Sat. Aug 8th, 2020

Sean David Morton Expedited Motion for Summary Dismissal for Selective Prosecution

<————Single Selective Prosecution PDF Motion Download

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 

Sean David Morton

 

                  Plaintiff/Petitioner – Appellant, Pro Per

 

  v.

 

United States

 

                  Defendant/Respondent –  
Appellee.

 

 

Case No. 17-50351

 

expedited emergency motion for summary disposition and to extend length to allow for foundation

 

selective prosecution

 

Proper for equity and common law like powers in the interest of justice

CITATIONS

United States and California Constitution’s

The requirements of due process of law “are not technical, nor is any particular form of procedure necessary.” Inland Empire Council v. Millis, 325 U. S. 697, 710 (1945). Due process of law guarantees “no particular form of procedure; it protects substantial rights.” NLRB v. Mackay Co., 304 U. S. 333, 351 (1938). “The very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 895 (1961); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 650 (1972).

9-27.260 – Initiating and Declining Charges—Impermissible Considerations

  1. In determining whether to commence or recommend prosecution or take other action against a person, the attorney for the government should not be improperly influenced by:
    1. The person’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or political association, activities, or beliefs;
    2. The attorney’s own personal feelings concerning the person, the person’s associates, or the victim; or
    3. The possible affect of the decision on the attorney’s own professional or personal circumstances.
  2. USAM 9-27.260 sets forth various matters that plainly should not improperly influence the determination whether to commence or recommend prosecution or to take other action. They are listed here not because it is anticipated that any attorney for the government might allow them to affect his/her judgment, but in order to make clear that federal prosecutors will not be influenced by such improper considerations. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (giving the federal appellate courts broad authority to issue rulings “as may be just under the circumstances”). 

 

Fed. R. App. P. 27 (motion practice); Fed. R. App. P. 2 (permitting an appellate court to “suspend” its rules for “good cause,” and to “order proceedings as it directs”); Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 2 as a basis for the Federal Circuit’s authority to decide motions for summary disposition).

 

“Discriminatory purpose․ implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.   It implies that the decisionmaker ․ selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”   McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 298, 107 S.Ct. 1756 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

 

. “In our criminal justice system, the Government retains ‘broad discretion’ as to whom to prosecute.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (citations omitted). But “the decision to prosecute may not be ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Id. at 608 (quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant may move to dismiss an indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution. See United States v. Mayer, 503 F.3d 740, 747 (9th Cir. 2007).  

 

We have “employed both a de novo standard and a clearly erroneous standard when reviewing a selective prosecution claim.” United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

 

We do not question the earnestness of the government’s concern that excessive and unwarranted discovery could impose “high costs on the criminal justice system”. (U.S.Br. 17) But “the very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts. . . .” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974). The Solicitor General properly recognized a decade ago that nothing can corrode respect for a rule of law more than the knowledge that the government looks beyond the law itself to arbitrary considerations, such as race, religion, or control over the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional rights, as the basis for determining its applicability.  Brief for United States, Wayte v. United States, No. 83-1292, p. 22 (quoting United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207, 1209 (2d Cir. 1974)).

 

Yates v. United States , 354 U.S. 298 (1957), [1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a ” clear and present danger .” 

 

The conduct of the Department of Justice and IRS has threatened to undermine the integrity of these proceedings. “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly. “Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

 

United States v. Meyer, 157 F.3d 1067 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 (1999) (Court should have instructed that mere buyer/seller relationship did not establish conspiracy).

 

“It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.” — Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, (1865).

_______________________________________________________

EXPEDITED MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

  Vindictive, overzealous, invidious and Selective prosecution

________________________________________________________

 

Comes now Sean David Morton, one of the people of California and in this court of record demands expedited summary disposition of the judgment against him.  There is no reason to do a full appeal and brief because this case should be tossed out based on simple issues that are full bars and not on the merits.

Because this case was brought as part of the DoJ and IRS targeting scandal (See EXHIBIT E) to suppress Sean’s 1st amendment rights to free expression, right to associate and right to be non-commercial media justice should not be delayed. This court is empowered to use its equity or common law like powers to restore Sean’s life, property, rights and interests taken in error with no due process. 

Sean is a victim of the politically motivated IRS targeting scandal and DoJ targeting of people they think are sovereign citizens or conspiracy nutjobs, especially targeting the most visible media or vocal people in those groups

GOVERNMENT:  This case is unusual due to the defendant’s opinions regarding the legitimacy of the government and its institutions. However, the court will do everything in its power to provide the defendants with a fair trial while ensuring the jury is only presented with proper evidence relevant to determining the guilt of the defendants – doc 171 paragraph 4

 

SEANS OPENING STATEMENT: pg 115 The DOJ has a policy to guide U.S. attorneys that in order to be fair, charges should be minimal and be combined into a maximum of 15 charges. Well, there may be some sort of personal vendetta by Valerie and James because I’m now being charged with, I think — my wife and I, we’re being charged with 65 counts. They said it’s an unusual case because they keep claiming that they believe I don’t buy into the legitimacy of government, or that I don’t think that money exists, which is completely absurd.

The case is far more about attacking Sean’s alleged beliefs and calling him a sovereign citizen over and over to discredit him and make this about convicting Sean for who he is and his political ideology rather than the merits.  That is precisely the problem and why the case is fully barred as impermissible motive to prosecute.

Had Sean been made aware of the Brady evidence about the two other related cases where the government identifies Sean and Melissa as victim’s of the architects (tax preparers) Brandon Adam’s and Gordon Hall he would have made a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution in the trial court.

IRS and DoJ prosecutor’s office have shown a pattern of “deliberate indifference” and “extreme animus” to Sean’s constitutionally protected natural rights.  The prosecutors motive to prosecute Sean is evil, improper and impermissible.  Sean’s right to equal protection, dignity, role as media, right to publicity and right to privacy is a complete bar to the case, not a cause to prosecute.  The standard of review is unsettled. This is a case of vindictive selective prosecution and selective enforcement of political foes exercising their 1st amendment rights which is a constitutional issue reviewed de novo.

The government agrees that the source cause of Sean’s conduct came from Adams and Hall.  It can only be vindictive because the government says Sean who has no criminal history deserves more than twice the amount of time as Adams in prison and almost as much time as Hall who has a criminal history a mile long including rigging the stock market with known mobsters (Sean did not know any of this).  The government twists this information that Adams and Hall caused the conduct however to imply that Sean who was not part of their business and who is defrauded by Adams and Hall are somehow criminally minded with Adams and Hall. 

See government comments Doc 225: At trial, defendant testified in his direct that both defendants had their false OID returns prepared by Brandon Adams. See Transcript, April 6, 2017, p. 10. In 2014, Adams was indicted for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 514 in the District of Arizona, and on January 13, 2015, plead guilty to two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 514. See United States v. Adams, Case No. CR 14-00184-2-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. 2014). On June 16, 2015, Adams was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment. Id.   At trial, defendant testified that defendants learned about the bond scheme from Hall, who often stayed at defendants’ house as a guest. See Transcript, April 6, 2017, pp. 104, 105. Hall was indicted, along with Brandon Adams, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 514. See United States v. Hall, Case No. CR 14-00184- 1-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. 2014). On January 22, 2015, after a trial, Hall was convicted of four counts of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 514, and was sentenced on June 17, 2015 to 96 months incarceration. Id. Following an appeal by Hall, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ordered term of incarceration, but remanded the case to the District Court for clarification on 2 conditions of Hall’s supervised release. Id. The recommended sentence of 87 months is well within the range for similarly situated defendants who taught the defendant the schemes he peddled. doc 225

(See EXHIBIT A regarding how Hall and Adams found clients and were charged with defrauding $93 Million with 149 instruments)

Sean testified that Hall prepared the instruments that went to IRS (counts 6,7) and that he downloaded the bond packages from Adam’s and Hall’s website Creditors in Commerce (remainder 514 counts).  Sean did not “peddle the schemes” he was defrauded by.  Sean testified the cause of every offense in this case originated by following the advice of Adams and Hall, who charged Sean $6000. for the ‘help’ with Sean’s taxes. The government concedes the clients like Sean are defrauded and deluded victims for trying to do what Hall [and Adams] did because they said it would work.

CLAIM 1: SELECTIVE PROSECUTION / SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT HAS TWO ELEMENTS AND BOTH ARE PROVED ON THE RECORD

(only the second element is required under the constitution):

“A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463. To “establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both (1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive.” United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1432 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

  1. Others who are actually culpable principles and other client/victims similarly situated are not prosecuted. Worse, other client/victims who were similarly profiled for exercising their rights who should not be prosecuted are also charged to detour free speech of IRS political targets perceived as sovereign citizens by the government.
  2. The reason to prosecute Sean is 100% political, based on his exercise of political affiliation and perceived sovereign ideology, which is impermissible and barred.

In the Ninth Circuit, the government suggested to the original panel that “the proper universe of similarly situated defendants” was “generally all those offenders that have violated the same criminal statute . . . however, the government asserted that a “similarly situated individual” would be one “with a similar criminal background and similar offense conduct.” Sean is not similarly situated to Adam’s and Hall, he had nothing to do with intentionally violating any statute and has no criminal history like Adams and Hall. (SEE EXHIBIT B For sentencing comparisons and that Mr. Hall was noted to be dangerous, Dr. Morton does not have the same criminal history)

Any previous standard for selective prosecution and enforcement, is not equipped to deal with the IRS targeting scandal type of Chevron deference ‘improper policy’ that turns rule of law on it’s head. The IRS calls their decisions ‘improper criteria’ but it is actually ‘improper policy’ and could not be allowed if the delegation doctrine were restored and Chevron overturned.  The very fact these ‘improper policies’ exist means the first element is irrelevant because it can be twisted.

Sean believes that the two elements are met, however, other people’s prosecutions or lack of prosecution is irrelevant to the unconstitutional motive to suppress Sean’s 1st amendment rights as a political tactic. The government describe Sean and other clients as defrauded but charged Sean instead of the architects as a political tactic based on possible publicity.  The motive is enough to require reversal and further bar such prosecution as evil and not proper in a free and just society.  Who cares who else was charged or not?  Sean was selected to charge for impermissible reasons and this is not acceptable.

FIRST ELEMENT: PROOF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

ARE NOT CHARGED

  1. The architects Brandon Adams and Gordon Hall were never charged for tax crimes, Klein conspiracy, false claims or any instrument they made and sent for clients, even though the government says they caused their clients to send IRS 149 fictitious instruments worth $92 million dollars and 439 files filled with false claims they promoted as part of an “enterprise” that defrauded IRS and their clients like Sean and Melissa. Adams was subpoenaed and invoked his 5th amendment privilege, leaving Sean and Melissa to take the blame for his conduct.
  2. Larry D Behers, government contractor who owns Nova West Communications in Tucson, Az with ties to Horowitz and Weinstein, a tax law firm, is involved with making fraudulent false claims using Sean and Melissa’s identity but he isn’t charged, even though he helped cause the claims Adams is civilly enjoined (See EXHIBIT C -Civil Injunction) over and that Sean and Melissa are criminally charged with (see Discovery Disc exhibit 13 – page 1-3 carefully avoided by the government with evidence of Behers false claims in Melissa’s record. Sean’s SS# was scrambled to Melissa’s and this crime affected them both)
  3. Alana Malloy was named by the government as a victim in the 2010 Adams indictment, along with Sean and Melissa. Alana was never criminally charged despite also relying on Adams tax advice just like Sean and Melissa
  4. Sean’s alleged victim Barbara Lavender was not charged with fictitious instruments and Sean was in her exact position as the client of Adams and Hall who promoted the bonds as legal and made them available for download which were used in counts 6,7 and 10-32 [count 9 was not done by Sean].
  5. Thousands of people downloaded the bonds off Adams and Hall’s website including Dannion Brinkley (count 9 & exhibit 55 that Sean is charged with despite Sean objecting that he had nothing to do with Dannion’s bond and IRS testifying Dannion sent it to IRS on his own a full year before Sean ever tried using a bond himself). Brinkley, Scott Seehousen (not a charge but exhibit 161) and the other people who downloaded the bonds to try to use them were not charged, they were all blamed on Sean.

ALANA MALLORY “ME TOO” WITNESS

  1. BRODY: There is a witnessed that I’ve subpoenaed by the name of Alana Mallory. She was one of Brandon Adams acolytes, if you will, somebody who listened to his recordings and watched his videos and also filed 1099 OID-based tax returns. Her attorney, Mr. Casey Hull, is present today, and Ms. Mallory, according to her attorney, intends to assert her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in response to my subpoena.

THE COURT: Maybe we can address that now?

  1. HULL: Thank you, I represent Alana Mallory. She was subpoenaed by Mr. Brody to be a trial witness in this matter. she plans on invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege. She has been dealing with this for some time. Your Honor. She — attending court for her is an extreme hardship. She has a special-needs child, an adult child — 18 year old. … She has an 18-year-old, nonverbal special-needs child who is on a feeding tube who is basically tethered to her 24/7. She also has some travel issues. She’s in Orange County, but she has vertigo, she doesn’t drive; so she’d have to be escorted to the court. And her position is she doesn’t know these defendants; she has no experience with them at all, and she’s been dealing with the IRS on this matter, but she hasn’t been criminally charged. So she is afraid that if she does testify, there’s a chance that she could be prosecuted.

THE COURT: Understood.

  1. HULL: And I talked to Mr. Brody about this beforehand, and he told me that he — it’s his theory that the incidents were so remote, it happened so long ago, that there’s not a chance that she would be prosecuted, and I asked Mr. Brody authority years was for some sort of a brief or some sort of legal –

THE COURT: What years are involved?

  1. HULL: I think it was 2005 through 2008.

THE COURT: When were the defendants in this case exposed to Brandon Adams? Do we know?

  1. BRODY: During the same period, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I see. And has she filed — but this is the same area we generally. In other words, “me too” kind of

  1. BRODY: That’s correct, Your Honor.
  2. HULL: Exactly. She’s in the “me too” category.

THE COURT: Yes. I’ll take that under submission and let you know in advance.

 

BARBARA LAVENDER ‘client’ of Sean:

Brody: Q. Did Mr. Morton ever guarantee you that the bond would work?

LAVENDER A. No guarantees.

  1. And you were never charged with a crime in connection with the use of the bond or anything like that, correct?
  2. No.

 

SECOND ELEMENT OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION – IMPERMISSIBLE POLITICAL MOTIVE TO PROSECUTE

In more than one document the government says “this case is unusual due to the defendant’s belief in the illegitimacy of the government.”  This speaks to Valerie’ belief and motive, not Sean’s. If Sean did not believe there was a legitimate government underneath all the corruption he wouldn’t be sending IRS memorandums of understanding filled with laws he relies on.

Sean said early on this is for publicity and should be tossed out.  The Judge agreed with Valerie that there is a need in publicizing Sean’s sentence “to send a message”. The judge was misled by Valerie that Sean was essentially the architect.  Valerie told the judge early on that Sean “figured out the 1099 OID scheme on his own” and told the judge that Sean made the coupon money order on his own (even though only Hall had the knowledge and equipment to do so and the government has extensive evidence in their records of Hall and Adams creating and causing those instruments to be sent to IRS). 

The question in this appeal is the legitimacy of the “message being sent” because it is really a message against free speech and right to associate and protest and have an opinion that Federalism is good.  It’s impermissible motive to prosecute Sean yet the government admits the clients like Sean were selected as a class to prosecute because the government thinks every single client of Hall and Adams subscribe to the same sovereign ideology. 

Page 44, IRS Criminal Investigation Annual Report

[Ninth circuit says they defrauded only clients and IRS couldn’t be deceived by the bad checks – no 18 usc 371 defrauding IRS charge ensued or 2b aid and abet charge]

 

Members of Sovereign Citizen Movement Sentenced for Scheme to Defraud the IRS   

 

On June 18, 2015, in Phoenix, Arizona, Gordon Leroy Hall, of Mesa, Arizona, was sentenced to 96 months in prison. Gordon Hall’s business partner, Brandon Adams, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was sentenced to 40 months in prison. Gordon Hall’s son, Benton Hall, was sentenced to 27 months in prison. Gordon Hall partnered with Adams after they met at various seminars associated with the sovereign citizen movement. They devised a plan to create fictitious money orders to submit to the IRS in an attempt to eliminate Hall’s and Hall’s clients’ tax debts. The scheme operated out of Hall’s office and home in Mesa, Arizona, where Hall’s children, including Benton Hall, acted as office managers. Adams created all of the fictitious money orders based on information provided by Hall’s staff. In all, Hall and Adams created and caused the submission to the IRS of 149 fictitious money orders totaling approximately $93 million.

 

US v Hall Ninth Circuit San Francisco Ca. February 16, 2017. Judges Fletcher, Fuentes and Rawlinson

 

Judicial notice:  Starting at the time 11:25 of the video on youtube.com, Posted by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

 

The US Att. States:

“Howick instructs indicia of negotiability could go with the intent to defraud and of course in this case there we have substantial indicia of negotiability, there were routing numbers on these checks.”

 

Judge on the left states:

“Yeah, I couldn’t help but thinking that this scheme seems so bizarre, to pay your taxes eight hundred and sixty eight thousand dollars, with a fake money order drawn on an account of I guess Timothy Geithner of the United States Treasury, but it’s from a person who I guess considers himself a “sovereign citizen”?

 

US ATT: That’s correct your honor

 

Judge on the far left: “I wonder if this is more in line with a protest? rather than an attempt to defraud the Government”. Would you comment on that?

 

US ATT: Yes your honor,

 

Judge says: I mean he did call the government and said “by the way, I’m sending you… a money order for eight hundred and sixty eight”, it that was very nice of him to do that, Eight hundred sixty eight thousand dollars.

 

US ATT: In fact this did differ from Mr. Halls conduct prior to, he did send a number of frivolous uh documents and letters and uh that type of thing to the IRS uh to this particular revenue agent prior to this instance. However in this instance he phoned the revenue officer, the revenue officer testified to this extensively at trial, he asked them for the precise amounts of money that were owed and then he issued…. and said payment will be forth coming he communicated that and thereon after two checks these two money orders did arrive along with an IRS payment voucher which accompanied them which is common when your paying off any kind of debt this payment voucher is a form that’s utilized and “Solomon instructs that the context of an instrument is presented, could be used to infer the intent to defraud. And of course in this case we also

 

Judge in the center says: Let me pursue Judge Fuentes question, I mean, he can’t possibly have believed that the Government was going to accept this for payment of his taxes, that is to say, he can’t possibly have expected that this would work and why isn’t this actually a protest rather than an attempt to defraud?

 

US ATT: Frankly your honor it’s not an element of the offense of what the defendant thought of that what the success or lack of success from this particular method, we do know from the record that he did subscribe to sovereign ideaology and that sovereign citizens…….

 

Judge in center says: Yeah but he’s a nutcase

 

US ATT: Although not mentally competent as I would note for the…

 

Judge in center says: Well… that’s your argument. But what would, this is not your ordinary fraudster I mean we deal with fraud cases all the time

 

US ATT: Yes sir

 

Judge in center says: And we deal with these sovereign state protester variations all the time to, but this does not strike me as an attempt to defraud.

 

US ATT: To the extent there was extensive evidence on the record your honor that Mr. Hall was not just doing this himself, in a singular incident, this was an operation, this was a business!

 

Judge on left says: I understand that! We didn’t charge him for that.

 

US ATT: Correct your honor but that’s relevant information to …..to..uh, for the record for the intent to defraud, going to his intent to defraud that he operated a business, he charged other people for this service.

 

Judge in Center says: yeah he was defrauding them

 

US ATT: Yes your honor he was defrauding them as well

 

Judge in center says: Why didn’t you go after him for that?

 

US ATT: Uh well your honor what it…what it comes down to with the um, there are a number of cases around the country of these other sovereign individuals who were clients of Mr. Hall, I can’t speak to um the, the status of these particular cases but they are ongoing.

 

Judge in center says: no I, I think I’m understanding you correctly that those are cases against the other people that were trying to do what Mr. Hall has done rather than a charge against for Mr. Hall for deluding them into thinking that this might work.

 

US ATT: That’s correct your honor

 

Judge in center: so it seems to me that if were talking common sense instead of law that the person or the people he’s trying to defraud are the people he’s doing business with saying hey this is gonna work. There’s zero chance uh that this document sent to the United States Government would actually operate to pay his taxes.

 

US ATT: Yes and the Government would submit that the plausibility of the success of passing fictitious financial instruments is not an element of the offense it does not matter what the receiver thought of the documents.

 

Judge on left: Think his intent is an element of the defense?

 

US ATT: An intent to defraud is your honor yes, and we would submit that the method by which Mr. Hall generated produced and submitted these indicate his intent to defraud in the context of the evidence of his steps prior to submitting the two vouchers uh two money orders I apologize, in his case

 

Judge on left says: He was sophisticated in certain ways and he was sophisticated in the way he produced this document with a certain specialized machines so I wonder I mean this but he seems to me he must have known this was dead on arrival that this just wasn’t going to work, as sophisticated as he was in producing this and other documents so I wonder again if he really intended to defraud the Government or if this was basically protesting?

 

US ATT: I would note your honor that Mr. Hall uh very clearly subscribes to a movement the sovereign citizen movement which this court has recognizes in cases such as Johnson and Neil and others is A proactive group that attempts to defraud the government or [or is disjunctive] frustrate or [or is disjunctive] protest against the government and in this context

 

Judge in center: To frustrate and protest are really very different concepts than defraud.

 

US ATT: yes in this case your honor with the facts that we have in this case, the government believes it did establish the attempt to defraud with respect to the passing of these two documents, with respect to the overall intent of the sovereign citizen movement, I certainly can’t speak to what the objectives are of this movement but Mr. Hall was running a business as a sovereign citizen and charging individuals money to continue to perpetrate these particular types of frauds including passing fictitious money orders to various IRS offices all over the United States

 

Overzealous prosecution refers to someone instituting legal proceedings against a defendant for criminal behavior with the intention to support an excessive enthusiasm for some cause, rather than with any genuine basics for the suit. Valerie Makarewicz has a history of making a name for herself by overzealously prosecuting cases against people she calls sovereign citizens. 

The US Attorney in the US v Hall oral argument provided no legally cognizable reason to charge the clients and admitted ‘what it comes down to’ is sovereign ideology as the reason the victim clients were charged.  Clients who are deluded and defrauded are harmed and have no specific intent to defraud themselves, therefore the clients are never fair game to prosecute instead of the fraudsters who sold them a nightmare instead of a dream. 

Just like the government who has decided to make the illegal nationwide policy of charging Hall’s clients Valerie is also overzealous in her discriminatory vindictive purpose of prosecuting Sean and Melissa for political ideology rather than actual culpability.  Valerie could not articulate or sufficiently explain a legally cognizable theory of her case and made everything up as she went. Instead of explaining a legally valid and permissible theory supported by truthful facts she focuses on repeating her prejudicial sovereign citizen rhetoric against Sean, refers to patently false evidence and perjury of IRS preparer penalty records that are actually reversed as IRS error, and puts words in Sean’s mouth.  It’s not a tax evasion case but she called Sean a tax defier over and over with no basis in law.  This incessant sovereign citizen rhetoric by Valerie and her cohort James C Hughes is vindictive propaganda intended to sanction and create bias against Sean and shows that her mindset and motive to prosecute is in line with the impermissible motive explained by the government in the Hall oral transcript above.  By repeating that Sean is a sovereign citizen at any chance she can get she effectively identifies him as a terrorist, dangerous, stupid, totally wrong in every detail, inferring he obviously hates the government he thinks is illegitimate.  By belittling Sean and misconstruing his interpretation of law as a one size fits all frivolous fantasy or ‘redemption movement’ Sean was disabled, voiceless and disregarded as frivolous like all ‘nut case’ sovereign citizens. Worse, the sovereign citizen rhetoric against Sean is used to infer Sean’s interpretation of law is not in good faith and meant to be obtrusive for the purposes of screwing around and making things difficult as a defiant thumb in the eye of the government. Of course Sean was prejudiced and discredited by the political tactic and smear against him.

The founding fathers were sovereign citizens and terrorists to King George.  Chisholm v Georgia and Marbury v Madison says the people and citizens are sovereign.  President Trump has said the people are sovereign.

Sean believes he is made in gods sovereign image and said clearly this is both political to him as well as spiritual.  Sean is standing up for his and other people’s rights to announce and denounce tyranny and think whatever he wants so long as he isn’t out maliciously harming people. That is not criminal, it’s an opinion and protected by the bill of rights.  When did the opinion that ‘I believe I am made in gods sovereign image’ turn into ‘I am a terrorist’ or proof of specific criminal intent?  These first amendment rights that Sean demands are protected are the same rights tyrants would want to take and why the founders of America put them in writing in the Bill of Rights as the limits on government. 

Sean is hardly a threat, he’s a simple man who just believes in the wisdom of the constitution and Federalism, he’s not out there shoving his beliefs down listener’s throats. The government is in the wrong for focusing on beliefs rather than merits.

Will this court act as an extension of the impermissible political targeting policy and say Sean is wrong, people are not sovereign and not the source of government authority?  Will this court continue to make Sean’s political beliefs the central theme like Valerie and the government in Halls oral argument, even though it’s irrelevant to the charges or defenses? 

This is really about selective prosecution and whether Is there any authority at all that we the people ever delegated to private business men in public-private relationships adverse to us?  No.  Did the people ever delegate authority to anyone or any agency that isn’t offering us a benefit?  No.  Did we ever delegate authority that isn’t by the people, for the people and of the people? No. 

California has devoted two separate governor codes to the topic of ensuring we the people don’t buy into this anti sovereign rhetoric.  The California governor code says: “We the people of California do not yield our sovereignty to the agencies which serve us.  We insist on remaining informed so we can retain control over the agencies we created.”  That is the law of Sean’s domicile California, yet somehow it’s used against Sean simply because he believes it.

Can the federal government really arbitrarily declare the sovereign people in general, even peaceful people who wouldn’t hurt a fly, as terrorists without themselves usurping the will of the people and state government who defines the sovereign people as the source of government and authority, expressly not terrorists?  Do the states and the people have a say in how we are perceived or does the inferior have the final say over the superior that created them for their benefit?  The Federal government is like Frankenstein mixed with Dr. Hyde.

This is out of control. The selective enforcement against right wing media, Trump supporters and Conservatives was pre-planned to win at all costs in this case by using false evidence, false witnesses, perjury, and Obamas campaign manager in the jury.

In this case Sean was indicted almost 7 years after IRS began delaying his returns and harassing him, just one week after the Lois Lerner criminal investigation was closed by an Obama appointee US Attorney on his last day on the job.  Sean was audited and IRS testified he was not audited.  The ordeal with IRS resulted in Sean and Melissa becoming financially ruined and filing for bankruptcy.  The IRS fought them on it tooth and nail, preventing bankruptcy remedy to the financial ruin IRS intentionally caused. 

This is selective enforcement of the most vindictive strain, the motive is impermissible intended to silence Sean’s voice as a ‘right wing radio show’ host critical of Obama and pro Trump for president because the government thinks Sean is part of a ‘sovereign group’.  This case is brought hoping that Sean’s demise will send a message to affect the group or movement, implying that an opinion of sovereign ideology will result in dire consequences like what happened to Sean.  The end goal is stifle the first amendment protected rights of Sean and other political foes in this suspect class.  This court should make no mistake the suspect class is people that exercise their rights to lean to the ‘right wing crazy side’ of politics.

 

IMPERMISSIBLE MOTIVE:

 

THE COURT (discussing Melissa’s sentencing and blaming Sean as the architect): But weren’t those roles more or less those of a functionary? In other words, were they critical? Could someone else have done them? She did them, and she has to own up to them, but it doesn’t seem as though what you’re describing was something that he could have gotten someone else to do.

  1. MAKAREWICZ: I suppose, but when everyone takes a look at Mr. Morton’s sentence and everyone takes a look at Mrs. Morton’s sentence, or sentence to come, the government’s very concerned on perpetuating an idea that if you come along with a fraudster and only do ministerial work and get convicted of the same crimes as the fraudster, that you’ll be treated differently. I mean, the government isn’t —

THE COURT: But you should be treated differently. I mean, there should be some distinction between someone who is an architect and someone who isn’t. The person who helps the scheme ought to be punished, but there ought to be a difference, and if the public doesn’t understand that, then the public is just not very sophisticated. I mean, everyone, I think, knows that that sentences are always different even in ordinary fraud schemes.

Well, we’re not getting anywhere. You have a point of view, and I certainly respect that, but okay. Thank you, Ms. Makarewicz.

 

DISCUSSION

Sean testified that he went to Adams and Hall for everything tax related (counts 1, 2, 3, 6. 7) as well as downloaded their bonds related to all other counts.  The government knows Adams had special equipment, knowledge and the TCC# to transmit electronic returns to IRS.  The government also knows only Hall was sophisticated enough with knowledge and special machines to make the instruments. 

It’s the same as the government saying the murder mystery is solved because there are 2 gunmen with one bullet and one set of fingerprints on the trigger.  Everything in this case that has to do with IRS is caused by the preparers who were the only ones with knowledge, equipment, who promoted and they together defrauded Sean who had a loss whilst they gained a benefit from his loss.  A mere buyer seller relationship does not make Sean or Melissa culpable for acts they didn’t assist with.  Sean testified he merely trusted their advice and went to Adams house to simply sign the documents. Sean testified they did it all under Alexander Adams a licensed CPA and that “we didn’t understand any of it”.  United States v. McCormick, 72 F.3d1404 (9th Cir. 1995) Defendant who did not read documents before signing them was not guilty of making a false statement.

The judge is correct there are degrees of culpability, warranting lesser sentences. In this case there is a difference and there is no culpability because Sean is unknowing and not willful.  Sean relied entirely on the advice of his tax preparers who had their own functionaries that did everything.  The lesser culpability applies to those who help the scheme, not those defrauded by the scheme, despite the government’s dubious objective in this case to charge victims who have no part of the scheme harshly.  To put it in perspective, Halls son was sentenced to 27 months and Adams 40 months on separate charges but Sean is sentenced to 72 months for their crimes because he’s popular. 

Hall has a criminal history a mile long as well as Adams.  Sean and Melissa have no criminal history.  Adams caused 439 return files in 2009 (each file has numerous claims), and Adams with Hall created and caused 149 instruments to be sent to IRS following that to try to fix the tax debacle Adam’s caused.  Sean downloaded their bonds package and helped people about 2O times after the first one was successful and he believed it was a lawful process.  This is so unfair to treat Sean equal or more harshly to Adams and Hall when the government concedes in two other cases Sean and Melissa were defrauded by them.

The government stated three reasons the clients were charged instead of Adams and Hall, yet not one legally valid reason was stated:  the government said the clients are a proactive group who seeks to defraud, frustrate and protest the government.  Clients who were deluded into believing Adams and Hall and who the government agrees, “yes absolutely were defrauded” certainly cannot simultaneously believe the process is lawful and also intend to defraud the government.  The only other reasons the government says the clients are criminally charged rather than the architects is the government fears these allegedly sovereign clients seek to frustrate and protest the government.

Making the government’s job harder may be frustrating but it’s not illegal.  Protesting the government is protected free expression, so it boils down to Sean being charged based on non-criminal reasons that Valerie knows is not proper, but she chose to join the hive and illegally target people who are critical of government as if free speech is a crime. 

2009-2013 – Sean testified he hired Adams and Hall to do all the tax related stuff because they advised it as beneficial to Sean, proper and legal, and he thought the oid process, the 1099-a abandonment process and the financial documents are each a legal process.  Sean testified he gave Adam’s correct numbers and receipts so his taxes would be correct. Sean also testified he only signed and “didn’t really understand this tax stuff”, Sean explained the theories were Adam’s and Hall’s who Sean believed were very knowledgable about tax and financial law.  Sean is entitled to have his testimony believed and the presumption of innocence because there is no evidence to show he didn’t rely entirely on the tax preparers like he verified.

 

REVERSE DETERRENCE IS EVIL AND INTOLERABLE

IN A FREE AND JUST SOCIETY

 

This is about deterring free speech of Halls clients who the government says ‘subscribe to sovereign ideology’ and about IRS continuing to target, harass and subvert a growing movement of patriots who’s political ideology is Federalism.  Sean was indicted one week after the Lois Lerner criminal case closed and arrested whilst debarking from the Conspira-Sea Cruise to send a message to anyone who questions the government’s official story.  People were right, the IRS scandal was a conspiracy and the government lied and tried to cover it up.  Only nonprofits were investigated and exposed even though TIGDA says it was not limited to nonprofits.  It’s a racket.  Talking trash on government corruption is not dangerous or worthy of silencing those dissenters. Having transparency and becoming outraged is the only way to ensure society is safe.  The people behind Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting scandal seek to silence people like Sean and that is what this is really about and why this court needs to remedy the unfair void unconstitutional judgment.

Sean mostly talks about alien conspiracies and has rarely discussed public records available to everyone, his speech is not even close to radical.  There is no need to put him in prison for 72 months and promote his demise over Sean exercising his first amendment rights.

There is no public interest in deterrence of crime by imprisoning fraud victims in California. The way deterrence works is the DoJ is supposed to charge the architects for their crimes and punish them for the offenses they caused others to do and help the victims, not the other way around. 

 

Now criminals will not stop because they know they wont be charged and their victims will bear the brunt of the damage, just like the IRS and Lois Lerner won’t stop targeting political foes because they know they won’t get punished for destroying people like Sean.  Letting the architects off and charging their victims does not detour crime, it may detour victimhood but that’s not how we do things in a free and just society.  This situation turns rule of law on its head.  The political ideology of a victim is improper criteria to charge victims instead of the architect but that is precisely what the government admits ‘it all comes down to’.

notice:

If the prosecutors want an extension they need to provide an affidavit signed under oath of why these simple issues cannot be answered in a timely manner of seven days.  The least the prosecutors can do is to sit down, focus and explain why they should prevail and why this motion should not be granted. If the case against Sean is so airtight and Sean should be imprisoned then it does not take long to explain why.

A man is in prison totally unfairly and impermissibly.  Even one second of loss of a constitutionally protected right is irreparable injury. This expedited motion for summary disposition is about restoring the balance of equity and quickly in the interest of justice.

The issues are not rocket science, and the government has had years to become familiar with every fact and the laws. The case against Sean is fully barred due to these issues therefore this motion should be resolved in Sean’s favor without delay.  Justice delayed is justice denied.

First, Sean is clearly be entitled to relief on the merits. There is no “substantial” question for the court to decide. The merits of the case are “so clear” that “plenary briefing, oral argument, and the traditional collegiality of the decisional process will not affect [the] decision.”

Second, there is only one question of first impression in this court, or conflict among the courts on a controlling legal principle, and the issue is not a lynchpin, it could be omitted.  The question is if non-negotiable is an exception to the definition of instrument in 514 and technically it could be resolved by simply referring to Congress definition of instrument in UCC Article 3.  If that issue were to be an impediment to summary disposition then ignore it, because it’s a mere supporting issue that can be a bar to the 514 charges, but is not the main jurisdictional bar and can be easily omitted to focus on speedy remedy.

Third, the record before the court is sufficient to allow meaningful consideration of the appeal. Although the facts may not be entirely simplistic, the court can thoroughly grasp the issues without full briefing or oral argument.

Fourth, Sean has made a showing of exigency. A delay will substantially further harm Sean who claims he is entitled to have his life, property and rights restored.  An expedited schedule for briefing an oral argument will be insufficient to prevent that harm. This is especially true because Sean’s free speech, media, loss of life and property considerations are at stake.  Sean’s imprisonment causes an avalanche of irreparable injury including injuring the public right to have Sean be protected media.  The longer the delay the more the public has cause to distrust the government and think the IRS targeting scandal is above reproach and the courts are not protecting the peoples rights to be free of oppression. Expediting remedy will restore trust in the courts and government after deep abuse and fractures in the system.

Finally, it is efficient and equitable to resolve the case through summary disposition instead of a “traditional” appellate process “with all the trappings.” Sean believes the courts strained resources are better expended on other cases, and that Sean will still receive all of the consideration that it is due on appeal.

United States v. Fortner, 455 F.3d 752,
754 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Summary disposition is appropriate in an emergency, when time is of the essence and the court cannot wait for full briefing and must decide a matter on motion papers alone.”); Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162 (summary disposition may be warranted
“where time is of the essence,” including “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied”).

I verify the foregoing is true and correct, with firsthand knowledge.

The ninth day of the eleventh month of the year two thousand eighteen

                                        

 

In the interest of justice,

Sean David Morton, all rights reserved

 

NOTICE:

 

REQUIREMENTS TO OVERCOME SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

FIRST ELEMENT IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED ARE PROSECUTED?

 

  1. The government must prove that victims of fraud are normally prosecuted to detour the crimes of people who defrauded those victims
  2. The government must prove that it’s permissible to not charge those entirely culpable at all
  3. The government must prove that other clients of Adam’s and Hall were actually similarly situated as defined by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (same criminal history, same involvement in the scheme) and are prosecuted with Klein conspiracy or false claims or fictitious instruments
  4. The government must prove that other people who downloaded the bonds off Adams and Halls website and helped people with them are prosecuted as principles (counts 9-32)
  5. The government must prove that Sean and Melissa are similarly situated to Adam’s and Hall (the principals) and culpable. To prove this the prosecutors must show how the relationship is even to the principles and not merely a seller vs buyer, leader vs follower, advisor vs client who acts on the advice, an ‘enterprise’ with special machines and knowledge vs Sean who testified he didn’t entirely understand any of it and who has no equipment or way to electronically file taxes.
  6. The prosecutor’s burden of proof to overcome this element is impossible because Sean paid the principals and has a loss whilst the principals had a gain, he is not similarly situated.
  7. First, others in Sean’s position are never prosecuted because he is a victim. Second, who cares if others were prosecuted or not, its impermissible squared to go after victims based on their beliefs, activities and political affiliations which is precisely why Sean and others were convicted who should never have been convicted. If this court needs to make president, so be it.  Others were convicted who should be protected, not made into a game for the political fodder of selective prosecution. 

 

THE SECOND ELEMENT IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME

GOOD FAITH MOTIVE DEFENSE

 

  1. The prosecutor must show the decision to prosecute Sean was rooted in good faith and because the prosecutor truly believed he is guilty. This is problematic because the government concedes Adams did all the tax related offenses involved in counts 1,2,3,6,7. 
  2. Further problematic to the prosecutors need to prove good faith belief that Sean is guilty of 514 offenses the government knows Adams and Hall caused the instruments in counts 6,7
  3. It is impossible to believe Valerie held a good faith belief in Sean’s intent to defraud the clients because she told the judge that Sean “believed the instruments would pay the clients debts’, and the evidence in each instrument shows the clients signed a contract saying they are not given legal advice, Sean is not an attorney and there are no guarantees. Being a specific intent offense the prosecutors belief of Sean’s belief that the bonds would pay the clients debt is antithetical to the element of specific intent.
  4. The prosecutors need to provide proof they were unaware that the Adams injunction names Sean and Melissa as clients and ordered Adams to inform them of the injunction, which proves Sean and Melissa had no knowledge and impeaches the prosecutions theory
  5. The prosecutors need to provide proof that the ‘extensive evidence in the record’ referred to in the Hall oral argument does not include instruments made and sent to IRS for Sean and Melissa. If the instruments Hall and Adams made and sent for Sean and Melissa are exhibits in that case or in the governments record and referred to in the DoJ articles describing the 149 instruments Adams and Hall caused then motive to prosecute Sean and Melissa is clear as day and impermissible.  See EXHIBIT A; Also see EXHIBIT D Official Government Publications
  6. To overcome impermissible motive the prosecutors also need to explain to the court why Sean was investigated exactly as Adams and Hall were convicted and just after the Lerner case closed.

JUDICIAL NOTICE DEMANDED

The following public records of the IRS scandal are important background foundation:

 

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT PLOT TO JAIL MEDIA LIKE SEAN

 

House Ways and Means report: IRSR000000669 (Watch List was for “World Events that Could Result in an Influx of Applications”)  The IRS learned in February 2014, that the IRS had lost two years of emails belonging to Lois Lerner and six additional employees. These missing emails were from the time period when the IRS was targeting conservative group applications and would likely prove vital to the investigation. With critical information missing from the relevant time period the targeting occurred and from the head of the division responsible for the inappropriate targeting, the likelihood is more incriminating information will be found. Additionally, very recently produced emails demonstrate the presence of political bias by Lois Lerner. Lerner revealed her animus towards conservatives in one of these recently released email exchanges from November 2012 with an unnamed sender. In the exchange, the sender complained about the “whacko wing of the GOP” and “scary” “right wing radio shows.”1072 The sender replied that conservative critics as being the reason that the “U.S. is through.”1073 Lerner responded, “[G]reat. Maybe we are through if there are that many [redacted]holes.” Lerner called conservatives “our own crazies” and compared them to “teRrorists [sic].”1074

1072 http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/lerner_email_a.pdf

1073 http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/lerner_email_a.pdf

1074 http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/lerner_email_a.pdf


LOIS LERNER EMAILS SHOW PLOT TO JAIL POLITICAL FOES

FOR “LIES”, IE: “FALSE” STATEMENTS

 

TIGDA reports say the political targeting of groups was not limited to 501c3 and 501c4 groups.  The IRS year end report for 2015 (the year Sean was indicted) says their focus was on arresting  ‘counterterrorism – sovereign citizens’ which is one category of suspect class.  Obviously this has everything to do with the governments belief Sean, Adams and Hall are sovereign citizens, but it also likely has to do with Sean being a ‘right wing radio show’ host equating him to terrorism.

 

PLOT TO IMPRISON POLITICAL TARGETS LIKE SEAN

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-reveal-doj-irs-and-fbi-plan-to-seek-criminal-charges-of-obama-opponents/  “These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?” On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.

Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange included a May 8, 2013, email by Lerner:

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

Democratic Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held a hearing on April 9, 2013, during which, “in questioning the witnesses from the DOJ and IRS, Whitehouse asked why they have not prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups that have seemingly made false statements about their political activities…”

The House Oversight Committee followed up on these Judicial Watch disclosures with hearings and interviews of Pilger and his boss, DOJ Public Integrity Chief Jack Smith. Besides confirming the DOJ’s 2013 communications with Lerner, Pilger admitted to the committee that DOJ officials met with Lerner in October 2010. [November 1 2010 is exactly when IRS started sending Sean nonsensical letters correcting returns, holding the refunds for not filing years already filed and that evidence which was IRS error and actually reversed off Sean’s record is used to convict Sean so the timing is suspicious] Judicial Watch obtained new documents about these meetings in December 2014 showing the Obama DOJ initiated outreach to the IRS about prosecuting tax-exempt entities.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/ – Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

The April 30, 2013 meeting came just under two weeks prior to Lerner’s admission during an ABA meeting that the IRS had “inappropriately” targeted conservative groups.  In her May 2013 answer to a planted question, in which she admitted to the “absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate” targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups.

On May 14, 2013, a report by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed: “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status” (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The illegal IRS reviews continued “for more than 18 months” and “delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications” in advance of the 2012 presidential election.  [TIGDA reports expressly say the targeting was not limited to groups applying for tax exempt status and Sean’s returns were delayed just like all ‘political cases’ in IRS at the time.]  All these documents were forced out of the IRS as a result of an October 2013 Judicial Watch (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the IRS after it failed to respond adequately to four FOIA requests sent in May 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)).   In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:” Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. 

THE SYSTEM TO IMPRISON POLITICAL TARGETS WORKS,

BUT NOT IN REAL TIME.

 

“It was my understanding that the reason they [political cases] were identified is because they were likely to attract media attention,” Steven Grodnitzky, one of the employees in the exempt organizations division, told investigators.  Another supervisory employee in Washington, Ronald Shoemaker, also said press attention helped shape IRS policies, telling investigators that media attention to those cases “was the basis” for designating them as significant cases requiring special examination.  Nancy Pelosi describes this as the wrap up smear, a political tactic. She essentially explained: “You make the smear, capitalize on it in the media then use that media to discredit your opponent as if the story is real.”