Lynne Meredith loses in the 9th

[Demosthenes]

9th Cir.
No. 05-56097
Dec. 22, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAYLE BYBEE,
Plaintiff,
BERNADETTE KELLER; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
JENIFER MEREDITH, The People of California, ex rel,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
LYNNE MEREDITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW ERATH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-56097
D.C. No. CV-99-13100-FMC
MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2008 **
Pasadena, California
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, *** District Judge.
*** The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Plaintiffs Lynne and Jenifer Meredith appeal the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant IRS agents as to their Bivens and state law claims arising out of the agents' execution of a search warrant at Lynne Meredith's place of business and Jenifer Meredith's residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, and we affirm for the following reasons.

The Tenth Amendment does not prevent federal authorities from executing search warrants on non-federal property. The Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, and this power includes the authority to enact criminal sanctions for violations of the tax code and investigate potential violations. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 801 F.2d 1164, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1986). Federal courts have jurisdiction over federal crimes committed anywhere in the United States. See United States v. McCalla, 545 F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 2008).

The warrant was not invalid even though the supporting affidavit incorrectly identified Linda St. John as an alias of Lynne Meredith. The record strongly supports a finding that this error was accidental and at most negligent. But even if the inclusion of the false information is assumed to have been intentional or reckless, purging all St. John-related facts from the affidavit leaves more than enough evidence to support probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978).

The warrant was not overbroad. The warrant identifies specific categories of documents for seizure that are directly related to the crimes Lynne Meredith was suspected of committing. See United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709, 731 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, the warrant permissibly authorized the temporary seizure of entire computers for further searching if necessary for technical reasons. See United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

The agents did not violate Lynne Meredith's constitutional rights by seizing her personal records. The seizure of personal records pursuant to a search warrant does not implicate the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause. See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 477 (1976).

The agents did not violate the knock and announce rule when entering the buildings to be searched. The agents entered the second-floor business through an unlocked door during business hours. United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1430, 1435-36 (9th Cir. 1984). The agents entered the third-floor residence through an open door. United States v. Valenzuela, 596 F.2d 1361, 1365 n.3 (9th Cir. 1979). Jenifer Meredith fails to controvert the agents' evidence that they entered the other residence only after knocking and announcing several times.

The agents are entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to present Lynne and Jenifer Meredith with a copy of the warrant at the outset of the search in July of 1998. The right the agents violated in this respect was not clearly established until this court's 1999 decision in United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999) overruled on other grounds by United States v. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir 2008) (en banc). See Burrell v. McIlroy, 464 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.2006).

Even if the Merediths were able to prove that in July of 1998 the agents used excessive force by pointing guns at them with no reasonable indication of danger, the agents are entitled to qualified immunity because this constitutional violation was not clearly established until our 2002 decision in Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002).

The agents did not violate the Merediths' constitutional rights by detaining and questioning them while the search was occurring because the questioning did not prolong the detention. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98-99 (2005); Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006).

The agents are entitled to qualified immunity for denying the Merediths' request to use the telephone during their detentions. The Merediths cite Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that their “incommunicado” detention during the search violated their Fourth Amendment rights. However, the Merediths fail to allege, much less show, that they were held incommunicado for the purpose of coercing them into submitting to interrogation, as was the case in Ganwich. And, as in the case of the agents' failure to present a copy of the warrant to appellant at the beginning of the search, the right not to be held incommunicado by deprivation of telephone use was not clearly established until 2003 in Ganwich.

The Federal Tort Claims Act bars the Merediths' state law tort claims because they failed to exhaust their federal administrative remedies and are suing over actions taken by the agents in the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. §§2401 (“A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency … .”), 2680(h) (covering state law torts such as assault, battery, and false arrest when the tort is committed by a federal law enforcement officer).

AFFIRMED.

[absdes96]

Obviously, I am new to this forum. But a search on this person shows me you folks have been tracking her activities for a while. Is Lynne Meredith one of the "High Priestess" of the tax protest crowds?

[Demosthenes]

Lynne was one of the very rare female gurus, and she targeted a much higher income crowd than, say, Irwin Schiff or Pete Hendrickson.

Looks like she's got more than four years left to go on her federal prison sentence.

BONITA LYNNE MEREDITH 24001-112 58-White-F 02-02-2013 VICTORVILLE MED II FCI

[Lambkin]

Obviously, I am new to this forum. But a search on this person shows me you folks have been tracking her activities for a while. Is Lynne Meredith one of the "High Priestess" of the tax protest crowds?

She was (past-tense) a well-known detax guru. Like most incarcerated TP gurus her followers moved on to the next scam as soon as she was hauled away. Her site is preserved at archive.org.

http://web.archive.org/web/200202062037 ... fmmain.htm

[Number Six]

Lynne had a heck of a ride. She advertised profusely, was far more self-aggrandizing than Irwin Schiff or any of the other leaders. She travelled around the country and ran special tax protestor cruises, wrote extremely provocative books, hauled in the loot as no one had ever done before, had a large storefront in Sunset Beach, CA. When she was first raided after years of "business", she made a huge stink, saying she would prosecute the authorities for such an egregious and unconstitutional action, and that the judge in the case was extremely sympathetic to her and the other girls in her legal shop partly because she too was a woman. All of her business was done in the name of freedom, a true sovereign interpretation of the law and of God and Jesus Christ. Check out the TP page on her.

[LPC]

That appeal sure took awhile, because her civil suit was dismissed in 2001. See 88 AFTR2d Par. 2001-5412, 2001 TNT 201-16, No. CV-99-13100-FMC (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 9/19/2001).

[Colonel_Buck]

9th Cir.
No. 05-56097
Dec. 22, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

What does it mean when it says "NOT FOR PUBLICATION"?

[absdes96]

When she was first raided after years of "business", she made a huge stink, saying she would prosecute the authorities for such an egregious and unconstitutional action, and that the judge in the case was extremely sympathetic to her and the other girls in her legal shop partly because she too was a woman.

Hmmmm...so if I ever want to run a tax or financial scam with a patriotic and/or religious twist, I need to alter my sex (gender) if I am going to stand even half a chance against the USDOJ or the courts. I gottcha.

I will check out the site you mentioned.

[Nikki]

9th Cir.
No. 05-56097
Dec. 22, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

What does it mean when it says "NOT FOR PUBLICATION"?

The case doesn't break any new ground within the jurisdiction nor does it contain any new issues of law which would warrant that it be published in the formal annals of the court.

Irrespective of "do not publish," the case, and all of its non-sealed documents remain public record.

[Dr. Caligari]

What does it mean when it says "NOT FOR PUBLICATION"?

Cases which can be cited as binding precedent in the lower courts of the Circuit which issued them are published in a series of official law books called the Federal Reporter. Cases which do not establish any new ground, and are therefore not treated as binding precedent, are called "unpublished," though they are, in fact, published, albeit in a different set of books, the Federal Appendix.

[Number Six]

Hmmmm...so if I ever want to run a tax or financial scam with a patriotic and/or religious twist, I need to alter my sex (gender) if I am going to stand even half a chance against the USDOJ or the courts. I gottcha.

I will check out the site you mentioned.

My point is not to be misogynistic nor intended to be irascible, but that people have tried to twist the system by arousing false sympathy--whether it is a "Swiss family Robinson" in the court to show how terrible it would be if a given "victim" went to jail, or a blond bombshell who causes the blood pressure of men in the court to rise noticeably. Justice should be blind to gender, color, creed, economics, ideological leaning and so forth.

I spoke with a friend in Mennonite country with regard to a midwife who has put in jail because she used a drug in an exceptional case against the law. The judge was hated for enforcing the law, but I doubt he had much of a choice.

[absdes96]

Hmmmm...so if I ever want to run a tax or financial scam with a patriotic and/or religious twist, I need to alter my sex (gender) if I am going to stand even half a chance against the USDOJ or the courts. I gottcha.

I will check out the site you mentioned.

My point is not to be misogynistic nor intended to be irascible, but that people have tried to twist the system by arousing false sympathy--whether it is a "Swiss family Robinson" in the court to show how terrible it would be if a given "victim" went to jail, or a blond bombshell who causes the blood pressure of men in the court to rise noticeably. Justice should be blind to gender, color, creed, economics, ideological leaning and so forth.

I spoke with a friend in Mennonite country with regard to a midwife who has put in jail because she used a drug in an exceptional case against the law. The judge was hated for enforcing the law, but I doubt he had much of a choice.

vtyankee,

I understood your original point. (I just have a twisted sense of humor.) I think I can appreciate the strain a judge might experience in having to rule against someone who has a clean slate and who meaningfully contributes to her/his community.

I remember when I was pulled over by the police for an expired license tag. In my usual way, I was very courteous and had my license, insurance card, and expired registration ready in hand. My daugther was with me at the time.

I told the officer that this was a "teachable moment" for my daughter - you break the law, you pay for it.

The police officer had said to me, "I honestly hate ticketing people like you because you are cooperative and respectful, but I have no choice." I shook the officer's hand and told him how much I appreciated his service.

Well, I had to show up in traffic court for this. I plead guilty. Once again, I maintained a very courteous posture and I told the magistrate that I was negligent in renewing my license tags and that I would do my best to make sure I was prompt in the future. The amount of money I was charged for the fine was cut in half.

Yes, genuine courtesy and respect (not kissing rear-ends, mind you) to those in authority pays off. I believe it pays off even when things do not work to your benefit.

[Number Six]

Life is unfair--judges have to wade through a tremendous amount of cases and case law and make judgements that will hopefully not be overturned. There are exceptional cases, cases that cry out for mercy or lenience. Ms. Meredith's was not one of them. There should be some sort of reverse MLM penalty, where those and their cohorts who have profitted off their scheme should be given penalties, as a sort of interest, for the numbers who have lost resources, etc. If, as a result of her organization's efforts, people have lost tens of millions and have cumulatively spent 100 years in jail, give those responsible an additional 20% penalties in cash and sentences. It was laughable for her to suggest in 1999 that after the raid of her headquarters, the judge reviewing her and her organizations lawsuit against the government for constitutional violations, would be favorable because of her gender. But, the favorable verdict did not come against the government, 9-11 changed the judicial calculus.

On the other hand, in Edmund Pankau's book "How to Hide Your Assets and Disappear", after beginning the first chapter with "Non corborundum illegitimi!", relates a story of a manipulative wife who, he claims, sexually propositioned and serviced a judge, to try and get the judge to seize her ex-husband's assets; simultaneously he is planning his escape in a yacht with sufficient assets to successfully live outside of the long arm of the US judicial system, and succedes. If this story is true, I would side with the husband and wish him a happy life, if, as Pankau says, this was just one in a string of this woman's victims. The same should go for a Don Juan.

I have been in court on trivial vehicle violations. I questioned jurisdiction in a state rest area. The judge said that the courts have even established jurisdiction over vehicles out on a frozen lake with ice fishers.

The requirements to file taxes and other basics are settled law. I would like to see 4rth Amendment issues, such as FISA--warrantless wiretaps and other fishing expeditions to be vigorously challenged in the courts, and those public officials responsible for such egregious violations of civil rights to be criminally prosecuted. I believe the current administration is the most criminally violative in history, and look forward to Cheney & Co. to be wearing prison stripes if there are prosecutors who have the guts to pursue them after January 21, when the former Bush loyalists start squalking. I don't believe judges are immune from challenges, many of their decisions are overturned on procedural and other grounds. But the resources wasted on trivial issues such as driving and tax matters, impedes much more vital matters, and productive and healthy living.