Judge Lawerence O’Neil sentencing wrongs



Judge Lawrence on a roll. View such article below.

Judge Lawrence Joseph O’Neil appears to be going a little OTT with regards to his sentencing alongside his ever increasingly erratic behavior, even more reason that we should be concerned about his suitability as a federal district judge.

Between the 24th December 2005 and the 24th July 2006, a string of robberies took place in Fresno and Madera. On July 24th, two individuals, Marcus Major and Jordan Huff were arrested in connection with the burglaries as a result. They were charged with the offenses on the 14th June 2007 with a variety of violations including that to interfere with commerce and brandishing and discharging firearms. In total, 61 counts of a variety of violations were made (1:07-cr-00156-LJO-1 & 1:07-cr-00156-LJO-2, Eastern District Fresno California).

Major and Huff were tried together and they were found guilty of all counts of violations. Judge Lawrence Joseph O’Neil sentenced the individuals to, 121 months for each of the conspiracy and robbery charges, to be served concurrently. A further 120 months for the discharging of a firearm, this time to be served consecutively and a further 300 months for each of the 29 discharging and brandishing counts, to be served consecutively.

Major was sentenced on a very similar basis with the total sentence for the defendants, of 8,941 months (745 years) for Jordan Huff and 8,955 months (746 years) for Marcus Major.

One of the predominant arguments by the defendants in this case was the cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments from being sentenced when they are considered extreme or excessive when compared to the crime. In this instance, we must consider the crimes that Major and Huff were tried for. These were predominantly burglary, brandishing and discharging firearms. There were no human casualties in their offenses and any loss suffered was purely commercial. How on earth can Judge Lawrence O’Neil sentence these two individuals to sentences that are 10 times the life expectancy of the average human? It is hard to understand as to how individuals can be sentenced to such crazy and extreme sentences when examined with regards to the crimes that they committed.

Furthermore, Major and Huff argued that Judge Lawrence O’Neil allowed the government to present evidence of other crimes for which they were implicated, yet were not linked to the counts of burglary, brandishing and discharging firearms for which they were tried. Judge Lawrence O’Neil furthermore denied the pair their rights to the Sixth Amendment in which they have the right to be able to prepare for their trial, by allowing them no contact with anybody other than their attorneys. Thus far, we can see that Judge Lawrence O’Neil has ignored both the Eighth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment. What gives him this power? Who is he to take away the basic legal human rights as set by the United States Constitution in the United States Bill of Rights?

The defendants filed motions in regards to the inclusion of charges that were not regarded as evidence in the following cases 1:07-cr-00156-LJO-1 and 1:07-cr-00156-LJO-2 under federal rules of evidence. However, yet again Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied both motions. In closing arguments, the defendants association with street gangs was included and as such, the court abused its discretion with regards to inclusion of unlawful evidence.

What we can see here is clear evidence that Judge Lawrence O’Neil broke a variety of constitutional rules.

-Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied the defendants the right to prepare for trial as described in the sixth Amendment, and as such he violated the sixth Amendment.

-Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied two evidence based motions that were filed with regards to the inappropriate inclusion of evidence unrelated in to the current trial.

-Judge Lawrence O’Neil violated the eighth Amendment with regards to cruel and unusual punishment.

In sentencing, Judge Lawrence O’Neill stated that It shows your contempt for civilized society and I’m going to do what I need to do to take you out of society because you are not civilized. You two are terrorists in the simple meaning of that word; you terrorized your victims. You simply wanted money and it wasn’t just adult victims, there were children terrorized too. These guys were bad guys no one disagrees with that; but, Judge Lawrence O’Neil is not competent to sit as a federal judge as impartial he is simply blinded by his biased. 750 years for robberies with no injuries and no damage to property, so what does he sentence a murderer too child molester to, 100 years, 2000 years?

Judge Lawrence O’Neil talks of victims, but with regards to gratuitous violence in this case, there was none and he still felt that his 756 and 746 year sentences were fair?


The only saving grace that we have in such a story is that of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who argued that there was no way of executing such punishments, as humans do not have the capacity to live 750 years and as such overturned the decisions made by the inadequately placed Judge Lawrence O’Neil, sentencing is still pending for the two.

Noonan, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:

“I concur in the opinion of the court except as to the sentences of over 700 years. The court says, “No one could dispute that a sentence of almost 750 years is harsh.” No one would bother to characterize such a sentence as “harsh”. It is simply incapable of execution. No known human being has the capacity to live 700 years. No living human being is likely to live 700 years. On its face, the sentence is impossible to execute. The United States asks us to affirm this sentence. It asks us to affirm a sentence that cannot be carried out. I do not believe that we should participate in this utterly empty gesture,” he probably wanted to say utterly incompetent and stupid sentence; but, having to sound politically correct he did not.

United States v. Major, 2012 WL 1001188, 9 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2012) (Noonan, J., concurring and dissenting).

It is clear that the words of Judge Noonan, clearly demonstrate the completely in competence of Judge Lawrence O’Neil, from our investigation this is not the first nutty decision made by Judge Lawrence O’Neil and many have been overturned. It is rare that a federal district judge is removed from office; but, congress may want to seriously consider such an action regarding this nut job, Judge Lawrence O’Neil. He is clearly a menace to society and jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judiciary.

Send your comments to John Livingston, Esq at johnlivingston2000@gmail.com and we welcome any additional case you may have regarding this Judge Lawrence O’Neil, as we are beginning a catalog of his actions for notification to congress.

See original link here http://express-press-release.net/free/judge-lawrence-joseph-oneil-admonished-by-ninth-circuit/press-release/2012/09/18/


The Case Against Prosecutor Mark E. Cullers


, , , ,

The prosecuting attorney for the IRS case against Mike Ioane, the one who got him thrown in prison, was one Mr. Mark Cullers, assistant U.S. Attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Mr. Cullers has recently been involved in several cases where he seems to find people like pediatricians or chiropractors and makes criminals out of them. he spins a case against them, saying they defrauded the government or impeded some investigation the IRS had trumped up. Cullers seems to be “making his bones” in the Dept. of Justice by busting common citizens and then trying to toss them in prison while he collects the money he claims is owed in back taxes. All well and good, if he did not continually lie about how much money is really owed, and about how guilty the parties he attacks really are…in the case of Mike Ioane they aren’t guilty of anything at all. Mark E. Culler’s main claim to fame seems to be prosecuting cases against fairly harmless individuals with the tag-line “No one is above the law!” Except that Mark Cullers acts above the law at all times. And no one is investigating him.
What he did by trying to put Mike Ioane in prison over some inane squabble between the IRS and Dr. Stephen Booth and his wife, (whom they claimed owed them 2.3 million!) goes far beyond the spirit or letter of the law. It seems the Old IRS, the ones who used to love to drive “tax-evaders” into ruin, prison or suicide (the ones we thought Clinton had gotten rid of…) are back. I explain the details of the Booth case and how it entrapped Michael Ioane in my other blog…
Using techniques of threats and cajoling agents of the IRS were able to get Dr. Booth, a chiropractor in Bakersfield, CA, to perjure himself in a court of law and recant previous testimony given in the same court. That initial testimony had absolved Mike Ioane of all wrong-doing. When the case came before Judge Lawrence at the 9th District court of Eastern CA, suddenly Dr. Booth reversed his testimony. Suddenly his tax situation went from 2.3 million to 1.3 million, then down to 207K. Booth condemned Ioane as some sort of personal Rasputin…steering the poor Chiropractor and his wife by some magical means, to make up fake trusts, and hide the properties the IRS wanted, even before they had met him! This, all in order to conceal these tasty morsels from the righteous eyes of the IRS!
Booth and the IRS now contended that it was Booth, being duped and manipulated by Ioane, who set up a series of sham trusts. This was the seedy case Mark E. Cullers brought to bear against Mike Ioane, a case which must have cost the US government quite a bit of tax-payer money. Like “Fast and Furious” and other Dept. of Justice “stings,” it was neither a sting, nor just and in the end it was a failure. It was just another case of ineptitude, cover-up and dubious legal practices on the part of the Justice Dept.
During the case Mark Culler lied to the Grand jury, lied to Judge Lawrence, held back pertinent information from the court, caused Booth to perjure himself and got a conviction of an innocent man based on these lies and prevarications. Culler also insisted that Mike Ioane was in arrears on his back taxes to the tune of 60K! (which is proof of nothing and should not have influenced the case in any instance…)When in fact he knew Ioane owed them nothing. He was able to use his influence with the court to throw a man in Federal Lock-up and nearly ruin his life. All for what? Ioane has been released from prison based on the fact that had he been given a fair trial, he could have proven that he in no way had ever helped the Booths do anything but manage their properties and trusts, which was the job they hired him for. Why would Cullers and the Obama run Dept. of Justice do this? Well it could be because Mike Iaone was the author of the seminal book, The Boston Tea Party, which helped launch the Tea Party political revolt. It may be that the Justice dept. has a grudge against people who think that it is politicians and banks and the government itself who are working “above the law” and outside the bounds of the Constitution.
I will deal with this subject more in my next post.

Tom Horne: Investigator.

Fresno Court and the IRS Team Up To Steal From Minor Children!


, , , , , , ,

Finally Judge Ishii of the Fresno court has made a decision, basically stating that all of the Booth’s lawsuits be dismissed. This means the IRS can no longer manipulate Booth, forcing him to try to acquire back the three Bakersfield Properties that have been in dispute for some twelve or more years. Score one for Mike Ioane!

But as I read this, I was thinking, didn’t those trusts belong to the Booth’s minor children? If so, why was no Guardian ad litem ever appointed to protect the children’s interests? What is a guardian ad litem? I took this definition off the “Free Dictionary by Farlex…”

“ad litem adj. legal Latin meaning “for the purposes of the legal action only.” Most often the term applies to a parent who files a lawsuit for his or her minor child as “guardian at litem” (guardian just for the purposes of the lawsuit) or for a person who is incompetent. Either at the time the lawsuit is filed or shortly thereafter, the parent petitions the court to allow him/her to be guardian ad litem, which is brought ex parte (without a noticed hearing) and is almost always granted. A person acting ad litem has the responsibility to pursue the lawsuit and to account for the money recovered for damages. If a child in such a lawsuit reaches majority (18 in most states) while the suit is pending, the ad litem guardianship terminates and the “new” adult can run his/her own lawsuit. Some courts require an order terminating the guardianship ad litem upon proof of coming of age. (See: guardian ad litem)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

This all begs the question: Why did the IRS and the Fresno Court system try to steal properties from trusts that were held in the name of the minor children of Dr. and Mrs. Steven V. Booth of Bakersfield, CA?

Since there were minor children involved, the court was to make sure a Guardian ad litem was appointed.  By not appointing such a guardian, the govt. and the court and Dr. Booth himself, were basically able to take the properties and begin to haggle over them in order to attain them and sell them off for money, leaving the children bereft of their inheritance. Basically this is theft from minor children for whom the govt. and the court system showed no regard.

Further Dr. Booth had been ordered to dissolve all the trusts in a previous court case. And these trusts were never dissolved. Therefore they remain intact and still the property of the Booth’s minor children. Yet to date, no one has ever defended their inheritance. To dissolve the trusts without benefit of a Guardian ad litem would be a felony crime in the state of California. So 0nce again both the Fresno court and the IRS along with Dr. Booth himself, are attempting to commit a felony crime against the true beneficiaries of the three disputed Bakersfield properties in the trusts. Booth’s own children!

You can read the entire document here…Motion To Dismiss

Tom Horne, Investigator

Selective and Vindictive Prosecution: IRS threatens American’s Civil Rights!


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In the on-going case against the IRS, the facts assert that Mike Ioane was being prosecuted in a selective and vindictive manner based on “individious discriminatory animus” (Latin for being singled out because of personal animosity). He goes on to state that he feels the prosecutor in his case (i.e. Mark Cullers), holds personal animosity towards him for the reason that Mike Ioane was involved in “protected First Amendment and political activity.” Or to put it more bluntly the US government tried to jail him for two reasons. One is that he basically wrote the book that established the now well-known Tea Party. His book: The Boston Tea Party was written and published in 1998. People began connecting with Ioane in a political dialogue in 2000. It became the foundation for some of the political ideals and platforms of the Tea Party which arose during the housing crisis of 2007/2008. It seems, if one looks into the facts of Mike Ioane’s battle with the IRS,  this publication factors in greatly as being one of the reasons the U.S. Government wants Ioane in jail and his free speech stifled.

The basic legal idea of Selective and Vindictive Prosecution is that, though a prosecutor has a lot of lee-way in bringing just about anyone before a court to be prosecuted, there are certain things which cannot and must not apply when prosecution is begun. #1. Is that race, creed, color, national origin or gender/sexual preference cannot be a prime factor for bringing someone up on charges. #2. Political affiliations, and the fact that a person has written a book, published and article or otherwise spoken out against the government is not an excuse to prosecute someone either…especially if the material is not discussing any treasonous acts or asking people to break any laws or commit any acts of violence, etc. {Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 364, including the exercise of constitutional rights. Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 372}.

Ioane’s Boston Tea Party book was more of a treatise on how to protect one’s assets and property from government pilfering. It explained things like charitable trusts, blind trusts, tax havens and other things like using the already extent tax-loopholes within the tax codes to keep one’s property safe from exorbitant or unwarranted taxes. It was a How-To book, not a political manifesto. Many of these various asset protection theories are in use by the very rich and have always been used to good effect by many well-known upstanding U.S. citizens. There is no law that says you cannot make it hard for the government to take your property. However Ioane now offered this information to the masses so that even “the little guy” can now form a protective trust. (My 75 year old mother is doing that as we speak). And the government of the United States under both the Republicans and the Democrats, have resented anyone telling us how to prevent the government from abusing us or stealing from us.

The second reason the IRS was upset enough to secure a criminal prosecution in what amounted to nothing more than a personal tax case by Dr. S.V. Booth, Chiropractor, is that Mike Ioane also sued the govt. twice and was in the process of winning those suits when the IRS claimed he had committed a crime against them. The IRS is notorious for not liking it when people win suits against them, which from the look of things, happens about 80% of the time. The IRS isn’t very good at defending themselves against lawsuits. So they resort to other measures. Like trying to lock people up for no good reason. Seems in this case they couldn’t even do that right.

At the time of this writing Mike had already served time in the Lompoc Federal Prison Camp for alleged tax fraud. He had been released in 2011 pending appeal; The Ninth Circuit Court issued very strong language indicating that Ioane would be successful   upon completion of his appeal. Basically overruling Judge Lawrence O’Neil’s harsh sentence and ordering Ioane released.  Also, according to law he should not have been sentenced until a “monetary amount owed” had been figured by the IRS which Dr. Booth (not Ioane), would have to pay. No such amount was ever offered to the court, because the IRS didn’t know who owed what to whom or how much! His release from Federal custody on these grounds was unprecedented. When the Feds lock someone up, they almost invariably stay locked up. Now they are scrambling to make a new case because Ioane has once again embarrassed them by getting his appeal heard and a release granted.

The point of the matter is this: Mike Ioane was singled out and brought up on charges by a government hell bent on pilfering private property and putting the man who wrote the book on the Tea Party in jail, so as to prevent publication of any other materials they did not approve of. This is called Tyranny. Exactly what the Boston Tea Party fought against in 1773 and what the new Tea Party is fighting against today.

Everyone in this country is guaranteed equal treatment under our laws. That means one cannot prosecute someone simply because they don’t like their politics or their business. Still it is nearly impossible for a person to overcome a government prosecution based on Selective and Vindictive  Prosecution motion because a person has to prove that the prosecution is in fact, abrogating their rights or picking on them because of their color, sex, age, etc. Usually this type of motion is dismissed out of hand by most judges because there is simply too much of a grey area involved. However in this case the facts would seem to indicate that indeed, Mike Ioane was selected out of a host of other people under similar threat of prosecution by the IRS, solely because he was the writer of a politically charged book and fought back against IRS tyranny in a court of law.

When the government convicted Ioane of a major felony fraud, this put him into a new kind of jeopardy. According to the Patriot Act any person found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony crime, said person can  considered a “terrorist.” A terrorist suspect can be detained indefinitely without trial. He can be “disappeared,” so that no one, friends or relatives will ever hear from him again. He can be held in prisons in foreign countries and have no access to an attorney or even a fair trial. Suddenly free speech rights, in fact all civil rights are completely torn from a citizen and being an American becomes meaningless. One may as well be a Serbian or an Afghan. You can be thrown in a dark hole and forgotten. Thankfully, though the government accused Ioane publicly of being a con-man and a criminal, Ioane has many friends that vouched for his character. Only the judge was able to see who those people were.

Presently Ioane and his attorney have actually called for the prosecutors and instigators of the case against him, to be subpoenaed before the court so he might prove Selective and Vindictive Prosecution. Turning the tables on them, he determined that his accusers should be seen as abusers. His list is as follows:

1.Mark Eugene Cullers    AUSA,

2.James Richard Terzian  AUSA

3.Susan Phan AUSA

4.Lawrence G. Brown, acting United States Attorney

5.Dennis Collins, Revenue Officer

6.Revenue Officer Michael Hoos

7. Revenue Officer Fred Chynoweth

8. John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General

9. Verna Santos AUSA

10. Special Agent Kent Spjute

11. Ronald A Cimino, Chief Western Criminal Enforcement Section

12. Special Agent Brian Hodges

13. Special Agent Michele M. Casarez

14. Special Agent Brian Applegate

15. Special Agent Jean Nole

16. Lauren M. Castaldi, AUSA

17. G.Patrick Jennings, AUSA

Ioane’s attorney wants charges brought  against this group of almost untouchable IRS agents, attorneys and court officials which, should such a case be heard by the court, might shake the Fresno court and perhaps the U.S. Justice and Treasury departments to their very foundations.

The charges include: Failure of the IRS to remove liens from properties which they did not have legal right to seize. The IRS producing and working under wrongful and illegal search warrants, signed by a judge who was not empowered ot authorize a warrant, and said warrants used to search private residences and abscond with personal money and valuables. (For which Ioane sued them). The IRS’ constantly assailed the court with motions to dismiss all of Ioane’s lawsuits and motions against them based on the fact that, well, they are the IRS and can do as they please to whom they please for whatever reasons they please. The IRS, having gone through several civil cases against Ioane never once indicated that there was any evidence or even allegations of criminal wrongdoing on his part. Yet they used all these cases against him as evidence in their prosecution that he was obstructing them and attempting to defraud the government! They did this because they lost most of the cases. They were so angry that one agent complained anonymously to the court that “TP (Ioane: The Plaintiff) files frivolous lawsuits against IRS employees so I need to document my case history accurately.” The IRS never once looked into any of the violations reported to them by Ioane, which is why he felt compelled to sue them. All this was done well before the criminal case was instigated.

The facts suggest that Ioane was a constant thorn in the side of the IRS and the courts and that they decided to prosecute him, not because of any real crime, but simply because they hated what he was doing to them. The IRS was so aggravated they even accused Ioane of “reading a speech document;” (in this case it was a document dealing with protecting one’s assets…) as if reading anything about one’s own business was somehow prohibited by law! This is an indicator that the government regarded asset protection pamphlets as they would some politically charged treatise on how to build a homemade bomb! It was certain the IRS and Treasury wanted to abrogate Ioane’s rights and make him stop thinking, acting or even reading for his own benefit. The IRS visited this egregious tyranny against his freedom of speech, but not upon any of the others, they threatened or cajoled.

Ioane’s attorney goes on to claim that the government, as well as the courts are upset with the Boston Tea Party Book, and has punished the defendant, profiling him as the  creator and leader of the Tea Party political movement. The Boston Tea Party book was published in 1998 and defendant started the genesis of the Tea Party movement in year 2000.  No doubt that the result being spread far and wide has caused Ioane and those associated with him concern and political motivation to put this defendant away or to stop him from furthering the Constitutional objective of the party.

Ioane’s attorney further claims that the IRS under the directive of Mark Cullers threatened and brow-beat witnesses to make false claims and deliver false testimony in order to entrap Ioane in crimes he did not commit. The IRS claims that he was setting up “sham” trusts to hide money for his clients, or to sway his clients to make claims and proceed against the government in order to defraud them, are completely spurious. Ioane had been paid to work as a trust manager for a group of trustees for the Booth’s trusts. The Booths were not involved in said trusts any longer. The trustees and their attorneys were giving Ioane his orders, not the other way around. Yet the IRS insisted Ioane was some evil-mastermind criminal who was into vague money-laundering schemes and forcing others to defraud the government. Even at his trial, they brought up no clear evidence of such a crazy claim. The IRS relied solely on the hearsay testimony of false witnesses whom they themselves had paid off through plea bargaining agreements, or on whom they used strong-arm tactics.  Iaone’s attorney further indicts the U.S. Dept. of Justice of having full knowledge of Cullers’ machinations and who might have been helping Cullers secure a conviction based on false evidence and hearsay from witnesses who were being manipulated by the State.

A list of the various Booth Trustees is as follows:

  1. Lorien McCan
  2. Margaret Squires
  3. Dr.John James Inis jr.
  4. Jean Annette Liascos
  5. Dr. Thomas T. Rios

It should be noted here that every one of these people colluded with the IRS by perjuring themselves on the stand, claiming they had never had meetings. That they had done everything he demanded they do by some form of osmosis. That they had signed documents at Dr. Booth’s behest that they did not understand or had even read. And they claimed they were all working under the influence of Dr. Booth to hide the Bakersfield Properties from the government tax-man! Dr. Booth of course in perjured testimony said that Mike Ioane was his “Svengali” and had made him do everything he did, even before he ever heard of Ioane! Quite a trick!

Now a “Trustee” is supposed to be a trustworthy, smart and responsible individual entrusted with the Trust monies and properties, which they hold (in this case for the Booth’s children), until which time these trusts are turned over to the beneficiaries. Does this sound like a group of smart, erudite and capable individuals? Should such stupid people, bending to the will of the person they hired, be allowed to be in such a position of trust? These are people who don’t read documents, who sign the papers without reading them, who have no idea what a trust is or how it functions. One, Dr. Thomas T. Rios had previously been investigated by the IRS and found to have overcharged his patients through various programs like insurance and Medicare and taken the ill-gotten gains and himself stashed them in sham trusts! He had also been extorting money from Dr. Booth, his employer, because he was going to tell the IRS that Booth had sham trusts and hidden money as well! He was more than willing to perjure himself to get money from Dr. Booth. To keep the IRS from auditing him Booth paid him! $30,000 a month! (He should have had him arrested, but that’s another story).Yet Dr. Rios was one of the trustees of one of Booth’s trusts! Rios employed Ioane. Not the other way around. This criminal was running the trust, not Ioane. So you have a pack of ner-do-wells and a criminal extortionist in charge of Booths’ trusts…all suddenly pointing the finger at Mike Ioane. Seems a little too pat, doesn’t it? Sounds like a case of the criminal blaming the victim.

Ioane’s attorney also calls out a list of other people who were a part of the case against him. These were people who were also abused by the IRS. Each one was directed by Mark Cullers and his team of thugs to libel Ioane and to further perjure themselves, lying to  judge and jury about their own dealings in business, medical practices, and finances, because they were terrified of going up against the IRS. There are indications that some of these “witnesses” and others under the scrutiny of the IRS may have made pay-offs to certain agents, in order to garner preferential treatment, for certainly not one of them is being prosecuted for anything, even though the IRS threatened each of them in some way with prosecution or action against their financial security. It seems that the IRS wanted to make Mike Ioane out to be a “Big Fish” in an organized criminal conspiracy to defraud them, without one shred of solid evidence that there was even a pond for these fish to swim around in (i.e. a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the IRS), and without convicting one of the “little fish” for anything more than failing to pay a tax burden.

This list of others involved in the case are as follows:

1. Real Estate Developer Bob Bell. For a long time the IRS interviewed him and apparently threatened him with audits and prosecution, prior to the indictment of Booth and Ioane. He was continually informed by IRS agents that he was involved in money laundering, tax evasion, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy with Booth and the trustees we named.

2.  Attorney Michael Mears. Wworked for Bob Bell and also worked with Attorney John Reedy, since about 2002 or earlier regarding the Treble LLC investment and real estate development, which involved Southern Financial Services, Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company, and Treble LLC.

3.  Attorney Steve Dakes of Dake-Braun-Monje. These folks reviewed the trusts and never informed Ioane there was a problem.  Attorney Steven Dake was one of the Attorneys representing the above referenced trusts subject of the indictment.

5.  Certified Public Accountant Clark Hurst of Bakersfield. Who stated to Ioane that Mr. Booth had employed his services since 2005 and is currently using the services of Mr. Hurst. Ioane had heard Mr. Hurst state that nothing was wrong with how Mr. Booth operated his business using various entities and corporations and that he, Clark Hurst took his instructions from Attorney John Reedy.

6.  Attorney Michael Kia. Wrote letters to the IRS setting up appointments for defendant Booth. He never told Ioane that defendant Booth was committing any crimes and he would discuss Booths IRS disputes in detail with Ioane.

7.  Attorney John Reedy. Defendant Steven Booth’s general counsel and corporate attorney, created and managed the Booth Corporations and trusts, wrote letters to the IRS and Inspector general regarding the allegations in the current indictment several years prior to any indictment being returned. Attorney John Reedy was in continual communication with Special agents at the IRS office and the AUSA regarding the alleged illegally created entities and even wrote communications indicating that he created and managed those entities. Dr. Thomas Rios, (who plead guilty to tax evasion, unrelated to Booth entities and got probation), Margaret Squires, Dr. John James Inis Jr.,  Jean Annette Liascos, Dr. Loren McCan, were all trustees of Booth’s and Reedy’s created trusts. Assuredly if these people had conspired to hide properties, wouldn’t the IRS want to prosecute them all? 

8.  Attorney Mark Lane. Mr. Lane contacted AUSA office after Steve Booth’s home was raided in March of 2006. Ioane recalls that he informed the IRS that the raid had no merit and that his client’s rights were being violated.

9.  Attorney Eric Fogderude, is more than directly involved since he worked with defendant Steven Booth regarding a civil contempt matter, (specifically related to each and every allegation of the indictment, in 2005.


In the end not one of these people were ever prosecuted or even as vigorously investigated as was Michael Ioane. Not one was accused of collusion, or tax-evasion, or conspiracy to hide properties. Mr. Bell even claimed that he had given the Federal agents over $400,000, (subsequently this money has gone missing and the agent that took it, Michael Hoos, now under investigation). It is my own conclusion that indeed Michael Ioane was selected to be prosecuted for political reasons. I think especially for the reason that he instigated law suits that embarrassed and tied the hands of the government and courts in their headlong rush to find a crime that was not committed by criminals which did not exist and to steal properties which did not rightly belong to them in order to pay a alleged tax-burden that was completely made up out of the whole cloth. To the government Mr. Ioane is an irritant. So therefore by their logic, he must be guilty of…something.


Just like the badly planned and executed sales of guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels by Federal agents called Operation Fast And Furious, this foray into crime stopping did not work out well for the Obama Administration.  They were seeking to trace the guns and entrap the cartels in what became a debacle when they realized they had no real way to track the weapons, and worse, said weapons were later used in the killing of a border patrol agent! This Selective and Vindictive Prosecution of one man who wrote a book the government doesn’t like, is another example of a badly planned, executed and expensive Federal operation that has lead nowhere. They have produced nothing but an opinion that some crime was committed by someone somewhere…but apparently they have yet to determine for sure what went down. So they made up a story, used tax-payer funds to play pretend with the California and Federal court system, and hurt a lot of innocent people in their little game of corruption and collusion. In order to protect their jobs and reputations they are continuing to try to make bogus cases against Booth and Ioane. This is just another Obama Administration bad idea in a growing list of bad ideas.


Tom Horne, Investigator

Special Agent Kent Spjute: Strong-arm Thug of the Law


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What was Special Agent Spjute looking for when he took out a search warrant, signed by an unauthorized judge, and took a raiding party to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Booth? It would be difficult to determine since the warrant didn’t specify anything at all. Not records, illegal weapons, drugs or other contraband. The warrant was so vague that it seemed to give the IRS carte-blanche to take away anything and everything they wanted…even if it didn’t prove their case! What was their case? Apparently the IRS was looking for something to show evidence that the Booths had colluded and conspired with one another to hide money and properties from them. Yet, when a search warrant is issued by a judge it is usually very specifically oriented towards finding evidence of some crime, distribution of controlled substances, murder, grand theft, so that the agents and officers would be looking for cocaine, or a murder weapon, blood stained clothes or perhaps jewelry or large amounts of untraceable money. Attempting to hide property in a trust is really not much of a crime. It doesn’t seem to warrant a full house search. It doesn’t really even warrant an investigation. Unless they are trying to make putting money and property in a legal trust into some sort of Federal Crime.

This is only one of the warrants Special Agent Spjute ordered during the criminal investigation of the Booths in order to intimidate them and get them to spill the beans about their master criminal conspiracy to hide their medical office building, personal residence and mother’s personal residence from the IRS…(hidden so carefully five years before the IRS ever knew who they were). Oh yes, Agent Spjute was good at his job. He worked under the direction of Mark E. Cullers, making sure America was safe from the evil tax-evading chiropractors that roamed Bakersfield in feral packs! He built a case that made the Booths look like Al Capone. Swearing they owed nearly four million dollars in back taxes. He must have thought they had hidden the loot in garbage bags under the floorboards. Spjute went after his prey like a bulldog, harassing and brow beating witnesses along with Revenue Officer Michael Hoos and Revenue Officer Fred Chynoweth. Basically these men were strong-arm thugs hired by the IRS to bring the Booths to heel. All very melodramatic. All very high-handed. All very costly to the American Tax-Payer. After all the Booths and others these men investigated were not leaders of a drug cartel or masterminds of some vast criminal conspiracy. Yet this is how the IRS treats all “suspects.” Time they got a clue. This is not the 1930’s, they aren’t looking for Machine Gun Kelly or Lucky Luciano! They are trying to squeeze money out of plumbers, chiropractors, asset management analysts and real estate investors. Time to put a leash on these government thugs.

Tom Horne, investigator






Bad Cop-Worse Cop; Revenue Officer Fred Chynoweth…IRS thug.


, , , , , , , , , ,


The IRS agents always travel in pairs. Apparently so they can play “Bad Cop-Worse Cop.” Fred Chynoweth was Kent Spjute’s partner in IRS crime during the Booth criminal case. This means whatever Mark Cullers did that was wrong, these three agents, Hoos, Spjute and Chynoweth helped him to do. Whether it was to bring false allegation, write false reports, conspire to sway witnesses with threats, or to produce falsified testimonies and documents, these two were “all-in.” It was Fred Chynoweth though, who actually stood at Bob Bell’s desk and shouted at him that he would come under a special IRS full audit if he did not say exactly what the IRS wanted him to say. He made sure Bell knew that his company would be tied into Booth’s “sham trusts” in that audit. Fred Chynoweth took it upon himself to tell Bob Bell in no uncertain terms that Booth’s trusts were sham trusts because one had traded stock in another company for a deed of trust, instead of using cash to buy the stocks. As if this were somehow against the law. His ignorance of finance and the law is basically what the whole government case is riding on! He claimed Booth’s original trusts were shams. They were shams why? Because Fred Chynoweth SAID they were, based on some nonsensical idea he had about financing a sale. By bullying Bob Bell, Fred Chynoweth actually helped Booth lose a two million dollar sale when Bell backed out of his strip-mall deal with Steve Booth. The proceeds of which could have gone to pay Booth’s tax burden. Now that money is unrecoverable. Chynoweth scared Bell off from the sale, turned him into a witness for the prosecution. A prosecution which will inevitably fail, because no one has done anything wrong. Is this all some mark of hatred that Cullers and the IRS and perhaps the whole Obama administration has for free-enterprise?

It was Fred Chynoweth who terrorized Booth’s poor mother. He actually served Dr. Steven Booth’s Alzheimer’s stricken mother, Reba Booth, with a fake Grand Jury Subpoena, scaring the woman into believing her son was going to be put in jail. In fact the Grand Jury had not even been convened. Apparently this sort of scare-tactic is well used by the IRS and law enforcement. This act is patently illegal since Chynoweth had no jurisdiction to serve such a subpoena, since no agent working on a case can also work for the Grand Jury. This alone should get Fred Chynoweth fired. It just shows how over-the-top these revenue agents really are. Something tells me he wouldn’t be so gung-ho facing down a gun-runner or mobster…but an old-lady in ill-health? That’s an easy mark for a thug. Time to put a stop to these greasy “leg-breaker” tactics and break up the IRS mob for good! Perhaps what this country needs is a group of lawyers to step-up, put together a massive class-action law suit against the IRS and force the government to disband this entire agency? I know about a 100 million tax payers who would love to sign their name to a lawsuit like this!

Tom Horne, Investigator