they are deemed unreliable).

The IRS had fabricated more documents for this second litigation, and I caught them in more lies and making more alterations. I gloated. I called the U.S. Attorney and pointed out all the holes in his case. I suggested that if he ignored this evidence, he would be guilty of conspiring to hide the altered evidence. I had paid a jury fee and couldn't wait for my day in court. The trial was scheduled for April 15, 1996. I was going to be loaded for bear. I dreamed of bringing down every IRS agent who had touched my case file. And the Department of Justice attorneys who were willfully encouraging fraud and perjury to protect their clients.

March 15, 1996

I received a telephone message from the federal court clerk from Judge Sparr's chambers. The pretrial conference had been postponed, she said, because the U.S. Attorney could not fly in from Washington D.C. I would be informed of the continued date. Okay, I thought. No problem. The trial was still on.

But no notice of a new date arrived. No matter, I thought, the pre-trial conference would have been a waste of time anyway. I filed my final motions, according to the dates imposed by the Scheduling Order. I practiced what I would say to the jury. Imagining the long awaited verdict for victory from a jury of my taxpaying peers was almost as sweet as the first kiss.

April 8, 1996

I called the court clerk again. I asked what had happened to the pretrial conference we were supposed to have. Trial was only a week away. Oh - she said – good thing you called – trial is being postponed. You'll get a notice in the mail. The judge (Judge Daniel Sparr) is not going to be in town – he has to vacate his calendar. I slowly hung up the phone. I could hardly believe it. They were obstructing justice. There was no other way to put it. It was the first time I was scared of the extent of the corruption of the courts that I was being made aware of. I stared out of the window. The feeling of dread enveloped me. Could it be that bad? I'd heard that when the IRS really wants to scare the public they persecute someone who doesn't owe alot of taxes – this shows the middle class that the IRS will plunder for any amount, big or small. And the IRS isn't "afraid" of the courts – the courts just do as they are told by the Department of Justice attorneys. This bit of information was recently confirmed by Denver Post journalist, Mike McPhee, on July 27, 2000 on the front page. At the end of his article about vicious federal guards beating up prisoners, he writes that the civil rights law suit filed by a beat up prisoner has "been stayed indefinitely at the request of the government." Hmmm. How can a case be "stayed indefinitely"? Wouldn't that be "burying it" ? Otherwise known as obstructing justice? Tampering with a judge? Corrupting the judicial process? I had the pleasure of meeting Mike McPhee back when I was begging the media to tell my story. He told me that he knew of me – thought I was married to a lawyer who was writing my pleadings. (Thanks, but no, I was writing my own pleadings). He told me that the judges and D.O.J. lawyers talk about me over their scotch in the local hangout. They call me a fruitcake. Mr. McPhee also told me that exposès such as mine were controlled by the editor – and no, the editor didn't want to mess with this IRS story.

April 15, 2000

Today was the day I was supposed to have my justice. But the trial was canceled because the judge was going to be "out of town" that day. I decided to go to the court and see if the judge was really "out of town". Call me a masochist. I went right up to his chambers. I heard his voice from his office. I peeked in. He was on the phone, complaining to someone about how judges are subjected to all sorts of terrible remarks from disgruntled parties. He didn't see me. He was too self absorbed.

A few days after that an Order arrived from the Federal District Court. My case was dismissed. One year after filing a motion to dismiss – Judge Sparr decided to rule on it He granted the IRS's motion to dismiss the whole mess. After all the discovery, depositions, briefing and trial preparation – the judge suddenly decided to grant the first motion the U.S. attorney had filed. Only two reasons could exist for such a delayed order. Both of them despicable. The Department of Justice had demanded it from judge, or because I wasn't the dummy they had expected me to be, and I was likely to win in front of a jury. I had disclosed the damning and embarrassing exhibits I was planning on using, as required by rules of discovery. The federal court order basically said that the federal issue I raised was handled by the state court previously notwithstanding the state judge (Perricone) had specifically precluded addressing "federal questions" in his court. Even though Judge Pringle had permitted me to gather evidence regarding the issue, subsequent to that state proceeding, it was not going to be reviewed. "To have a full and fair opportunity to present evidence," said Judge Sparr, "does not mean that a plaintiff be allowed to present any evidence she wishes," Sanders v U.S. 105 F. 3d 669. No sirree. Not when it exposes corruption. This is such great logic that its been quoted in other cases. Judge Cordova, of the U.S. Bankruptcy court (who also refused to permit evidence which would expose IRS perjury when Harvey and I were in bankruptcy court) quoted this opinion of Judge Sparr in an article he co-wrote for the Colorado Lawyer, October 1998, on page 67.  He needed to.  He needed to try justify obstructing justice and suppressing evidence when he encountered Harvey, my ex, who was forced to declare bankruptcy after the district court raping.    I wonder if criminals can quote this case when they need to suppress evidence? 

Judge Cordova  precluded Harvey the remedy of bankruptcy - by dismissing him out of court without relief  - by holding that it was fraudulent of Harvey (a Viet Vet who had nothing to do with my IRS opinions) to sign the IRS "surplus" check over to me instead of giving it all to Behr - on top of the house profits.  Judge Cordova first said that Harvey and I had no obligation to give Behr the "surplus check" because it represented home equity - homesteading rights -  and federal law allows a bankrupt person to keep that much home equity (the surplus check)  to "start anew".    (Transcript page 68-69 beginning with  line 13).   But then, Judge Cordova contradicted himself and entered an order saying Harvey defrauded Behr by not giving the surplus check over to him.   These judges must think no one smells shit when they shovel  it all over the courtroom.  

So Judge Sparr (in federal district court) ignored the transcript where the state judge, Perricone, had stated in the eviction hearing that he "didn't take jurisdiction over federal laws" and would not rule on the IRS procedures.  Instead, he said  he could not enter a ruling on the IRS procedures because the state judge already adjudicated it. My life was a game of political football to them.

Where do you go from there? When the very courts themselves were the adversary? Like the scene in the movie, "Rocky", I saw myself on the mat, bruised, bloody, swollen and broken, but pulling myself up, spitting out broken teeth, peering from the corner of the one half-closed eye I had left, raising my fist and screaming, YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME!! I'M GOING TO APPEAL! I'LL SHOW YOU!

April 1997

By now, the Colorado Supreme Court had my appeal on the state side, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had my appeal on the federal side. I had begged the IRS themselves, for a remedy to no avail. I had written to the Judicial Review Commission to complain about the judges who were ignoring the law. I had asked the local District Attorney to prosecute the perjury and document falsification. So far. Nothing. Most people would have given up by now. But not a little Irish redhead. I was obsessed. The more the courts denied me justice, the more outraged I became. Someone told me about Quo Warranto. I looked it up in Black's Law Dictionary. Quo Warranto was described as an action to "prevent the exercise of powers that are not conferred by law...." Because it was obvious to me, that the judges in my case were altering statute, or rewriting it, legislating from the bench. Clearly not within their powers. Colorado had included this common law remedy which permits a member of the public to sue government officials in their Rules of Civil Procedure at Rule 106, in statute at CRS 16-5-209, and in their Constitution at Article 6 Section 3. A Quo Warranto action provides a cause of action against an official who refuses to do his duty. I figured that if there ever was a district attorney refusing to do his duty to prosecute perjury – then Dave Thomas was it. The fact that his wife was an IRS agent, and associated with the agents in Denver who had perpetrated their crimes against me, should have required that he have a special prosecutor appointed – instead of just ignoring my complaint. I had the classic elements necessary to file the action against the District Attorney and the Colorado judges who had denied me justice.

I imagine I looked rabid as I typed at my computer, preparing the Quo Warranto complaint which was filed in Jefferson County as 97 CV 852. I documented my quest, each step of the way and each denial I had been slapped with. First, Judge Gaspar Perricone had exercised authority with no jurisdiction – in that he permitted an eviction action without the prior, statutorily required court judgment under foreclosure law. Then he suppressed evidence and obstructed justice by canceling my trial and turning it into a damages hearing without notice. He had denied my asking for a Stay of Eviction pending appeal, even though the statute requires that I be permitted that option. He'd had me evicted in 9 days, prior to the automatic 2 week stay provided by Rule 62(a) and prior to trial. Then, I documented how the judge who conducted my bank's foreclosure hearing in July, six months after my eviction, refused to acknowledge the obvious contradictions in lawful foreclosure procedure in that I'd been illegally evicted in February. The absurdity of the proceedings over which he presided was proof positive that the earlier eviction must have been illegal, yet he turned a blind eye to it. Then, I accused the three judge panel in the Court of Appeals of aiding and abetting the crimes perpetrated upon me – by upholding each and every unlawful act. Their order was replete with misrepresentations of the action below. Their order said that I had failed to present evidence "at trial", ignoring the fact that the transcript – and the docketing records - revealed that the "trial" had been arbitrarily vacated and my evidence, along with my Expert Witness, was suppressed. They asserted that cashing an IRS refund check ratified the fraud – even though such check never existed by virtue of never becoming evidence. On the one hand, the judges stated that they could not rule on an issue not raised below – yet on the other hand, went right ahead and ruled on the issue of an IRS surplus check that had not been raised below nor entered as "evidence".

Perhaps my endurance to litigate was possible only because all the lawsuits I filed were, if nothing else, excellent therapy.

Pursuant to Colorado statute, CRS 16-5-209, I filed my Quo Warranto complaint in District Court and served the district attorney's office with strict compliance with Rule 4. Very shortly, much to my surprise, the case was turned over to the State Court Administrator, who appointed a visiting judge to hear my issue. I anxiously awaited July 3, 1997 to go before the retired Judge Behrman. The emotional roller coaster of hope was chugging up the next incline. Maybe this is justice....maybe this is justice......maybe this is justice ......

July 1997

The court called my Quo Warranto case. The District Attorney's office was the defendant and two assistant D.A.'s had been assigned to appear and defend. After the introductions the Judge invited the district attorney to advise him of the issues. The D.A. handed the Judge a copy of the Court of Appeals order which affirmed the trial court's conduct of the eviction procedure. The Judge announced that if the current action before the bar was to overrule a decision by judges in the Court of Appeals, then he couldn't grant the relief requested. I promptly asked him what the Quo Warranto procedure was for, then. I asked him if Judges are required to follow the law. I pointed out that I intended to prove that there was evidence of perjury in the action which was ruled upon by the Court of Appeals. I asserted that the D.A.'s office was dismissing the perjury as irrelevant, and that I believed this decision was arbitrary and capricious, and only made because the D.A's wife, Shirley Thomas, was an IRS agent, and friends with the perjurer. I asserted that because the courts were not enforcing Colorado Law, I was evicted before any foreclosure process was employed, and therefore, denied due process. As I continued, I entered into evidence the record of the perjury, the evidence which contradicted the perjury, (the statements from the previously denied testimony of IRS expert Steve Nestor), the evidence of the Order to evict me (by Perricone) and the subsequent conflicting Order from a different court (Munch) telling me I was the owner of the property with the right to cure and redeem it. If anyone was following the law around here, this convoluted mess wouldn't have happened. What a fiasco. What an insult to the alleged dignity of the court system.

The judge still insisted that he could not effect a remedy if it would overrule a superior court's order and decision.

"Are you saying, then, your honor, that a court order can permit a crime, as long as it's sanctioned by a higher court? Judges can permit theft with impunity?"

"Well, if a judge were to be so unwise to do that, your recourse would be to a higher court – to require the judge to correct his error, but this is not that higher court."

"I went to the higher court – the Supreme Court – who denied the relief. So what then?"

"Then you must go to the court that has jurisdiction over the IRS, we don't have any jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service or their proceedings," said the judge.

"Well then, how could Judge Perricone make a valid Order regarding the IRS laws and procedures, which resulted in evicting me if he had no jurisdiction over the IRS laws?"

The judge responded with all the wisdom of his years and integrity:

"Would you please not continue to do that," (contradict him with the irritating truth). Page 47, Line 19, Transcript of July 3, 1997.

After closing arguments, the Judge entered a ruling for the Quo Warranto action. If the Court of Appeals says nothing was wrong with the application of law, then Nothing is Wrong. Linda loses.

Squeeze your eyes shut, Linda. The Roller Coaster is screaming down again.

Hunched over my keyboard, eyes glazed over with unsurpassed righteous indignation, I prepared the Notice of Appeal. When I filed it, it was assigned to Division 1. The very same judges against whom I'd filed the grievances listed in the Quo Warranto. I motioned them to recuse from the case. Motion denied. What!? They're going to rule on their own suit? I did a special Writ to the Supreme Court, under Supreme Court Rule 21, to demand that the higher court cause Division 1 of the Court of Appeals to recuse themselves. Petition denied. While there was abundant case law which held that if a judge might appear in the slightest way, to be personally affected or interested in the case at bar, they must recuse, no one was making them recuse.

For once, I admitted defeat.

I filed a Motion to Withdraw my Appeal in the Quo Warranto action – pointing out that it was absurd for an appeal to be reviewed by the same judges who were complained of in the action. I had filed grievances with the judicial review committee, I had filed an action against the District Attorney for failing to prosecute perjury and theft, I had filed an action against the judges who ignored the evidence of perjury and theft. Nothing mattered – I kept losing.

Admitting the defeat finally killed everything that I'd believed in. To add insult to injury, it was about now that in a moment of candor, Declan told me happily, that he'd won probation for his client, convicted of child molestation – and it was because Perricone was giving him a break – since he'd been so "tough" in that "other case" (mine). Beaming, Declan recounted how Judge Perricone had walked up to him in the lobby of the courthouse – and - throwing his arm around Declan's shoulders, Perricone said, "I owe you one, don't I? For that tax protestor?" Eventually, the child molester violated probation and ended up getting a full sentence – but if only the parents of the little girls had known how sentences are issued – they wouldn't have wasted their time making a showing at every hearing during the molester's proceedings thinking it made any difference in the outcome.

For me, "justice and integrity" were words that belonged to the same category as the tooth fairly and Santa Claus. Like it or not, I concluded, the "men" on benches could not be impartial and maintain faithfulness to the law. The system has a vested interest in denying justice under certain circumstances – and suppressing exposure of corruption within the system, is one of those circumstances. I'd been used by the system to educate the public about what happens when you attempt to demand integrity from the IRS, and the system, (the "system" being defined as the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government). The courts are paid through tax dollars, collected by the IRS, a subcontractor of the executive branch. This system of payment was not how it began, however. To aid the integrity of justice, and to insure an impartial judge, the Constitution once made it illegal for Judges to pay tax. Article III ¶1 of the Constitution, which precludes "diminishing" a judge's salary, was interpreted, prior to 1932, as forbidding the taxation of a judge's wages. This can be confirmed by reading the Supreme Court case, Evans v Gore, 253 U.S. 254. However, when the system determined that judges can be beneficially controlled through their paychecks, this provision was deleted through the Revenue Act of June 6, 1932, (called the Public Salary Tax Act). Some judges brought a case against such imposition of taxes on their salaries, O'Malley v Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 and were permitted to be untaxed until they left the bench. But, all who came after had to waive this constitutional provision to be untaxed. The lesson to me, however, was that the courts, since 1932, cannot be impartial and governed by integrity – it would mean biting the hand that feeds them.

The only remedy still left, I thought then, was to fight fire with fire.

January through December 1998

Feeling as though there was nothing left to lose, I thought I might as well continue what I'd started. I was destitute, homeless but not yet gagged. Being commissioned to write as a journalist, (I was approved by the Department of Justice for access into the McVeigh trial after an extensive background check intended to eliminate radicals and dangerous subversives) I boldly wrote articles for "Right Wing Conservative" publications. I was asked to report "live" to a Christian radio show out of Texas, and to send my reports to various other conservative media outlets. Attending the McVeigh trial was another eye-opener. I had first hand knowledge of what transpired within the courtroom every day, and then compared it to what was reported for the public the next morning by mainstream media. I personally witnessed how the media edits the facts to arrive at a given conclusion. The public wasn't told all the testimony of Frederick Whitehurst, an FBI agent who worked in the forensic labs, (there was no fertilizer residue on any of the bombed truck parts or building debris – only on one tiny piece of plywood which was found by an agent who didn't have a name, or about the psychological torture employed against McVeigh's sister, etc.) I became more and more inspired to speak out at public gatherings. On one such occasion I spoke to Barry Serafin, reporter for ABC news who prepared news stories for ABC news – with Peter Jennings. I was asked about "common law courts" and why the sudden interest in them by right-wing groups. I was happy to explain "common law" as referred to in the 7th Amendment. One thing led to another and we talked about how "militia" members were slandered by the media, yet the Colorado Constitution required a militia and that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 were part of it whether they knew it or not, Article 17 of Colorado Constitution. We talked about whether or not the gold fringed flag in a court room signified a military jurisdiction (as clearly set forth by Title 4 of the U.S. Code). We discussed various victimless crimes and their constitutionality.

About a year later I learned that my interview with Barry Serafin had been edited (and distorted) into a show for the Discovery Channel regarding anti government terrorists. Given the implications of the Anti-terrorist Act which was enacted as a response to the McVeigh incident, and the fact that merely expressing one's criticism of government qualifies one to be marked as dangerous (justifying a death shot by any law enforcement officer who "feels" threatened), I demanded that the show be terminated. ABC dug in their heels and told me, basically, to piss up a rope. I decided to sue them. This was like shooting an elephant with a BB gun but – I had to do it to preserve my own reputation. Complacency or acquiescence would have made me an "anti-government terrorist" subject to shooting on sight if a cop "felt the need" to preserve his own safety.

So once again, I was using the courts to demand justice. I filed suit in county court – and demanded a jury trial because the Colorado Constitution at Art. II Sec. 10 absolutely requires that a jury determine whether or not the media oversteps the protections of "freedom of speech and press" by distorting the truth or issuing propaganda. The first thing ABC did was hire the most respected First Amendment lawyer in Denver to come against me – a pro se - which flattered me endlessly. (Mr. Tom Kelley). Then, they asserted that the county court had no jurisdiction to hear the issue – but would the county court please transfer the case to the district court? I was incredulous. If the court had no jurisdiction – the only thing it can do is dismiss. It can't cure the jurisdiction by ruling on a motion to transfer – because it can't rule on anything when it has no jurisdiction. I really started to wonder if there were any judges out there qualified to make decisions, other than Judge Pringle, or if their only qualifications were political connections. Over my objections to curing the jurisdiction, the county court judge transferred the case to higher court. Judge Coughlin in Denver District Court was now about to become acquainted with the pro se from hell. But I'd decided not to make much of an issue over the usurped jurisdiction – the filing fee I'd paid in the county court was much less than it would have been if I'd started in district court.

The first thing Judge Coughlin did was deny my jury trial. I said, whoa, this isn't negotiable. Look at the Colorado Constitution, Article II Section 10. Only a jury decides if the press has overstepped it's bounds. The judge said, watch this. I don't have to enforce the constitution. And who are you to try and stop me.

In the end, the court ruled against me. Said ABC can present material any way they want because it's for the "public good". I wonder if a jury would have felt the same way about lies, distortions and suppressed truth? I wonder if a defendant can kill someone saying it was for the public good? (OOPS! Don't give anyone ideas about judges!!!)

ABC did pull the segment off the air, and I was satisfied to have accomplished that much – the piece was terminated.

The disturbing pattern was becoming evident. In all my encounters with the courts, I found they were always ignoring the law and supplanting it with something they made up as they went along.

By doing freelance work16 with those who preferred to go pro se into  the  courts, I had become exposed to many other instances where judges contemptuously ignored the law to make sure that a "bottom line" ruling prevailed. That bottom line was "government policy" no matter what the law says. Civil disobedience to unconscionable law was no longer a way of shining a light on bad law – it was to be punished severely in favor of "police powers".

 Any civil rights attorney will tell you they have been exposed to the fact that government policy supercedes "rights." They are generally the men and women lawyers who are noted for being cynical and obnoxious socially. But is it any wonder? When the ideals that are taught in American law conflict so violently with reality – it's enough to make anyone contemptuous of "the American dream".

March 1998

One of the advocates of Truth in Government who I'd campaigned with for tax reform, Jan Meisinger, told me that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell was going to hold Senate Hearings on IRS abuse. She encouraged me to find if my case qualified for review. When I contacted the Senator's office, I was invited to submit my story. After an interview with Ricardo LaFore, and confessing that I had once been labeled a "tax protestor" (such label having been removed since) I was told that I could testify before the Senate Finance Committee on April 14 because the law applies to the IRS and "tax protestors" alike – whatever "tax protestor" means, said Ricardo. I asked, and was permitted to use an overhead projector and visual aids to illustrate and support my allegations of falsified documents that covered up the fact that the IRS had taken my home and life's savings without any compliance with law.

April 14, 1998

        I arrived at the designated location for the Senate Finance Committee Hearings into IRS abuse of taxpayers. I was nervous, but once again, at the top of the roller coaster ride. I kept remembering the story of the tortoise and hare. The tortoise won because he kept going – without distraction – his intended goal.

After being introduced by Senator Campbell, I began my narrative. I explained how I'd had "protested" the capital gains taxes to begin with – how unfair it was to punish Americans who sold their homes to "buy down" and live within their means rather than go bankrupt. I explained that I had been active in campaigning my Congressmen for tax reform and how I'd been targeted by the IRS for my outspokenness. Then showed how I'd self-assessed a tax liability for having sold my home in New York and buying a smaller, cheaper house to replace it with. I showed how my house in Colorado was liened for the paper profit difference between the house sold and house purchased, e.g. a capital gains tax of $26,000.00. I showed how the house had been seized for a tax sale in 1993, and released after I'd asked the White House to intervene. Then, I showed how Harvey's wages had been garnished to address the tax debt. Lastly, I showed on the overhead protection, the falsified documents prepared by the IRS to make it appear that I'd been noticed fairly, according to law, when they finally sold my house out from under me, for $69,000.00 without the prior 40-day notices.

Before a hushed audience, Senator Campbell asked the Commissioner to respond.

"I'll have my people look at this and get back with you", he said.

          In August, 1998, the official Senate Report, with the Commissioner's     responses   to all the abuses brought to his attention on April 14, 1998 was published. In it, on page 65 and 66 the Commissioner admitted that the excuses offered by the IRS agent to explain the falsified documents were lies. (The agent had said the documents were altered because the new fiscal year required altering all active seizure documents. The truth was that seizure numbers do NOT change with the fiscal year). The numbers on my documents were altered to substitute the documents served in 1993 to appear as the ones that should have been served in 1994. In fact, no notices were served in 1994 – the house was abruptly sold with the specific intent of depriving me of time to get a loan, resulting in all the equity being converted to the purchaser along with the house. (Interestingly enough, the purchaser, Mr. Behr was on a "special list" of bidders – and the "certified checks" he used to allegedly pay for the house were made payable to ..... himself! See appendix. Go figure).

"No, seizure numbers do not change with the fiscal year, Senator Campbell."

        When the IRS refused to settle up with me, I  took this confession into court in February 1999 as an "independent action"    under Rule 60(b)(5) to re-open a case without the preclusions of res judicata or collateral estoppel. I successfully argued that because the Senate Hearing produced "newly acquired evidence", the theory of re-litigating old issues was inapplicable. Judge Polidori denied my opponent's motions to dismiss and set the case for an evidentiary hearing on October 22, 1999. However, Polidori did preclude my motion for a jury trial. Once again – the risk of the public hearing the case was too dangerous.

Employing everything I had learned about the tricks within the "rules", I was loaded for bear. I had the "official" Senate Report certified under Rules of Evidence, I had another Expert Witness retained – one who herself, had worked in "collections" and who had an impeccable reputation for knowledge of the law, being impartial with spotless integrity17.

        I was excited. The roller coaster was going up again.

October 22, 1999

Pursuant to court rules, I had set the hearing for one 8-hour day. After requesting an 8 hour hearing, in June of 1999, the clerk had given me an October hearing date. When that day arrived – and after serving subpoenae on my witnesses and paying the requisite fees, we were all present at 8:00 a.m. and ready to go forward. However. Criminal cases had also been set. We sat through about 2 hours of sentencing hearings. At 10:00 a.m. Judge Polidori advised the parties present for the "Sanders v Hembree" case that they could either come back at 1:00 p.m. or re-set the matter for six months hence. I moved to go forward with the reduced time allotted since I didn't know who would be dead or alive in six months hence.

At 1:00 p.m. the court called my case. "I want you to know I have a meeting to go to at 5:00 p.m. so we have to finish this up by 4:45 p.m.18 Let's begin with introductions."

I presented my case. I was able to enter all the critical exhibits – although the judge refused to allow me the "Offer of Proof" from the first proceedings (which simply buttressed the current evidence) and she denied my attempt to introduce a tape recorded conversation between me and an IRS a data entry supervisor regardless of the fact that in Colorado, a taped conversation is admissible as long as ONE person in the conversation is present to authenticate, see Rules of Evidence 901 and annotations.

My opponents – who ironically, were on the case caption as adversaries (Plaintiff v Third Party defendant), huddled together in an intellectual embrace but did not do any significant cross-examination or present any witnesses or rebuttal evidence. John Reha attempted to cross-examine me, but for some reason, gave up after getting beads of sweat and a pasty pallor within a few minutes of questioning me. Sorry John. I wouldn't really bite you in real life.

This made me nervous. Oh-oh. The last time my adversary didn't even BOTHER to rebut was when the court did all the work for them. (I can just imagine these ex parte phone conversations - "heh heh counsel, yeah, take that afternoon off - this is a dumb pro se case - we'll take care of you. You shouldn't be burdened with having to answer to this crap. We'll take care of it.")

One fun moment was when I had the opportunity to prove that John Reha, the active pious Christian in his community of Ken Caryl, and an "officer of the court," and his client lied in the first proceeding. Back in 1995, I had asked John's client, Paul Behr in interrogatories what other tax sales he'd been involved with. He had said one, "Howard Long's property". (Mr. Long was a old gentleman who owned apartment buildings). But Behr had left out 3 other properties, that of a Hans Mundhenke. I asked him at this hearing why he left out the Mundhenke properties when he was answering the interrogatories. Behr said,

        "I forgot. Look, I'm a nice guy – I didn't do anything bad."

        Hah Hah Hah. So Hitler said of himself.

    The interrogatories were signed on January 16, 1995 by both Behr and Reha and  the Mundhenke tax sale had been going on all during the prior year with Behr as the purchaser.

John Reha entered an appearance as Behr's attorney on January 18, 1995. But oh gosh, they BOTH forgot about the Mundhenke tax sales. Additionally, Behr wrote a letter to the IRS the next month (February) and mentioned the Mundhenke property then (see appendix). A miraculous memory recovery I guess – but my oh my, why didn't they supplement their answers to interrogatories as required by the rule? Why the shenanigans? Could it be because of the fact that the Mundhenke property sales took over 3 three years to execute – all with the same seizure number – so Reha and Behr knew full well the lie, "seizure numbers change with the new year" was – well – crap. What is that crime again – when you aid and abet and assist in a coverup? When you know of a crime and fail to report it?

Judge Polidori ignored this evidence. Clinton is harassed for his perjury – but not Behr, not Reha, not Ruth Williams. Why not?

At the end of the proceedings, Judge Polidori asked for closing arguments. I summarized my case. I pointed out that there was no rebuttal evidence. I reiterated the statutes that the IRS had violated.

            My opponents simply stated that I lost the first time – so why should I win this

            time?

            The court closed with an order to "rebrief the issue of jurisdiction." Do I really  REALLY have jurisdiction guys, Polidori asked my adversaries. How about the statute of limitations. I know we briefed that back in April and I denied your arguments which is why we are all here today with this awful Irish red headed woman and her witnesses – but really, did I forget something? Give me another brief. Wink wink.

So. I get it. We were going to dismiss the case AFTER 9 months of litigation instead of from the start – we'll dismiss over something so basic and elementary as jurisdiction. AFTER all the expense we'd gone through. HAH!!! That's how these big law firms survive isn't it? They pay the lawyers whether they have cases or not – so let's do a bogus hearing and THEN decide we didn't have jurisdiction to hear it – and THEN!! Make the loser (the pro se litigant) pay the winner's attorneys! Splendid Watson!! What brilliance!!!! The lawyers get paid, the rent, and the boat and the car payments get made, and oh – I'm so THRILLED with myself!!

Oh Roofy. What ever happened to you and your belief in the Judges' oath?

In March, 2000, Polidori decided that she didn't have jurisdiction to hear the issue because I was out of time to raise the issue of fraud, and that my case was "frivolous." She awarded my opponents $10,000.00. She summarily denied my motion to stay collection on the judgment pending appeal. I appealed THAT decision to the court of appeals.

Judges Marques, Ruland and Dailey denied my motion to stay collection of the judgment(s) against me "adopting the findings of the District Court", notwithstanding the statute provides the conditions that must be met to even award attorney fees – none of which were met. I qualified my motion to stay with every element required. I pointed out that Polidori hadn't enumerated the "reasons" for the finding of "frivolous" as required by CRS 13-17-102, and that I had presented unrebutted evidence, and that I had not brought a 'frivolous' action as defined by statute, in that all my allegations were supported by viable sources, e.g. an Expert Witness, and a Congressional Report.

S'all crap, said Judge Marques, Ruland and Dailey of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

        Swoooooooooosch. The roller coaster is going down so fast my face is spread

        thin and I'm getting bugs in my teeth.

        Did they even read the petition for a stay?

August, 2000

    "You awake?" I asked Chuck at about 2:30 in the morning. I'd been awake for   least an hour and decided that it was time to share my pain.

"Do you think that if everyone is a singular cell in an entire organism – the organism being the earth – that some of us have to be the undesirable parts – like the armpit – or the – oh god – the rectum?"

"Huh? What?"

"Well – I've read about how spiritually we –mankind - are "one" and that humanity is all inter-related – and that at-one-ness is the Truth. Maybe – maybe – like Christ said, we are one body.......and some of us are the ugly parts. Somebody has to be the ugly parts. I mean, we have cells that make up our intestines – and we have cells that make up our brains. Maybe – in the scheme of things, the people who get shit on over and over again (like me) are the cells on the planet that make up the planet's asshole."

“Then it’s time for an enema."

CONCLUSION:

Do I have anything nice to say about any judges? Well – yes. But I'm afraid to identify them – because it may ruin their careers. Honorable judges are a threat to the system.

Then there's Judge Pringle who has already announced his intent to leave the bench (I wonder why). He was professionally impartial with me, which is how I acquired much more evidence of fraud than I had originally received through my own requests as taxpayer using the Freedom of Information Act. And then there is still the federal judge who has my last case, still active, against the IRS agent Ruth Williams. While Judge Downes has suspended my case since October 1998, I guess until he dismisses me out, he may still be that "one good judge". He wrote a beautiful order in the Carol Ward v U.S. case, 973 F. Supp. 996, to wit:

"The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public servants discharge their duties under the Constitution and law of this Republic with fairness and a proper spirit of subservience to the people whom they are sworn to serve. Public servants cannot be arbitrarily selective in their treatment of citizens, dispensing equity to those who please them and withholding it from those who do not. Respect for the law can only be fostered if citizens believe that those responsible for implementing and enforcing the law are themselves acting in conformity with the law. By this award, this Court gives notice to the IRS that reprehensible abuse of authority by one of its employees cannot and will not be tolerated".

What beautiful words. But as they say, talk is cheap.

How do you pay restitution for stolen time? Stolen Thanksgiving dinners? Birthday parties? Graduation celebrations? Simple moments in the living room that only a family with a home knows about?

You don't. You just accept the spiritual reward of knowledge of truth. For that is the price for spiritual growth.  Quite frankly, that makes me a better person than those who operate with dishonor – like the judges identified on my chart of abuses.   When a judge heaps such abuses upon a litigant or defendant, it only proves that the litigant or defendant is right as a matter of law and principle – the judge can’t win within the confines of law, so they are rude, arrogant and enter lawless orders.

The End.