DOJ asks judge to hold Dave Champion in contempt

[wserra]

None of those machinations are necessary here (and Rule 4 is for service of a summons and complaint - in other words, acquiring personal jurisdiction). Champion was personally served with the OSC on April 2, 2008, in Palmdale, CA. See the certificate of service, item #6 on the docket. Once that happened, the Court had jurisdiction over him, and it is his responsibility to attend when required. I realize that the Court directed that he be personally served. However, if the govt shows that he had notice of the August 11 date, he split the state, and they made reasonable efforts to serve him, he's cooked anyway.

I would have issued a bench warrant for his ass on the 11th, but nobody asked me.

[cynicalflyer]

None of those machinations are necessary here (and Rule 4 is for service of a summons and complaint - in other words, acquiring personal jurisdiction).

True, but so much the better to my point, namely, that if it is good enough for service of a s&c, that is more than enough horsepower (so to speak) to lay claim to proof of and sufficient of service of a notice of depo.

It is also not clear to me why the judge let him slide like this either. This does not sound like an issue of "sewer service" or that a traverse hearing (on a notice of depo of all things) is being sought. But then again we are looking at a bare clerks note.

[grixit]

Sounds like a job for the US Marshalls. Mybe they could do one of their hilarious sting operations, and get Champion to come to them, thinking he's won tickets to a Ron Paul rally.

[grammarian44]

It is also not clear to me why the judge let him slide like this either. This does not sound like an issue of "sewer service" or that a traverse hearing (on a notice of depo of all things) is being sought. But then again we are looking at a bare clerks note.

I'm also confused on this point. I don't think the clerk would be likely to be mistaken that the judge did indeed give Dave another chance--that doesn't seem like a very subtle point about the hearing that a clerk would be likely to miss. And yet I'm pretty certain this was already Dave's second chance and his second no-show. I mean, how many times do you have to agree to show up, then fly the coop before the judge gets angry enough to issue a warrant? Not being a litigator or criminal guy in any sense, I don't really know the answer to this question.

[jg]

I'm also confused on this point. I don't think the clerk would be likely to be mistaken that the judge did indeed give Dave another chance--that doesn't seem like a very subtle point about the hearing that a clerk would be likely to miss. And yet I'm pretty certain this was already Dave's second chance and his second no-show. I mean, how many times do you have to agree to show up, then fly the coop before the judge gets angry enough to issue a warrant? Not being a litigator or criminal guy in any sense, I don't really know the answer to this question.

If you ask me, somebody should write a book detailing such travesties of judicial action.
But I guess that can not happen if she is still rewriting an alleged book that we are all too familiar with.

[grammarian44]

So I e-mailed Dave, and he responded:

Dave, When the IRS first began issuing summonses for records related to your alleged clients, you wrote the following:

"I am committed to beating these bastards right up front, not after a protracted legal battle. I don't want to use gimmicks, I want to hand them their lunch using the law. And let them choke on it!"

I just heard, however, that you failed to appear at your most recent hearing on the matter, and that the court rescheduled for September 2. If you don't show up for that hearing, then the court will consider whether to issue a bench warrant for your arrest.

I'm just wondering why you chose not to appear. Could you explain that to me, please? Why didn't you let them choke on the law?

I believed in you, Dave. Why are you letting me down?

Yours,

A Listener

And Dave responded:

The first such hearing was scheduled for June 30th; my first Monday in Pahrump. I had much more pressing matters than being in LA due to nothing more than the harassment of the IRS. Furthermore, I was never served for that hearing, which given the nature of the hearing is a necessity.

Since I was never served, the judge refused to move forward and it was rescheduled for August 11th. Again I was not served.

Since I was never served, the judge refused to move forward and it was rescheduled for Sept 2nd.

I will beat their ass in court, but I'm way too busy to show up "voluntarily". Since the entire thing is nothing more a politically motivated attack on the 1st Amendment, I certainly am not rushing to make their job "easy and convenient" by showing up when they've not bothered to affect service.

Dave Champion

Any comments? What should I say in return?

[webhick]

Any comments? What should I say in return?

Probably something along the lines of:

Thank you so much for clearing this up Dave. My friend said that you didn't show up because you would lose, but I showed him your email and he got defensive and agitated and said, "we'll see." "We'll see," indeed. I can't wait until you beat them with the mighty hammer of truth on Sept 2nd.

Your email exhibited complete sentences and proper spelling and grammar. What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know you're supposed to write unintelligibly when posing as a TP? I mean, do you know how hard it was to write a TP response without making a spell checker puke?

[wserra]

Any comments? What should I say in return?

Nice try. However, anything you say in reply other than "Yeah, Dave! U Rk!" would indicate that you are not a brain-dead redneck, and therefore a provocateur rather than one of his (brain-dead redneck) listeners. Here's the answer, though:

As I posted above, Champion was personal served with the OSC. On April 28, 2008, Champion appeared pro se, and (despite his arguments) was ordered as follows:

David Champion is ordered to appear before an authorized IRS representative by no later than May 31, 2008, to give testimony and to produce books, records, papers and other data pertaining to the subjects set forth in the summons.

He failed to do so, and the government moved to hold him in contempt. There is no certificate of service in the docket, meaning that Champion was not personally served. However, absent a local rule, there is no requirement that even a pro se litigant be personally served (as opposed to served by mail) with a motion. Other district courts do have such a rule for service of contempt motions on pro se litigants - Local Civil Rule 83.9 here in NYSD, for example. However, a quick perusal shows no equivalent rule in local CACD Rules. Local Rules are notoriously obtuse for those who do not practice there, though - if I am wrong, will a CA practitioner please correct me. Absent such a rule, Champion will be found in contempt in absentia, because he's wrong.

Surprise, surprise.

[grammarian44]

While I don't disagree with wserra's analysis one bit, I don't think it's yet time to recite the law to Dave. I think it's better to let him dig his hole a little deeper first. Agree or disagree?

[.]

It's always great fun to watch yet another idiot slowly but surely crash and burn.

I keep wondering when the supply of morons will be exhausted, yet it never seems to happen. Probably never will, which is a good thing from an amusement standpoint.

All hail idiots! Long may they propound utter rubbish!

[Demosthenes]

While I don't disagree with wserra's analysis one bit, I don't think it's yet time to recite the law to Dave. I think it's better to let him dig his hole a little deeper first. Agree or disagree?

If I were writing the followup email, I'd strongly suggest that Dave talk more indepth about his reasons for not showing up in court on his next radio show to put fellow listeners' minds at rest...

[ASITStands]

I'd either say nothing or pose a simple question, "What happens if marshals show up with a bench warrant?" and let him stew in that a little bit. He may not respond after that.

You could phrase it differently, "What happens if they move to arrest you?" "What happens if the judge decides to issue an arrest warrant? That's what this thing [docket] says."

[grammarian44]

The problem with asking Dave what will happen if the federales knock at his door is that they definitely won't until after the Sept. 2nd hearing, and Dave seems to suggest that he will, in fact, show up for that hearing (although he is not entirely clear on this point).

[LPC]

If I were writing the followup email, I'd strongly suggest that Dave talk more indepth about his reasons for not showing up in court on his next radio show to put fellow listeners' minds at rest...

It will put the judge's mind at rest also.

Yes, I can't think of anything more reassuring to a judge than to know that a party who has been cited to show cause why he should be held in contempt has made public (recorded) statements explaining that he did not show up a previous scheduled hearings because he had "much more pressing matters" is "way too busy" to make things "easy and convenient" for the judge and the government.

It is reassuring to the judge because, when the judge issues the bench warrant and finds the party in contempt, the judge can be sure that the a**hole deserves it.

[Demosthenes]

If I were writing the followup email, I'd strongly suggest that Dave talk more indepth about his reasons for not showing up in court on his next radio show to put fellow listeners' minds at rest...

It will put the judge's mind at rest also.

Yup.

[grammarian44]

Two days ago I wrote to Dave:

So does this mean you plan on showing up for the September 2nd hearing and to beat their asses in court by showing them the tax laws? Or does it mean that you will never show up and beat the rap with a gimmick about service of process?

I really hope you show up and really argue the tax law. Isn't it about time you show the government what you've been saying on your show for years?

To which Dave responded:

The requirement to serve legal process is never a gimmick. It is fundamental element of our judicial system - and with very good cause. It is a shame that you consider such a fundamental as a gimmick. I guess in your mind standing up for things like the right of privacy, and the right to be secure in one's home, papers, possession, etc. is just using "gimmicks". That's too bad.

The government has a job to do. It's to get me served. I'm not evading service - I'm waiting for it. They have to do their job before I do mine.

Please do me the courtesy of not writing me again with such a snotty attitude.

Thanks,
Dave Champion

He's probably on to me, but so what.

[ASITStands]

Compose an e-mail that sounds somewhat apologetic ["Sorry I bothered you," etc.] then ask the question posed before, "What happens if two marshals show up with a bench warrant?"

I appreciate the fact you challenged him.

[grammarian44]

Next round of e-mails:

I approached cautiously, because I had such a "snotty attitude" in my last e-mail:

Dave, Sorry for the snotty attitude. I hope you can explain on your next broadcast the rules under which you are not required to show up for a hearing, and why, especially, the judge was mistaken in raising the possibility of a bench warrant for your arrest. I'm sure many of your listeners, like me, would like to know exactly where the judge went wrong on this point.

Again, my real hope here is that in the end, you will nail them with the tax laws. Winning on a service of process issue sounds great, but I would hope that in the end when you kick their asses, it will be because you know the tax laws better than they do.

Thanks.

And Dave, perhaps predictably, acts as though he is untroubled by the possibility of a bench warrant. Somewhat coincidentally, however, it just so happens that in the course of our e-mail exchange, he was properly served (on his definition of proper service):

The judge was not wrong in raising the possibility of a bench warrant for my arrest. He is listening to the ridiculous [false] crap offered him by the IRS. Given the lies the IRS is telling him his actions are completely appropriate. It's a good thing I took a witness with me when I went to the IRS office on the appointed day and time!

Please keep in mind this whole matter is a distraction from the real work I do - which is assisting nontaxpayers to lead happy, success, lives. Every moment spent on the nonsense of the IRS is a moment taken away from those who are seeking that info/guidance. That means I'm not rushing out to engage scumbags at the expense of the good people in this world.

All that said, you will be pleased to hear I was served today.

So it looks as if September 2 is Dave's next date with destiny. Two possible outcomes: he doesn't show, in which case there really will be a bench warrant, or he shows up and is ordered to hand over the requested books and records. Which do you think it will be?

[Dr. Caligari]

So it looks as if September 2 is Dave's next date with destiny. Two possible outcomes: he doesn't show, in which case there really will be a bench warrant, or he shows up and is ordered to hand over the requested books and records. Which do you think it will be?

I think it will be the second. But there is actually a third possibility-- he shows up and is incarcerated for his prior refusals to produce books and records (since he was previously ordered to do so).

[grammarian44]

So it looks as if September 2 is Dave's next date with destiny. Two possible outcomes: he doesn't show, in which case there really will be a bench warrant, or he shows up and is ordered to hand over the requested books and records. Which do you think it will be?

I think it will be the second. But there is actually a third possibility-- he shows up and is incarcerated for his prior refusals to produce books and records (since he was previously ordered to do so).

It's a possibility, yes, but given the leeway the judge has already given Dave, it doesn't seem likely.