Jan Linsdey, ex-FBI, Schiffite

[Demosthenes]

The criminal trial (5 years of tax evasion) was supposed to start Monday In Las Vegas, but his lawyer has asked for “additional time … to finalize the plea agreement.”

[jkeeb]

KTNV
March 7, 2009

Federal agents raid Las Vegas locations

Federal agents swarmed into a local business and home early Thursday morning.

Several men are facing charges ranging from owning machine guns to evading taxes.

One of the raids forced a school into lockdown.

One of the suspects appeared in court shortly after his arrest, and that’s when things got even more interesting.

Armored personnel carriers, federal agents wearing tactical gear, blanketing a Northwest Las Vegas neighborhood early Thursday morning.

It’s little wonder J Suson tried rubbng the sleep from his eyes a second time.

“I thought I was dreaming,” he says.

But J wasn’t, so he grabbed his camera, and an earful.

“Basically, [they were saying] we’ve got a search warrant, we need you to come out, a whole bunch of undercover FBI people everywhere,” he says.

Agents arrested four people, Jan Allen Lindsey, a possible former special investigator for the same bureau, but openly outspoken against the government’s collection of taxes.

“In the internal revenue code 26, there’s nothing specific in there,” he said in a documentary about taxes.

The IRS begs to differ.

Action news has obtained the indictment against Lindsey.

It alleges that from 1999 through 2006, he either didn’t pay his income tax, or filed false forms.

The indictment also alleges Lindsey essentially tried to dupe the government by placing assets in third party names.

Agents raided a business as well.

All of their weaponry and armor was because at least one of the other suspects faces a federal firearms charge.

Agents also confiscated ammunition and reloading equipment from the home. The other two suspects face money laundering charges.

Lindsey was set to be arraigned Thursday, but would not allow a public defender to represent him.

He also said he refused to observe the judge’s authority.

The arraignment had to be continued.

According to other documents obtained by Action News, Lindsey tried to sue the government in 2002 for seizing his property because he didn’t pay taxes.

A judge threw it out, and ordered him to pay more than $1200 for a quote- “frivilous complaint.”

–

More details revealed about those arrested in FBI raids Thursday

Some of the four men arrested during a series of raids Thursday by federal agents appeared in court Friday.

The FBI raided a Las Vegas business Thursday because after hours it was the meeting place of the People’s Sovereign Court, a libertarian social organization with what some might call extreme anti-government views.

Its leader is Sam Davis whose name is on one of the Grand Jury indictments.

He’s accused of laundering more than $500,000 that undercover agents said had been stolen from Wachovia.

Jan Lindsey is a former FBI agent himself who is featured in a documentary titled, “Freedom to Fascism”.

It chronicles the legal battles of people who refused to pay their taxes.

Lindsey was in court Thursday, refusing to acknowledge the judge’s jurisdiction.

“I want to make sure that you understand what the government says you did wrong. Whether your agree with it or not is for future litigation. You understand that sir,” asked the judge.

“What the government says I did wrong,” asked Lindsey.

“Yes, sir,” replied the judge.

Two other men were arrested in the FBI raids.

Shawn Rice, accused in the indictment of laundering money also, by claiming to be a Rabbi, and taking the deposits as charitable contributions.

Harold Call was arrested on five counts of possessing machine guns and converting single-fire weapons illegally to automatic weapons.

[Nikki]

JAN LINDSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ORDER


Daniel Bogden
U.S. Attorney's Office
333 Las Vegas Blvd So
Suite 5000
Las Vegas, NV 89101-USA

[1] Presently, the Court has before it Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#13). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (#14). This motion is now ripe for adjudication.
I. Background.

[2] On March 21, 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages and request to set aside an allegedly "invalid" collection due process determination for a frivolous return penalty the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330. The Defendant moved the Court to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to grant summary judgment. The Court granted Defendant's motion. In its order, the Court noted the frivolity of Plaintiff's complaint. In its conclusion, the Court also stated "because Plaintiff's complaint lacks any merit, had the Defendant moved for Rule 11 sanctions, this Court would have freely granted such motion." Defendant now moves for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Court's inherent authority because Plaintiff's complaint was filed in bad faith and was vexatious as it was totally frivolous. The Government seeks an award of $1,241.50 for the thirteen (13) hours of work performed by its attorney. In his opposition, Plaintiff remains steadfast in his claim that his complaint is supported in law which the Court has continued to ignore.

II. Analysis.

[3] Along with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court is authorized to sanction parties or their lawyers for improper conduct pursuant to its inherent power. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). Under its inherent authority, a Court has the power to sanction a losing party or its lawyers when it has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons as well as for willful abuse of the judicial process. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)). Before imposing inherent-power sanctions, the court must find bad faith or conduct tantamount of bad faith. See id. Under its inherent authority, the Court may impose attorney's fees as a sanction. See Fink, 239 F.3d at 991 (quoting Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 766)).

[4] The Court finds that sanctions are proper in this case under the Court's inherent authority, Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff brought the instant complaint in bad faith. Plaintiff's complaint is based entirely on frivolous grounds and has served only to delay the prompt collection of the frivolous return penalty. Underlying Plaintiff's attack on the IRS's assessment of the frivolous return penalty is his argument that "wages are not income." The Ninth Circuit, however, has repeatedly rejected the "wages are not income" argument, and imposed sanctions on litigants making such argument. See, e.g., Wilcox v. Comm'r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, the other arguments raised in Plaintiff's complaint and opposition to Defendant's motion are patently meritless and have been previously rejected.1 See, e.g., Carrillo v. United States, No.CV-S-02-0353-KJD (LRL), Order (#14) dated March 12, 2003, at 5-7; Caldwell v. United States, CV-S-02- 0045-KJD (PAL), Order (#16) dated Feb. 5, 2003, at 5-7; Ordunez v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0033-KJD (LRL), Order (#23) dated Feb. 3, 2003, at 4-7; Wahl v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0239-KJD (RJJ), Order (#14) dated Jan. 31, 2003, at 7-9; Carini v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0169-KJD (RIJ), Order (#11) dated Dec. 2, 2002, at 5-7; Lindsey v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0401-KJD (RJJ), Order (#8) dated Nov. 26, 2002, at 5-7; Samlaska v. United States, No. CV-S-01-1237-KJD (PAL), Order (#17) dated July 31, 2002, at 6-8; Waller v. United States, No. CV-S-01-1190-KJO (PAL), Order (#11) dated Aug. 6, 2002, at 4-7 Blanchard v. United States, No. CV-S-01-1083-KJD (RJJ), Order (#16) dated July 31, 2002, at 5-7 Plaintiff's only response to Defendant's claim of bad faith is his conclusory argument that the Defendant and the Court "repeatedly ignore the law." Unfortunately for Plaintiff, it is he who ignores the law. Because Plaintiff's complaint is based on frivolous grounds, this litigation has wasted the time and expenses of the IRS, the Department of Justice and this Court. Sanctions are thus warranted.

[5] In its motion, Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,241.50, Defendant bases this amount on 13 hours of work at $95.50/hour. Typically, sanctions in this amount would be proper. However, after having reviewed the file, especially Plaintiff's joint tax return as well as the amount at issue, the Court finds that sanctions of roughly double the attorney's fees, or $2,500.00 would have been more in order. Nevertheless, the Court will enter sanctions at the amount Defendant requested.

[6] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#10) is GRANTED.

[7] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff pay Defendant $1,241.00 as sanctions for bringing this frivolous complaint.

[8] DATED this 30th day of April, 2003.

Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge.

FOOTNOTE

1Plaintiff's arguments in this case are identical to those filed by others challenging the assessments of the frivolous return penalty imposed by the IRS. More importantly, Plaintiffs complaint and other filings are almost verbatim copies of those filed by other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff evidently acquired these documents from someone, most likely paying for such worthless papers. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, such bogus information not only will cost him the $500 frivolous penalty but will also cost him monetary sanctions from this Court.

END OF FOOTNOTE

VICTORY and all based on a $500 frivolous filing penalty.

[Nikki]

Lindsey is also no stranger in Tax Court:

011855-04

011859-04

016980-04

000190-07L