Dave Bosset held in contempt

[Demosthenes]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID T. BOSSET,
Respondent.
Case No. 8:07-cv-947-T-17MSS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration of the Government's Motions to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court and to Compel Production of Summoned Documents (the "Motions"). (Dkt. 20, 26) The Government moves the Court to hold Respondent in contempt for his repeated failures to produce the names, addresses and contact information for all managing directors of trusts under Respondent's influence or control and documents and information called for by the terms of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") summons. The Government proposes the following sanctions: (1) a per diem fine and/or incarceration until Respondent produces the information, and (2) a fine for costs associated with the Motions.

I. Background

On December 12, 2006, the IRS issued a summons requiring Respondent to appear before Revenue Officer Bryan Morris on January 4, 2007. (Dkt. 1) The IRS summons also directed Respondent to produce books, records and other documents demanded in the IRS summons. (Dkt. 1) Respondent appeared on January 4, 2007, but he failed to produce the books, records and other documents as directed by the IRS summons. (Dkt. 1) On June 6, 2007, the Government filed a Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Summons with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (Dkt. 1)

On July 12, 2007, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Respondent to appear for a hearing before the Court on September 18, 2007, to show cause why he should not be subject to the IRS summons. (Dkt. 4) Respondent, dutifully, appeared at the September 18, 2007 hearing. During the hearing, the Undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation granting Petition's request to enforce the IRS summons and directing Respondent to appear for a deposition on October 3, 2007, and to produce the documents in response to the IRS summons.1 (Dkt. 21) On October 3, 2007, Respondent attended the ordered deposition and produced the names of the more than 220 trusts under his influence or control, but he failed to produce the names, addresses and contact information for all the managing directors of those trusts.

On October 17, 2007, Respondent filed a motion objecting to the Undersigned's oral Order to produce the names, addresses and contact information of the managing directors of the trusts under his influence or control. (Dkt. 14) On December 7, 2007, the Court denied Respondent's motion and directed Respondent to produce to the Government in response to the IRS summons "the names, addresses and contact information for all managing directors of the more than 220 trusts over which he has influence or control, for receipt within fifteen (15) days" of the date of that order.2 (Dkt. 16) The Court warned Respondent that his "failure to comply ... may result in [his] being held in contempt of Court" and an imposition of "fines and other sanctions." (Dkt. 16)

On January 7, 2008, Respondent filed a "Notice of Jurisdictional Defect with Motion to Dismiss." (Dkt. 17) On January 15, 2008, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss and reiterated to Respondent that he was "not excused from compliance with the Court's Order" to produce the names, addresses and contact information of managing directors of the trusts under his influence or control. (Dkt. 19 p. 2)

On February 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a Motion to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court and to Compel Production of Summoned Documents. (Dkt. 20) The Government informed the Court in its motion that Respondent had not complied with the Court's December 7, 2007, Order and requested Respondent be held in contempt and the Court impose a daily fine to coerce Respondent's compliance. On February 21, 2008, the District Judge, in an Order adopting the Undersigned's Report and Recommendation granting Petition's request to enforce the IRS summons as to Respondent, again directed Respondent to produce "the documents and information called for by the terms of the summons."3 (Dkt. 22 p.2)

On March 12, 2008, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Respondent to appear for a hearing before the Court on May 5, 2008, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Court's Orders to produce the summoned documents. (Dkt. 23) On April 28, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the Order regarding the show cause hearing. (Dkt. 25) On April 29, 2008, Petitioner filed a second Motion to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court and to Compel Production of Summoned Documents. (Dkt. 26) On April 30, 2008, the Court denied the Respondent's motion to vacate the Order to Show Cause and directed Respondent to appear at the May 5, 2008, hearing or face the possibility of a commencement of contempt proceedings, fines and/or incarceration. (Dkt. 27)

On May 2, 2008, Respondent filed a "Notice to the Court"4 stating that he would not make an attempt to attend the May 5, 2008, hearing because, among other things, he was denied the utilization of a wheelchair at the Courthouse. (Dkt. 28) On May 5, 2008, the Court entered an Order again directing Respondent to appear at the May 5, 2008 hearing, and notifying Respondent that a wheelchair would be available for him at the entrance of the Courthouse.5 (Dkt. 29)

II. Civil Contempt Standard

District Courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with orders through civil contempt. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). In the Eleventh Circuit, the party moving for contempt bears the burden of establishing by "clear and convincing" evidence that the underlying order was violated. See Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Khimani, 892 F.2d 1512, 1516 (11th Cir. 1990). This clear and convincing proof must demonstrate that: (1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged contemner had the ability to comply with the order. See McGregor v. Chierco, 206 F.3d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 2000).

If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that a party subject to a court order has violated that order, the burden shifts to that party to produce evidence explaining its noncompliance. See Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 755 (1983)). Parties subject to a court's order demonstrate a present inability to comply "only by showing that they have made 'in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.'" Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc., 943 F.2d at 1301. Due process requires that the court inform the alleged contemner of the contemptuous conduct and provide a hearing to allow the contemner to explain why the court should not make a contempt finding. See id. at 1305 (citing Mercer v. Mitchell, 908 F.2d 763, 767 (11th Cir. 1990)).

Further, in fashioning a remedy or sanction for civil contempt, the court has broad discretion, "measured solely by the 'requirements of full remedial relief.'" See United States v. City of Miami, 195 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Citronelle-Mobile, 943 F.2d at 1304); see also McGregor, 206 F.3d at 1385 n.5 (explaining that civil contempt sanctions may serve to either coerce compliance with a court order or compensate a party for losses caused by contemner's failure to comply). In so doing, the Court should consider "the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanctions in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947); see also Citronelle-Mobile, 943 F.2d at 1304. Appropriate sanctions may include a coercive daily fine, a compensatory fine, attorney's fees and costs, or coercive incarceration. See Citronelle-Mobile, 943 F.2d at 1304 (citing cases).

III. Discussion

On May 5, 2008, the Court held the show cause hearing to allow Respondent to explain why the Court should not make a contempt finding against him for his failure to comply with the Court's December 7, 2007 Order and February 21, 2008 Order (the "Court's Orders"). Respondent, willfully and in flagrant disregard of several of this Court's Orders, failed to appear at the hearing. At the hearing, the Petitioner noted that Respondent was repeatedly sent correspondence requesting the documents and information ordered by the Court, but Respondent failed to produce the documents or information and did not contact Petitioner to explain his failure to comply.

Petitioner also provided the Court with a copy of the transcript of Respondent's deposition testimony as evidence indicating that Respondent has the ability to comply to with the Court's Orders. During the deposition, the Respondent indicated that he would voluntarily provide the names of the managing directors of the trusts for which he was trustee once his secretary returned to the office, and he instructed Petitioner to call the office. To date, Respondent has failed to produce the names of the managing directors.

As such, the Court finds that Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has failed to comply with the Court's Orders. While the Court has provided Respondent the opportunity to explain why he should not be held in contempt for his noncompliance, Respondent chose not to appear at the hearing and has not demonstrated that he has made good faith, reasonable efforts to comply with the Court's Orders.

After the hearing, Respondent faxed to the Court a response regarding the May 5, 2008, Order (Dkt. 29) stating that he did not receive the May 5, 2008, Order until approximately 2:30 p.m., because his secretarial help was not in the office and the fax machine was located in an area that he did not frequent, due to his handicap. Furthermore, Respondent stated that he did not have a driver available to bring him to the courthouse. This response offers no explanation for Respondent's repeated failures to produce the documents and ordered discovery and ignores the substantial advance notice given Defendant to appear as directed.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Undersigned REPORTS AND RECOMMENDS that:

1. Petitioner's Motions (Dkt. 20, 26) should be GRANTED.

2. Respondent should be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court's December 7, 2007 Order and February 21, 2008 Order.

3. Respondent should be granted up to and including May 30, 2008, to purge himself of the contempt by complying with the Court's Orders and providing the names, addresses, and contact information for all managing directors of the more than 220 trusts over which he has influence or control and producing the documents and information called for by the terms of the IRS summons. If Respondent has not complied with the Court's Orders by May 30, 2008, he should incur a fine of $200.00 daily, payable to the Clerk of this Court6 until Respondent complies with the Court's Orders. If the total fine reaches $1,000.00 and the Respondent has still not complied with the Court's Orders, the Court should issue an arrest warrant for Respondent and Respondent should be incarcerated until such time Respondent complies with the Court's Orders. The Undersigned finds that the daily fine and incarceration are necessary and minimally sufficient to coerce Respondent to comply with the Court's Orders.

4. Respondent should be granted leave to purge himself of incarceration, if imposed, by complying with the Court's Orders and providing the names, addresses, and contact information for all managing directors of the more than 220 trusts over which he has influence or control and producing the documents and information called for by the terms of the IRS summons.

5. Petitioner should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing these Motions.

RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Tampa, Florida on this 15th day of May 2008.
/s/
MARY S. SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES

Failure to file written objections with the District Judge to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within ten (10) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
Copies Furnished to:
Counsel of Record
David T. Bosset
10352 Lafoy Road
Spring Hill, FL 34608

________________________________________
1 Parties were orally informed that they had until September 28, 2007 to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed.
2 By letter dated January 11, 2008, the Government agreed to give Respondent until January 18, 2008 to produce the required documents.
3 By letter dated March 25, 2008, the Government requested that Respondent produce the documents and information by April 15, 2008.
4 Electronic filing of this document was entered on May 5, 2008. This document was stricken from the record for improper filing.
5 This Order was faxed to Respondent on May 5, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
6 The acceptable form of payment is a cashier's check or money order payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court at Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33602-4511.

[Demosthenes]

Here's Bosset's reply:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/bosset32.pdf

Smarmy sarcasm is always so effective when answering judges who have the power to incarcerate you:

... the first problem being how Magistrate Scriven, in her infinite legal wisdom, can ignore the Supreme Court cases ...

[Demosthenes]

Dave Bosset, for those who don't remember, was one of Bob Schulz' poster children in his full page newspaper ads announcing that five employers had stopped withholding:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wtpemployers.pdf

So where are they now?

Dick Simkanin: Currently serving 7 yrs in federal prison

Al Thompson: Currently serving 6 yrs in federal prison

Nick Jesson: Released from federal prison in February 2008 after serving a 27 month sentence in federal prison (concurrent with a 2 yr sentence at the state level)

Dave Bosset: permanently enjoined, recently tried unsuccessfully to sue the IRS for $4 billion, now facing incarceration for civil contempt

Leonard Roberto: filed in 2004 to quash IRS summons

[LPC]

In another example of tax denier cut-and-paste mentality, Bosset attached an exhibit with what could be a record for a "string cite," a list of 64 decisions on "territorial jurisdiction" under Article 1, Section 8, clause 17.

[Quixote]

Here's Bosset's reply:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/bosset32.pdf

Smarmy sarcasm is always so effective when answering judges who have the power to incarcerate you:

... the first problem being how Magistrate Scriven, in her infinite legal wisdom, can ignore the Supreme Court cases ...

Demo, you ellipsized (is that a word?) too soon.

... such as Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43 at 47 (1905), ... where the Supreme Court upheld the "sanctity of contract."

I haven't studied Hale v Henkel, but I know that the SC did not uphold the sanctity of contract or any other concept on page 47 of the case. The Court's opinion starts on page 58. Page 47 is the first page of the appellant's brief. I have skimmed the opinion, which deals with two issues only, neither of which could be mistaken for "sanctity of the contract".

[Demosthenes]

From: Jack Bauer [mailto:bowersecret@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:10 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Attention: Dave Bosset a freedom warrior and PRO-Constitutionalist needs your help

Attention: Dave Bosset a freedom warrior and PRO-Constitutionalist needs your help, prayers, and financial support.

Dave Bosset whom has been active in the truth movement many years has been thrown in jail for "contempt of court". The court ordered Dave to reveal the managing directors names of the over 220 trusts (I believe UBTO's) he was involved in. Dave has refused on the grounds the right to privacy and right to contract. Dave has cited the supreme court case Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) as his proof the gov't cannot compel him to produce private documents. His plan is to not give in to the gov't demands until they cite the law that compels him. Here is a quote from that case:

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich has signed an order (attached) to incarcerate Dave until he produces the information and a $1,000 fine. To my knowledge, the gov't has NOT answered Dave on his use of Hale v. Henkel as a Constitutional shield. Shockingly, Judge Kovachevich suppressed Dave's detailed analysis of Hale v. Henkel and how it applies to his case on Docket #28 in the Federal Court record. You cannot call it up on pacer. I have it reprinted as an attachment for you to read.

Dave suffered a stroke which paralyzed one side which requires a hand walker and makes it tough to get around and type but his mind has remained sharp. He was at the first kick off lawmen meeting here in Tampa and has been active in helping any who sought his help. He has challenged the Federal Gov't in court for publishing his and others Social Security numbers illegally violating our right to privacy.

Because of Dave's stroke and other physical challenges he and his family have just been getting by but now while incarcerated Dave's family suffers financially. I speak from the personal knowledge that the family loves God, they are very conservative, and any contribution you give will be used on necessities (food, housing expenses). Please commit to sending a monthly contribution while Dave is falsely imprisoned. Send the check or money order to the home address and leave the pay to the order line blank or write 'cash'.

10352 Lafoy Road
Spring Hill, Florida 34608

A group of us are planning to protest this travesty of justice in front of the Federal Court house on Florida Ave in Tampa soon. We need your input on this. It will be peaceful with some large signs and handing out literature with Dave's story and reprint of Docket 28 that Judge Kovachevich suppressed in the court record. It would be fantastic if we could get 1000, or 500, or 250 people in front of the courthouse with signs protesting this travesty. But Trying to be the most effective with the resources available, we are thinking of two people for two hours throughout the business day and rotate shifts. We have GOT to get the word out that this is a Constitutional issue that affects all of us and that Dave must be released NOW! Could you help for once a week? Once every Two days? Four days? Let us know. Reply to this email if you can help

God Bless

God Save our Country from Oppressors to the People!

Harry McKay
813-610-8226

[Demosthenes]

Recent docket entries:

07/01/2008 35 NOTICE by USA re 33 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations of David T. Bosset's Noncompliance with this Court's Order of June 16, 2008 (Kamons, Rachael) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
07/02/2008 36 ORDER re 34 Objection, 35 Notice (Other) filed by USA, directing Respondent to Comply with Court's Order. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/2/2008. (JM) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
07/15/2008 37 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/15/2008. (JLH) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
08/04/2008 39 NOTICE of Hearing: Contempt Hearing set for 8/6/2008 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Note to United States Marshal's Service: Defendant must be present. (CLM) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
08/06/2008 40 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich: Miscellaneous Hearing : Contempt Hearing held on 8/6/2008. Court Reporter: Tommie Berryhill/Berryhill & Assoc. (CLM) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
08/06/2008 41 ORDER re 33 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 36 Order, directing that Respondent remain incarcerated until compliance with the Court's Orders. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 8/6/2008. (JM) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
08/12/2008 42 RETURN of service executed by USMS of warrant for arrest on 8/2/08 as to David T. Bosset. (MRH) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
08/20/2008 43 RESPONSE re 41 Order dated 8/6/08 (doc. 41) filed by David T. Bosset. (JLH) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
08/21/2008 44 Fine paid pursuant to court order dated 08/06/08, Docket #41; Receipt #T047295, $1,000.00 (SAH) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
08/22/2008 45 ORDER re 44 Remark, 43 Response filed by David T. Bosset, scheduling additional Contempt hearing on August 26, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. and directing Respondent to bring the documents for the Court's review to the hearing. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 8/22/2008. (JM) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

[Demosthenes]

Dave Bosset whom has been active in the truth movement many years has been thrown in jail for "contempt of court". The court ordered Dave to reveal the managing directors names of the over 220 trusts (I believe UBTO's) he was involved in. Dave has refused on the grounds the right to privacy and right to contract. Dave has cited the supreme court case Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) as his proof the gov't cannot compel him to produce private documents. His plan is to not give in to the gov't demands until they cite the law that compels him.

Not exactly. Bosset informed the court last Wednesday that he's ready to turn over the names and he already paid off the $1,000 fine.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/bossetcaves.pdf

[LPC]

While trying to figure out who really occupies the address to which we are supposed to send checks made payable to "Cash," I discovered something else about Mr. Bosset that I did not know, which is that he was enjoined against the unauthorized practice of law by the Florida Supreme Court, and then found in "indirect criminal contempt" when he failed to pay the $1,000 fine.

See: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/cler ... 77_ROR.pdf

[notorial dissent]

I haven't studied Hale v Henkel, but I know that the SC did not uphold the sanctity of contract or any other concept on page 47 of the case. The Court's opinion starts on page 58. Page 47 is the first page of the appellant's brief. I have skimmed the opinion, which deals with two issues only, neither of which could be mistaken for "sanctity of the contract".

You surely aren’t suggesting that a TP would actually stoop to actually quoting from a real case that was actually on topic are you? Why it would end reality as we know it, or at the very least be a first!!!

On a side note, I would be interested in what the case really was about and said, just for the heck of it.

[LPC]

On a side note, I would be interested in what the case really was about and said, just for the heck of it.

You're saying that understanding the law is a "side note"?

I looked a Hale v. Henkel once, and my recollection is that it was a case in which a corporate officer pleaded the 5th (or 4th) Amendment in response to an IRS summons or court subpoena. The court responded by explaining that the rights of individuals are different from the rights of corporations, and denying any privilege to the officer.

In other words it is, once again, (another) case in which the government prevailed and yet tax nuts want to quote dicta from the case to support positions that are completely contrary to the actual holding.

Surprise, surprise.

[wserra]

On a side note, I would be interested in what the case really was about and said, just for the heck of it.

When cited correctly, the case is stands for the (quite correct) proposition that a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege. From that uncontroversial proposition people like Bosset "conclude" that the Court meant that natural persons can do whatever they damn please. The language which dumbass quotes does, in fact, come from the Court's opinion - at p. 74, not 47 - but of course does not mean what he wants it to mean. In fact, Hale has been overruled for one of its holdings - that a grounded fear of a state as opposed to federal prosecution does not support a claim of the privilege. Murphy v. Waterfront Com'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964).

As for how the Court "suppressed" Bosset's brilliant analysis: the judge directed that a Bosset filing styled "Notice to the Court" be stricken from the docket, since there is no such thing as a "notice to the court". Bosset cites (actually miscites) Hale in at least four filed, non-stricken documents.

Maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are serious numbnuts.

[notorial dissent]

On a side note, I would be interested in what the case really was about and said, just for the heck of it.

You're saying that understanding the law is a "side note"?

No, I was just curious as to whether the case quoted had anything even remotely to do with the matter being appealed, and of course, it didn't , and as you say, Surprise, surprise. - NOT!!!!! What would have been a surprise would have been for it to be on topic, an accurate quote, and sating anything even remotely related to what they claimed it said. Some things you just come to expect.

Maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are serious numbnuts.

Personally, I would say it was a pretty safe bet. More of the wishful believing crew, if they wish hard enough, and believe hard enough, their misinterpretations will come to be true and they will magically get out of jail-NOT!!

[Demosthenes]

Maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are serious numbnuts.

I skim a few dozen articles every day that I get from google alerts and from buddies in my little network.

Literally a dozen times a day, I find myself sighing in disgust and saying "Dumb shit" to the subject of the article on my screen.

[grixit]

On a side note, I would be interested in what the case really was about and said, just for the heck of it.

You're saying that understanding the law is a "side note"?

No, I was just curious as to whether the case quoted had anything even remotely to do with the matter being appealed, and of course, it didn't , and as you say, Surprise, surprise. - NOT!!!!! What would have been a surprise would have been for it to be on topic, an accurate quote, and sating anything even remotely related to what they claimed it said. Some things you just come to expect.

Maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are serious numbnuts.

Personally, I would say it was a pretty safe bet. More of the wishful believing crew, if they wish hard enough, and believe hard enough, their misinterpretations will come to be true and they will magically get out of jail-NOT!!

But what if you can get the children in the audience to believe along with you?

[notorial dissent]

Haven’t noticed it working yet, and the “children” have been wishing believing hard of late, and gosh darn it, being awfully disappointed from what I can tell.

[wserra]

Bosset was released yesterday, having complied with the order to turn over his "customers" and records. The order:

The Court conducted a hearing on August 26, 2008 in this matter, at which Respondent David T. Bosset agreed to allow Petitioner to examine the documents provided to the Court for in camera review, and to permit Petitioner immediate access to examine the computer(s) containing the database from which the information filed in camera was compiled. Respondent is specifically directed not to alter or disturb the computer(s) containing the database prior to inspection by Petitioner. The Court notes that Respondent has paid the fine of $1,000, and has provided information responsive to the IRS summons. After consideration, the Court finds that Respondent David T. Bosset has purged his contempt of Court, and directs the U.S. Marshal to release Respondent David T. Bosset from custody. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Respondent has purged his contempt of Court and the u.s. Marshal shall release Respondent David T. Bosset from custodYi it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall provide immediate access to the computer(s) which contain the database to Petitioner. Respondent shall not disturb or alter the computer(s) which
contain the database prior to inspection by Petitioner. The Court has provided the in camera documents to Petitioner.

Some greedy and gullible patriots should expect to hear from the IRS soon. Marvelous thing, jail.

[Demosthenes]

20 Quatloos on Bosset and his flunkies not telling the movement that he folded while continuing to ask them for donations for his heroic cause...

[Nikki]

Sucker bet