David Champion - Injunction Action

[Noah]

How are these minutes? Clearly more rope for the Goat Rodeo.

July 01, 2011 00:00

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
Document: 30

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court grants Defendant's Ex Parte Application. Defendant's Amended Counterclaim, if any, shall be filed no later than 7/20/2011. (jp)

[notorial dissent]

They at least qualify as something resembling English, which for the purposes here are all that is necessary, and actually make sense on top of that, which was all I was asking in the first place.

[Noah]

Champion has appealed dismissal of his counter claim. Now how much time does this buy?
Months, years, place your bets.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED JUL 15 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID A. CHAMPION, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-56182
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01175-PA-SS
U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles
TIME SCHEDULE ORDER
The parties shall meet the following time schedule.
If there were reported hearings, the parties shall designate and, if necessary, cross-designate the transcripts pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 10-3.1. If there were no reported hearings, the transcript deadlines do not apply.
Fri., August 12, 2011
Transcript shall be ordered.
Thu., November 10, 2011
Transcript shall be filed by court reporter.
Tue., December 20, 2011
Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP

Meanwhile, the band plays on, he just gave his first seminar at $1000.00 a head to teach others how to do what he does.

[wserra]

Champion has appealed dismissal of his counter claim. Now how much time does this buy?

None at all, unless either the DC or the Circuit grants a stay. And that seems really unlikely.

[Noah]

Champion has appealed dismissal of his counter claim. Now how much time does this buy?

None at all, unless either the DC or the Circuit grants a stay. And that seems really unlikely.

Right on Wes, 360 law just posted this:

Document: 41

ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 37 filed by David A Champion CCA # 11-56182. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Order received in this district on 8/2/2011. (dmap)

And you win the opportunity to host his next seminar......

[LPC]

As I suspected, the appeal was dismissed because Champion tried to appeal from an order that was not final or appeallable. From the 9th Circuit docket:

A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders challenged in the appeal are not final or appealable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered in compliance with rule); see also WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal of complaint with leave to amend is not appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED.

I'd like to add that I don't think that the counterclaim was a proper counterclaim even if Champion had a cause of action, because a counterclaim is supposed to be against the plaintiff, which is the United States in this case, but the counterclaims were against individuals, in this case a revenue agent and a judge.

There is such a thing as a third party complaint (I think that's the right terminology) by which the defendant can add additional defendants and assert claims against them. But my recollection is that the claims have to be related to the original claim by the plaintiff and can't be unrelated. The present case is an injunction action against Champion for what he is doing now, and the "counterclaims" were based on actions taken by the revenue agent and judge back in 2008, and seem to be factually unrelated to the present action.

In short, Champion's pleadings have been incompetent in just about every way possible.

[notorial dissent]

I think I remember having read all of his paper wasting in this process, and most, if not all of it barely rose to the level of gibberish to my recollection. I think that the term “liberally construe” was put to the test here just to get something resembling sense out of any of it. I always wondered about the counterclaim, since it was against individuals to begin with, why they even allowed it to be filed.

[wserra]

Dan is exactly right in his explanation of the requirement that a counterclaim be against the original plaintiff and that a third-party action be based on the same events as the main action.

In addition, as I wrote above, Champion's counterclaims are Bivens actions against (1) the revenue agent, prohibited because the IRC contains its own remedy, and (2) the judge, who is immune. It's amazing that people pay the moron for stuff that is wrong considered from any angle at all.

[jcolvin2]

08/15/2011 46
SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: 1. Establishing a Discovery Cut-off Date of January 23, 2012; 2. Setting Motion Cut-off date of January 30, 2012; 3. Setting Final Pretrial Conference for March 2, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.; and 4. Setting Court Trial Date of April 3, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Refer to document for details. (pso) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

[Noah]

Motion for Summary Judgement, hearing set for 1/23/12, if they have one.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to complaint filed by plaintiff United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 1/23/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration of Thomas Cheung, # 5 Exhibit 1 to Cheung Decl, # 6 Exhibit 2 to Cheung Decl, # 7 Exhibit 3 to Cheung Decl, # 8 Exhibit 4 to Cheung Decl, # 9 Exhibit 5 to Cheung Decl, # 10 Exhibit 6 to Cheung Decl, # 11 Exhibit 7 to Cheung Decl, # 12 Exhibit 8 to Cheung Decl, # 13 Exhibit 9 to Cheung Decl, # 14 Exhibit 10 to Cheung Decl, # 15 Exhibit 11 to Cheung Decl, # 16 Exhibit 12 to Cheung Decl, # 17 Exhibit 13 to Cheung Decl, # 18 Exhibit 14 to Cheung Decl, # 19 Exhibit 15 to Cheung Decl, # 20 Exhibit 16 to Cheung Decl, # 21 Exhibit 17 to Cheung Decl, # 22 Exhibit 18 to Cheung Decl, # 23 Exhibit 19 to Cheung Decl, # 24 Declaration of Brian Corcoran, # 25 Exhibit 1 to Corcoran Decl, # 26 Exhibit 2 to Corcoran Decl, # 27 Exhibit 3 to Corcoran Decl, # 28 Exhibit 4 to Corcoran Decl, # 29 Exhibit 5 to Corcoran Decl, # 30 Exhibit 6 to Corcoran Decl, # 31 Exhibit 7 to Corcoran Decl, # 32 Exhibit 8 to Corcoran Decl, # 33 Exhibit 9 to Corcoran Decl, # 34 Exhibit 10 to Corcoran Decl, # 35 Exhibit 11 to Corcoran Decl, # 36 Exhibit 12 to Corcoran Decl, # 37 Exhibit 13 to Corcoran Decl)(Corcoran, Brian) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

[wserra]

Actually, a couple of days ago Judge Anderson cancelled the hearing date. He noted that he would decide the govt's motion on submission. Champion never responded to it.

The motion itself contains several interesting things, most of them in the affidavit of IRS RA Thomas Cheung (a registered pseudonym). Cheung goes through the activities that several of Champion's customers performed under his direction, and relates exactly how well it worked out for them. He also attaches the customer list Champion provided them once he heard the jail door closing behind him. Cheung notes that the IRS knows that it is not complete, because they have independent proof that Champion had others not on the list (including at least one he discusses in the affidavit). He attaches several Champion letters to third parties in which the dumbass attempts to intimidate them into not cooperating with the IRS, such as this one to a bank where one of the bogus trusts had an account. There's a lot more.

I simply cannot imagine why this blatant lying scammer hasn't been indicted.

[wserra]

Noah - I mean no offense, and you are welcome here. But weren't you originally a fan of Champion? Could you describe the events that changed your mind?

[LPC]

[He [IRS RA Thomas Cheung] attaches several Champion letters to third parties in which the dumbass attempts to intimidate them into not cooperating with the IRS, such as this one to a bank where one of the bogus trusts had an account.

A couple of things I found interesting about that letter:

1. After quoting the language of IRC § 7602 allowing the Secretary to (among other things) summon "any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax...," Champion states that "Clearly none of those granted--and limited--authorities apply to the account records of CSPS" (which is the trust at issue). How he reaches that conclusion is not explained and inexplicable.

2. Champion relies on the Schulz case for the proposition that the bank does not need to comply with the summons in the absence of an enforcement procedure and that compliance with the summons "would be a voluntary act which would in all likelihood require the trustee [Champion] to file suit for damages regarding the Bank's violation of CSPS's privacy."

I don't think I've ever seen a claim that a bank can be sued for complying with an IRS summons, and decided to look it up.

There is a federal statute providing a right of privacy for bank records, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422. However, § 3413(c) provides that "Nothing in this chapter prohibits the disclosure of financial records in accordance with procedures authorized by title 26" (which is the Internal Revenue Code). One court has held that a bank is protected from liability under § 3413(c) for providing records requested by the IRS even in the absence of a summons. Raikos v. Bloomfield State Bank, 703 F.Supp. 1365 (S.D.Ind.1989). The 10th Circuit has disagreed, holding that the IRS must follow the summons procedures found in IRC § 7609 in order to fall within the exception to the Financial Privacy Act found in § 3413(c). Neece v. IRS, 96 F.3d 460 (10th Cir.1996).

And state law isn't going to of be any help, either, because the powers of the IRS under federal law are going to trump state law. For example, it has been held that the notice provisions of Connecticut's Privacy Act are preempted by section 7609(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. First Bank, 737 F.2d 269, 84-2 USTC ¶9600 (2nd Cir. 1984).

This issue may merit an update to the FAQ.

[Kestrel]

A couple of things I found interesting about that letter:

1. After quoting the language of IRC § 7602 allowing the Secretary to (among other things) summon "any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax...," Champion states that "Clearly none of those granted--and limited--authorities apply to the account records of CSPS" (which is the trust at issue). How he reaches that conclusion is not explained and inexplicable.

My impression is that since he maintained the trust wasn't liable for tax in the first place, the bank should recognize his claimed lack of tax liability as clear fact and ignore the summons.

[JamesVincent]

2. Champion relies on the Schulz case for the proposition that the bank does not need to comply with the summons in the absence of an enforcement procedure and that compliance with the summons "would be a voluntary act which would in all likelihood require the trustee [Champion] to file suit for damages regarding the Bank's violation of CSPS's privacy."

Wouldnt that kinda be like suing someone who shows up for court after they were subpoenaed to appear? With the records that were subpoenaed?

[wserra]

Wouldnt that kinda be like suing someone who shows up for court after they were subpoenaed to appear? With the records that were subpoenaed?

Yep.

Hey, it's Champion.

[Noah]

Noah - I mean no offense, and you are welcome here. But weren't you originally a fan of Champion? Could you describe the events that changed your mind?

No Wes, I am not a fan of Champion, I don't know what I have posted that would lead anyone to believe otherwise.

[wserra]

Maybe I shouldn't have started this, since I don't want to make you feel as though you need to justify past posts. But here is why it seemed as though you were defending Champion.

When you first came here, you were clearly defending Bill Benson. Now, Benson may not be the obnoxiously stupid scammer Champion is, but he's just as clearly wrong. You have posted about suing one's employer over withholding, questioning whether wages are subject ot it (again here). In referring to Hendricksonian stupidity, you wrote that "Looks like the score is Christians 10 million plus, Lions 0". Although your language wasn't as clear, it has appeared that you have defended Lindsey Springer.

In discussions about Champion, you posted a link to his radio show, describing part of it as "awesome". You appeared to defend him when he turned over his customer list. You cheered him on. There were other such posts.

Yes, I am aware of the word "sarcasm" (it's something like dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire). In context of your other posts, though, those posts about Champion didn't seem like it.

You asked. Don't feel compelled to answer.

[.]

You [Noah] cheered him on

He sure did.

This is history, Dave was held in comtempt and he purged the contempt. Action is closed. I am sure the Government is burning the midnight oil and using the Patriot Act to it's best advantage. Thats ok because Dave has a huge legal defense fund for battle when the Barbarans are at the Gate. If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have? His new book that is due out in November is written so well that a person "with average intelligence" will only have to read chapter 7 and 8 twice to understand them. I wonder if he going to have Mr. Rogers write the introduction ? You Go Dave!!

I won't be as judicious as was Wes. That wasn't sarcasm.

Noah's nebulous previous posing is the stuff of a passive/aggressive TP.

[Noah]

You [Noah] cheered him on

He sure did.

This is history, Dave was held in comtempt and he purged the contempt. Action is closed. I am sure the Government is burning the midnight oil and using the Patriot Act to it's best advantage. Thats ok because Dave has a huge legal defense fund for battle when the Barbarans are at the Gate. If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have? His new book that is due out in November is written so well that a person "with average intelligence" will only have to read chapter 7 and 8 twice to understand them. I wonder if he going to have Mr. Rogers write the introduction ? You Go Dave!!

I won't be as judicious as was Wes. That wasn't sarcasm.

Noah's nebulous previous posing is the stuff of a passive/aggressive TP.

In my comment, "I wonder if he going to have Mr. Rogers write the introduction ? You Go Dave!!", I was refering to Mr Rogers in a TV show called "Mr Roger's Neighborhood".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Rog ... ighborhood

I will always remember a parody on Saturday Night Live of Mr. Rogers explaining to the boys and girls the meaning of the word 'ransom' and next week the new word would be 'escape'.

Anyone here old enough to remember the "Mr Roger's Neighborhood " show?