Grounded by 1099-OID (Richard Armstrong, Curtis Morris)

[LPC]

It's often difficult to distinguish between tax nuts and simple fraud, but this looks like it belongs here because the nut in question claimed what he was doing was legal, and he's a pilot.

But it looks like he won't be flying anywhere for awhile.

United States v. Richard Kellogg Armstrong, No. 10-1345 (10th Cir. 9/28/2010).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD KELLOGG ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

(D.C. No. 1:10-CR-00317-REB-2)
(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Richard Kellogg Armstrong appeals from the district court's order requiring that he be detained pending trial. Exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), we affirm the district court's detention order.

I.

The indictment charges Mr. Armstrong with participating in a fraudulent scheme involving the use of fabricated and false Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1099-OID forms to obtain large income tax refunds to which he was not entitled. Greg Flynn, an IRS agent, investigated Mr. Armstrong and submitted an affidavit that was filed with the criminal complaint. Agent Flynn determined that, in October 2008, Mr. Armstrong filed amended returns for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007, claiming that he was entitled to refunds based on federal income tax payments that were withheld by financial institutions. Mr. Armstrong attached to his amended returns IRS 1099-OID forms purportedly issued by the financial institutions that reflected large amounts of income tax withheld. Mr. Armstrong filed these returns with the help of his co-defendant, Curtis Morris, a tax-return preparer.

In December 2008, Mr. Armstrong received a $1.6 million refund from the IRS based on these amended returns. As part of his investigation, Agent Flynn contacted the financial institutions that purportedly generated Mr. Armstrong's 1099-OID forms. Those institutions informed Agent Flynn that they did not generate those 1099-OID forms and that they did not withhold the federal income taxes claimed on those forms.

After receiving the $1.6 million refund, Mr. Armstrong contacted his long-term accountant, Ken Chafin, who had previously worked with him on tax matters. In an email to Mr. Chafin, Mr. Armstrong told him about his use of the 1099-OID forms and his receipt of the large refund. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Chafin to prepare his 2008 tax return using a similar process. Mr. Armstrong asserted that his use of the 1099-OID forms was legal. Mr. Chafin responded with an email in which he refused to prepare Mr. Armstrong's tax return using the 1099-OID forms, advised Mr. Armstrong that the use of the forms was illegal, and further advised Mr. Armstrong that he should return the refund or risk being subject to criminal prosecution. Mr. Chafin included in his email a link to the IRS website where the IRS had posted a fraud alert about the unlawful use of 1099-OID forms.

In January 2009, Mr. Armstrong filed his 2008 tax return with the assistance of Mr. Morris using 1099-OID forms. He claimed he was owed a refund of $1.7 million. The IRS rejected his claim. In April 2009, the IRS began investigating Mr. Morris and those clients with whom he had filed tax returns with 1099-OID forms. A criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Armstrong on May 18, 2010, and a week later he was arrested in California.

A magistrate judge in the Southern District of California held a detention hearing and subsequently issued a written decision, concluding that Mr. Armstrong should be detained because he was a flight risk and no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance. But, at the same time, the decision did note that the District of Colorado would be best suited to determine if there were any conditions that could be set to ensure Mr. Armstrong's appearance at trial.

After Mr. Armstrong was transferred to the District of Colorado, he appeared before a magistrate judge who allowed him to reopen his detention hearing. The court held a hearing and the government presented documentary and testimonial evidence. Agent Flynn testified about his investigation of Mr. Armstrong that led to the indictment. He also testified about the fact that Mr. Armstrong had a pilot's license, traveled frequently to Mexico where he owned property and his wife had a real estate business, and transferred and received money from overseas banks, including financial institutions in Belize. Agent Flynn testified that he had attempted to trace the refund proceeds but that he could not locate approximately $600,000 of the proceeds, with an estimated $400,000 being transferred to international financial institutions where they could not be traced.

At the close of the hearing, the magistrate judge orally ruled that Mr. Armstrong was a flight risk and that he should be detained pending trial because there were no conditions or combination of conditions that could reasonably ensure his presence as required by the court. The next day the court issued a written order supporting the detention decision. Mr. Armstrong moved for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's detention decision. The district court reviewed de novo the detention decision, and then issued an order denying Mr. Armstrong's motion for reconsideration and ordering his continued detention. Mr. Armstrong now appeals from that decision.

II.

Claims of erroneous detention present mixed questions of law and fact. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003). On appeal, we review the mixed questions of law and fact concerning the detention decision de novo, "but we accept the district court's findings of historical fact which support that decision unless they are clearly erroneous." Id. It is the government's burden to prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 616.

The Bail Reform Act requires a magistrate judge or district court judge to order a defendant detained before trial if the judge determines "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). In determining whether there are conditions of release that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and the safety of the community, the judge must consider the following: 1) "[t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence;" 2) "the weight of the evidence against the person;" 3) "the history and characteristics of the person," including, among other things, the person's family ties, length of residence in the community, employment, past conduct, criminal history, and past record of appearances at court proceedings; and 4) "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release." Id. § 3142(g).

Mr. Armstrong argues that the district court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the statutory factors. We disagree. Having reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, the applicable statutory provisions, and the decisions from the district court and magistrate judge, we conclude that the district court properly considered the evidence in conjunction with the statutory factors in reaching its determination that Mr. Armstrong is a flight risk and should be detained pending trial.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Per Curiam

FOOTNOTE

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

END OF FOOTNOTE

ETA names to thread title (WS)

[ASITStands]

United States v. Richard Kellogg Armstrong, No. 10-1345 (5th Cir. 9/28/2010).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD KELLOGG ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Meaning no disrespect but, how can the 5th Circuit write an opinion from the Tenth?

[LPC]

Meaning no disrespect but, how can the 5th Circuit write an opinion from the Tenth?

Tax Notes Today referred to it as a 5th Circuit opinion, and I followed them over the cliff.

It's fixed now.

[wserra]

Tax Notes Today referred to it as a 5th Circuit opinion, and I followed them over the cliff.

Does that make them Tax CliffNotes?

[Famspear]

Tax Notes Today referred to it as a 5th Circuit opinion, and I followed them over the cliff.

Does that make them Tax CliffNotes?

I actually did laugh out loud when I read that....thanks....!

[jcolvin2]

In December 2008, Mr. Armstrong received a $1.6 million refund from the IRS based on these amended returns. As part of his investigation, Agent Flynn contacted the financial institutions that purportedly generated Mr. Armstrong's 1099-OID forms. Those institutions informed Agent Flynn that they did not generate those 1099-OID forms and that they did not withhold the federal income taxes claimed on those forms.

After receiving the $1.6 million refund, Mr. Armstrong contacted his long-term accountant, Ken Chafin, who had previously worked with him on tax matters. In an email to Mr. Chafin, Mr. Armstrong told him about his use of the 1099-OID forms and his receipt of the large refund. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Chafin to prepare his 2008 tax return using a similar process. Mr. Armstrong asserted that his use of the 1099-OID forms was legal. Mr. Chafin responded with an email in which he refused to prepare Mr. Armstrong's tax return using the 1099-OID forms, advised Mr. Armstrong that the use of the forms was illegal, and further advised Mr. Armstrong that he should return the refund or risk being subject to criminal prosecution. Mr. Chafin included in his email a link to the IRS website where the IRS had posted a fraud alert about the unlawful use of 1099-OID forms.

In January 2009, Mr. Armstrong filed his 2008 tax return with the assistance of Mr. Morris using 1099-OID forms. He claimed he was owed a refund of $1.7 million. The IRS rejected his claim. In April 2009, the IRS began investigating Mr. Morris and those clients with whom he had filed tax returns with 1099-OID forms. A criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Armstrong on May 18, 2010, and a week later he was arrested in California.

...

Agent Flynn testified that he had attempted to trace the refund proceeds but that he could not locate approximately $600,000 of the proceeds, with an estimated $400,000 being transferred to international financial institutions where they could not be traced.[/color]

The IRS apparently does not ordinarily assert the 6676 excessive refund penalty (20% of the amount claimed) against individuals who file false 1099-OID credits, because, if the credits are not actually refunded, the claim does not result in an "underpayment" as that term is defined for purposes of the statute. ILM 201018002.

Because the refund was issued in this case, this may be a situation where the 20% excessive refund penalty may be applied in subsequent civil proceedings.

[The Observer]

BNA Daily Tax Report
February 9, 2011

Tax Practice: Court Shuts Down Colorado Tax Preparer Who Claimed $56 Million in False Refunds

DENVER--A Colorado tax preparer accused of making fraudulent refund claims exceeding $56 million was permanently barred Feb. 7 from filing Internal Revenue Service tax returns for others (United States. v. Morris, D. Colo., No. 09-CV-2381-WYD-KMT, 2/7/11).

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered an order affirming and adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge permanently enjoining Curtis L. Morris and his tax preparation business, Numbers and Beyond, from preparing, assisting with, or directing the preparation of any federal tax return or related documents for another person or entity.

The injunction also bars Morris from directly or indirectly organizing, promoting, marketing, or selling any plan or arrangement that advises taxpayers to violate IRS laws.

The court found that Morris prepared various false IRS forms, including Form 1099-OID, to request fraudulent refunds based on phony claims of large income tax withholding, according to the Justice Department. It found that Morris made fraudulent refund claims exceeding $56 million, DOJ said.

'Redemption' Scheme.

Morris allegedly fomented a scheme based on the false claim that taxpayers have a secret account with the Treasury Department, which they can use to pay their debts or which they can draw on for tax refunds through a process often referred to as "redemption" or "commercial redemption" by promoters of this type of tax fraud, the court order stated.

Morris also allegedly made the false claims that taxpayers can draw on Treasury to pay their tax debt using Forms 1099-OID or other documents, and that taxpayers can issue false Forms 1099-OID to a creditor and report the amount on the false Form 1099-OID as income taxes withheld on their behalf, the court said.

Return preparer fraud and bogus refund claims based on false Forms 1099-OID are two of the IRS's "Dirty Dozen" tax scams, DOJ said.

Morris Says Judge 'Interfering.'

Morris told BNA Feb. 8 that Daniel's order was an instance in which "a judge is interfering with a right to privately contract." He said his business is no longer operating.

Morris also faces criminal charges of submitting false claims to IRS (U.S. v. Morris, D. Colo., No. 10-CR-317, indicted 6/8/10)(114 DTR K-2, 6/16/10). Lisa Monet Wayne, who represents Morris in the criminal case, had no comment on Daniel's order.

Morris told BNA the criminal allegations against him are false.

[.]

Numbers and Beyond

The years in prison may be way beyond any number he ever thought of.

[Famspear]

......It is probably a form of mental illness.

But in this case, hopefully not as bad as whatever mental illness Edward Lewis: Nutball Brown has.

I'm still "weirded out" by the drawings from Ed that were posted in another thread here yesterday.

[Dezcad]

I'm still "weirded out" by the drawings from Ed that were posted in another thread here yesterday.

It hopefully wasn't like looking in a mirror - or was it?

[Famspear]

I'm still "weirded out" by the drawings from Ed that were posted in another thread here yesterday.

It hopefully wasn't like looking in a mirror - or was it?

Actually, the drawings might have been generated by Ed while he was looking in a mirror.

Seriously.

I don't know if everyone can see it in the thread, but on my computer parts of the pictures are "cut off." If you right-click on the one of the portrait, save it to your own hard drive, and then open it, you see that the portrait is actually of TWO figures.

I thought that the two figures in the portrait bear a slight resemblance to Ed and Elaine.

Psychologically, I suspect that what Ed might have been doing when he drew the picture was projecting. He was projecting his own mental image of himself and Elaine. In his own conscious mind, however, he may think of these figures as representing the IRS or the Freemasons or the Zionists or the Lawyers or the Evil Bankers, etc., etc. Ed's mind is, in some sense, saying "Elaine and I are not the bad guys; the IRS and the Freemasons and the Zionists and the Lawyers and the Evil Bankers are the bad guys."

[GlimDropper]

There are some rumblings in the sovereign circles as Mr. Armstrong files his appeal:

February 24, 2011

Gregory Langham, Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COLORADO

Richard Kellogg Armstrong, Plaintiff Case No.10-cr-00317
v. Case No. 10-cv-01073
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

Richard Kellogg Armstrong
20413-298
Federal Detention Center Englewood
9595 Quincy Ave.
Littleton, CO 80123
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THAT ALL NAMED JUDGES, MAGISTRATES AND LISTED AGENTS AND AGENCIES AS DEFENDANTS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY LAWSUIT GB-110106-70091410000134484684ARE DEMANDED THEY BE RECUSED FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 GUARANTEE OF A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT THESE CASES, 10-cr-00317-REB AND 10-cv-01073, BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST THAT THE COURT RECOGNIZE
Haines v. Kerner, 405 U.S. 519, 30 Led 652, 92 S.Ct 594 Rel den 405 U.S. 948, 30, Led 2d 819, 92 S.Ct 963

COMES NOW: Richard Kellogg Armstrong, de jure, a native born American who, by his declaration of filing of his UCC-1 and other legal documents that have rescinded any and all adhesion contracts with the United States Federal Corporation. Anyone who violates these documents that are secured by the Constitution 1787 and the Bill of Rights 1791 have agreed to the Caveat Miranda Warning and the UCC-1 filed at the Washington Secretary of State as well as numerous state, federal and international agencies(See: http://www.getnotice.info/rka.html as public notice).

EXIGENT DEMAND TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ALL EXHIBITS AS EVIDENCE that Richard Kellogg Armstrong is One of the People and a declared sovereign of the Republic of Arizona whose name is contained in the attached list of People who have signed with addresses and have incorporated herein as the Plaintiff in the Extraordinary Lawsuit, Case No. GB-110106-70091410000134484684. Continuing as the People hereinafter as the “Plaintiff List ” that was served January 28, 2011, on the National Tenth Tribunal Court established and located on alleged U.S. Property near Denver, Colorado (See: Exhibit A).

The following lawsuit arises under Article IV, Section 4, Breach of Guarantee by Government Guarantor, All three branches thereof. By requisite submission under Article IV, Section 4, and under the Fifth Amendment, Due Process clause thereof:

The Defendants (alleged) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS and all defendants listed in this lawsuit, including judges as constituting an unlawful Collateral Court and all other defendants listed throughout this lawsuit including John and Jane Doe (See: Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3).

NOTICE: This Guarantor’s Breach of Guarantee Lawsuit comes not under any form of Clause 14, Section 8, Article 1 “Rules made for the Government”.

The court is to protect against “any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties”. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens and against stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be OBSTA PTINCIPII (Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 at 635, 1885). The Tenth Amendment is clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the People.

No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution (Downes v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244, 1901).

It: (the legislature or statutory laws) MAY NOT violate the Constitution which prohibits any violations therein or AUTHORIZES OTHERS TO DO SO. (Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal 2d 553: Cert den 337, U.S. 939)

Subsequently, the judges, legislators, Court officials and prosecutors have all participated in violating the Constitution they made an oath to honor and abide by. Instead, they proceeded to deny and treat with contempt to overthrow the Constitution. Therefore, the Extraordinary lawsuit was served against the above said Guarantors for Fraud, Jurisdiction Fraud in the factum and Jurisdiction Fraud as acts, Power Fraud in the factum, Power Fraud as acts, Acts of Misprison of Treason, which goes to Treason existing also as the Furthering of Seeded Treason, covered up or denied under Color of Law, under Color of Authority and under Color of Power resulting in heinous Acts of Theft by Deception, Acts committed under Color of Darkness, in gross violation of all of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, but as abuse of Process, Misuse of Process, Abuse of Discretion and malicious Collateral Attack.

When the Defendants’ Constitutionally unlawful disregard of their obligation known as, or regarded by the Courts to be, the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisoness Tree, so must all of those who suffer and who have suffered from the Article IV, Section 4 Breach of Guarantee by Guarantor, there being no immunity from what has been done, because of the Breach that it has done, is being the direct Poisoner of the Tree itself, to cure the Breach that it has been caused of to recognize all of its cases against all of such cases Defendants as being Poisoned Fruit Cases and to order their immediate dismissal with prejudice.

COLLATERAL COURTS NOT LEGAL AND SO NOT PERMITTED

As the judges and Defendants have been notified “No person should be judge in his own case”. This case rendering the Defendant judges that are listed in the lawsuit as involuntarily disqualified from the case, or any directly associated case, in addition to the requirement as a matter of like principal of laws at Title 28 U.S. Code, Section 455(b)(5)(i) commencing at (a) thereof which states:
a. Any Justice, Judge or Magistrate Judge of the United States;
b. Shall disqualify him or herself in the following circumstances;
(5). Where he/she (i) is a party to the proceedings.

Any use of the lodged rule, no matter the claim of level of lodged alleged rule, that does not support the involuntary disqualification requirement existant as a matter of legislation law constitutes immediately, an abuse of process, and illegal process, and goes to the following like fundamental principle of law, to wit:

Rules made for the Government, not for the People, are meant to regulate governmental proceedings, not to manipulate justice. When a rule is used in a way or for a purpose for which it was intended, or when it otherwise brings about the effect that would be required by statute or would be the result of proceedings at the end of trial or violates Constitutional rights of citizens, it ceases to be a rule and becomes an abuse of process and a Contempt of the Constitution (406 4,5 5 stat.citc, USFCA, 1999). This court has been in violation from the very beginning by trying a State Citizen of the Republic of Arizona in a court that operates as an Administrative Article I or Article IV Court instead of an Article III Court that addresses the Constitution. If there is no injured party, there is no cause of action (Rule 17(1)(a).

The UNITED STATES is a corporation (See: Title 28 USC 3002 (15)(A).

I, Richard Kellogg Armstrong, does understand that the cause of action cannot be in the common law because a crime in law requires a corpus delecti, that is to say, the body of the crime or an injured party. A corporation cannot be the body of the crime of an injured party because it is artificial, a fiction.

In the Judicial code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a) requires judge to recuse himself in any proceedings in which (t)he(i)r impartiality might reasonably be questioned (See: Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F. 2d 1189, 7th Cir., 1989, and in Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord 456F. 2d 532, 8th Cir., 1972). The court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but he believes that he has received justice”. As a State Citizen of the Republic of Arizona, I am not subject to statutes as the laws of Congress do not extend into the limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia and places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government (See: Caha v. United States 152, U.S. 24, 215, 14 S.Ct 513, 1894). The accused is bound only to the constraining certainty of the united States Constitution 1787 and the Bill of Rights 1791 and absolutely not under any other laws.

Any judge or attorney who does not report a judge for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason. See: 18 U.S.C., Section 2382 under federal law. These are the laws they must follow as federal employees where the State Citizen of the Republic is bound by the Highest Law of the Land “The Constitution 1787 and the Bill of Rights 1791″.

Therefore, Richard Kellogg Armstrong, who is a plaintiff in this Extraordinary Lawsuit No. GB-110106-70091410000134484684 hereby notifies the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COLORADO as well as their agents and officials, specifically Judge Robert E. Blackburn, listed in Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3 attached, Defendants, including Kenneth Harmon, AUSA and Greg Flynn, IRS/CID Agent, due to direct conflict of interest to dismiss Case Nos. 10-cr-00317-REB and 10-cv-01073 immediately with prejudice, to cease and desist from any further proceedings and release the accused from detention immediately.

Therefore, Richard Kellogg Armstrong is notifying the Clerk of the Court, Gregory Langham of the U.S.D.C., to recognize the Extraordinary Lawsuit that was served on the Tenth Tribunal Court, Case No. GB 110106-70091410000134484684 on January 28, 2011, as one of the Plaintiffs that is listed in this lawsuit against all the Defendants listed in Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B3.

As the occupant of the Executor Office of the RICHARD KELLOGG ARMSTRONG Estate, I am directing you to dismiss Case Nos. 10-cr-00317-REB and 10-cv-01073 with prejudice and order my immediate release from the Federal Detention Center Englewood, Inmate Number 20413-298, by either the Sheriff or by a U.S. Marshal within five (5) days of this demand.

This document is not intended to intimidate, threaten or harass but is my remedy in law.

February 24, 2011
Signed: __________________________________
Richard Kellogg Armstrong
Sovereign
Executor of the Estate
CC:
Supreme Court of the United States
Colorado Supreme Court
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Republic for the united States of America
International Trade Court
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Douglas Shulman, Commissioner, IRS
Denver County Sheriff

He CC'd Tim Turner's republic so he must be serious. President Turner recently announced a foundational committee to establish the Republic Rangers, a force so bold and constitutional that Chief Justice of the one supreme Court Nathan Joel Peachey tells us they can be used to arrest seated judges. It's too bad for Mr. Armstrong that someone stole the republic's ID card printing machine so the Republic Rangers aren't ready for action, just yet.

[wserra]

We haven't discussed the criminal case against Richard Armstrong (10-cr-317, DCO) from the beginning yet. We should. It's entertaining.

Armstrong and his codefendant, Curtis Morris (we did discuss the civil injunction case against Morris here) are charged with conspiracy to defraud the US by means of false refund claims. The indictment is here. It alleges the use of the false 1099-OIDs which are the subject ot his thread. Armstrong was one of Morris' clients - apparently the most avaricious. He claimed refunds totalling over $1.5M. Armstrong was arrested in California, detained and remained detained when he arrived in Colorado. He appealed the ruling on his detention to the Tenth Circuit. By order filed September 28, 2010, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his detention, finding him a flight risk (nearly half of the $1.5M is unaccounted for). The, um, document that GD reproduces above is not an appeal - there is nothing to appeal at this point - but some gibberish Armstrong filed about how he is gonna sue the world, by damn. The world is shaking in fear. Armstrong has filed other "notices", such as this random babbling about how "the court, to date, has failed to recognize my challenge to jurisdiction".

Armstrong is now attempting to fire his second court-appointed lawyer. Why? Well, he tells us that this miscreant believes that the IRS is actually part of the govt, rather than "nothing more than the collection agency for the Federal Reserve Bank which is domiciled in Puerto Rico". Moreover, this imposter of a lawyer actually believes that the Colorado District Court is an Article III tribunal! Bad lawyer! No BAR card for you!

Although I don't see an order in the docket, the Court has apparently allowed Armstrong to be pro se. He has continued filing gibberish, such as the above.

No trial date yet. More fun ahead.

[Gregg]

Acts committed under Color of Darkness, in gross violation of all of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights

Ha! Like we work after dark! Sparky, the only crimes we commit under Color of Darkness (I think he meant Cover of Darkness, but he was on a roll) are crimes you will never have the pleasure to know even the nature of.
Now shut up and get me another bottle of Absinthe.

[Pottapaug1938]

So much to make fun of, so little time.... I think I'll confine myself, here, to the fact that Mr. Constitutional Expert Armstrong, who claims an extraordinary understanding of the principles and meaming of the United States Constitution, seems to have forgotten to read the Constitutional definition of treason before accusing various and sundry judges of the commission thereof.

[wserra]

I think he meant Cover of Darkness, but he was on a roll

Yeah! The Germans didn't even attack Pearl Harbor under Color of Darkness.

[The Observer]

But what does the Color of Darkness look like? Which color does it resemble?

And are the Republic Rangers more powerful than the Constitutional Rangers? Do they have better decoding rings or what? And will Ed Brown see the Republic Rangers as a move to displace him?

[Quixote]

And are the Republic Rangers more powerful than the Constitutional Rangers?

Two words: supremacy clause.

[Quixote]

The court is to protect against “any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties”.

If the Second Amendment encroaches on the First, does that mean I can bring my gun to church?

[bmielke]

The court is to protect against “any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties”.

If the Second Amendment encroaches on the First, does that mean I can bring my gun to church?

In some states your are required to bring your gun to church. See Massachusetts.