Anthony Williams - Private Attorney General

[Baidn]

I think his judge just finds it amusing since he's filled at least one motion demanding the judge force others to recognize it. I'm picturing him being addressed by it with a smirk on a regular basis, which to a small man like Anthony is probably unbearable.

[AndyK]

I can't think of a better use for air quotes than when saying private attorney general (followed by a snicker)

[ScottComstock]

Here's the latest haul. Of note: William Wagener's "On Second Thought" is appealing their denial of permission to film the proceedings (docs 565 & 568), and the Pretend Attorney General continues to insist that he's only being prosecuted because he's black (570).

558 - SEALED EX PARTE MOTION; Declaration of Counsel; Exhibits "A" and "B" filed by Defendant Anthony T. Williams.
559 - SEALED EX PARTE MOTION; Declaration of Counsel; Exhibits "A" and "B" filed by Defendant Anthony T. Williams.
560 - SEALED Order as to Defendant Anthony T. Williams re 558 . Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER on 8/20/2019.
561 - SEALED Order as to Defendant Anthony T. Williams re 559 . Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER on 8/20/2019.
562 MOTION to Continue Deadline To Respond To Defendant's Tenth Motion For Order To Show Cause filed by USA re 555 (Yates, Gregg) Modified EVENT TYPE TO MOTION in place of RESPONSE on 8/26/2019 (cib). (Entered: 08/22/2019)
563 - TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Anthony T. Williams, Anabel Cabebe, Barbara Williams- held on 02-01-2019, before Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi. Court Reporter-Debi Read, Telephone number-redacted.Email Address- redacted 90-Day Transcript Restriction: PACER access to filed transcripts is restricted for 90 days from the file date to permit redaction of personal identifiers. Citations to restricted transcripts in filed documents must be limited to those portions of the proceedings that are relevant and in need of judicial review. Attaching restricted transcripts, in their entirety, to filed documents should be limited to situations with specific need. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or ordered through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript. Redaction Request due 9/13/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/23/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/21/2019. (dr@, hid.uscourts.gov) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
568 - 9CCA Order re Petition for Writ of Mandamus as to Defendant Anthony Troy Williams re 421 . A petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition has been received in the Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. Always indicate this docket number when corresponding with this office about your case.(writ for court to exercise its supervisory power attached to order with exhibits)
564 - EO: as to (01) Anthony T. Williams: On 8/22/19, Plaintiff United States filed a Motion to Continue Deadline to Respond to Defendant's Tenth Motion for Order to Show Cause ("Motion") (ECF No. 562 ). The Court GRANTS the Motion. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond is continued from August 22, 2019 to August 29, 2019. In light of the foregoing, the Court continues the Motion from 9/5/19 at 2:00 p.m. to 9/18/19 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter.
565 - Transmittal - Notice of USCA Case Number: 19-72184 re: O.S.T. v. USDC-HI "A petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition has been received in the Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case." In Re: ON SECOND THOUGHT TV, Producer William Wagener, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII, Respondent, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ANTHONY T. WILLIAMS; ANABEL CABEBE; BARBARA WILLIAMS, Real Parties in Interest (jo) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
566 - EP: Status Conference regarding deadlines for: 1) the designation of expert witnesses; 2) the identification of lay witnesses; and 3) the exchange of exhibits.
567 - Second MOTION to Continue UNITED STATESS SECOND MOTION TO DEFENDANTS TENTH MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by USA as to Anthony T. Williams. (Yates, Gregg) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
569 - MOTION DEFENDANTS MOTION TO CLARIFY JUDICAL NATURE AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS by Anthony T. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit "A", # 3 Certificate of Service)(Isaacson, Lars) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
570 - MOTION DEFENDANTS MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER DENYING PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANTHONY WILLIAMS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION MOTION re 542 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Anthony T. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit "A", # 3 Certificate of Service)(Isaacson, Lars) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
571 - EO : On 8/29/19, Plaintiff United States filed a Second Motion to Continue Deadline to Respond to Defendant's Tenth Motion for Order to Show Cause. See ECF No. 567 . The Court GRANTS the Motion. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond is continued from 8/29/2019 to 9/5/2019. In light of the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the Hearing on the 555 Motion from 9/18/2019 to 9/25/19 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter as to Defendant Anthony T. Williams
572 - NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Kenneth M. Sorenson appearing for USA. ; Certificate of Service (Sorenson, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
573 - EO : Defendant (01) Anthony T. William's 570 Motion in Opposition to Order Denying Private Attorney General Anthony Williams Selective Prosecution Motion will be considered by Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi as a Non Hearing Motion.
574 - RESPONSE by USA as to Anthony T. Williams re 555 Tenth MOTION for Order to Show Cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Yates, Gregg) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
575 - Letter addressed to Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi from Gregg Paris Yates, AUSA, dated September 5, 2019 re: Letter response to the Court's Order, dated August 27, 2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)
576 - SEALED Ex Parte MOTION; Exhibits "A" and "B" filed by Defendant Anthony T. Williams.

All links to my server, as always.

[grixit]

Of note: William Wagener's "On Second Thought" is appealing their denial of permission to film the proceedings (docs 565 & 568)

When was this? Last i heard, Wagener had been on a long trip and dealing with family matters.

[ScottComstock]

Back in January, Wagener's producer sent an email to the court requesting permission to film Williams' trial. Because cameras in the courtroom are expressly prohibited by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FCRP 35), and because the Hawaii district court was not part of a pilot program authorizing cameras, the request was denied.

Of note:

The defendant in this case has previously been tried and convicted in Florida for Unlawful Filing of Documents and Grand Theft and that trial was allowed to be video recorded by Channel 7 News in Miami Florida.
...
However, I have seen many news stories of criminal cases in Hawaii that was recorded and reported on the news.

Conveniently leaving out the fact that that ATW's trial (and, I presume, these other criminal cases) were all state trials.

[fortinbras]

No, it's not Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 35. It's rule 53.

[Jeffrey]

However, I have seen many news stories of criminal cases in Hawaii that was recorded and reported on the news.

Williams' broken english is great.

[ScottComstock]

Back in January, Wagener's producer sent an email to the court requesting permission to film Williams' trial. Because cameras in the courtroom are expressly prohibited by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FCRP 35), and because the Hawaii district court was not part of a pilot program authorizing cameras, the request was denied.

Of note:

The defendant in this case has previously been tried and convicted in Florida for Unlawful Filing of Documents and Grand Theft and that trial was allowed to be video recorded by Channel 7 News in Miami Florida.
...
However, I have seen many news stories of criminal cases in Hawaii that was recorded and reported on the news.

Conveniently leaving out the fact that that ATW's trial (and, I presume, these other criminal cases) were all state trials.

Update: Wagener's appeal was denied. Got some more juicy Pretend Attorney General craziness after I get home from work.

09/16/2019 591 (NOTICE) USCA ORDER as to (01) Anthony T. Williams, (02) Anabel Cabebe, (03) Barbara Williams re 565 Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, USCA NO. 19-72184, In re: On Second Thought TV v. United States District Court for the District of Hawaii : Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. (emt, ) (Entered: 09/20/2019)

[notorial dissent]

I 'd say that was succinct and to the point. NO! I wonder what HI cases they were talking about. State Court??

[khmacdowell]

Other than at the FBI, is there a database of sources of sovcit indoctrination? I searched for "Schware," as in v. Board of Bar Examiners in New Mexico, and found it is just recent enough to have audio of the proceedings:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/92

It's already been mentioned in this thread, the main points being that (1) the quote Pvt. Attn. Gen. Williams used, and that many other sovcits use, is simply fabricated, and (2) the case actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what sovcits take it to find. It is literally about a law school graduate who was prevented from taking the bar exam based substantially on past membership in the communist party. Sovcits use it to claim they and their sovcit "lawyers" can practice law because the decision found states cannot license the practice of law, when it fact, the petitioner was appealing a decision by his state bar to prevent him from getting a license to practice law.

I suppose at a minimum it doesn't take too many steps to get to the fabricated quote from the content of the case, in that some of the words in the fake quote appear in the decision. This is actually better than some other of the cases they cite, which see to be totally unrelated.

Pvt. Attn. Gen. Williams obviously has the mental capacity to remember a lot of bullshit. In fact, he confidently, repeatedly, and articulately pops off to the extent that, were his knowledge based on reality, it might be the very beginning of a competent defense, to the point that the judge would be extraordinarily lenient on matters of procedure because of the good faith effort. But it is not not bullshit.

The Pvt. Attn. Gen. is one of the most glaring examples, but others are similar. How do they manage to find so much material that is so consistent between them, and yet ignore the first 10 pages of Google results? They obviously invest time in this, so you'd think perhaps even one would look far enough into any of the topics to realize that in the process of trying to get it, they ended up getting got. The arguments in the case are all about whether a youthful stint in the communist party is sufficiently inculpatory or establishes sufficient skepticism of moral character. I mean, nearly two hours of arguments about moral character and the communist party and being able to sit for the bar, without the remotest hint of the right of states to license attorneys.

The biggest piece is the standard freshman SCU courses on YouTube are always meandering two hour opera with absolutely no substantive content, so you'd think even more so that they'd want to "get to the bottom of things" by listening to the literal SC cases they cite, especially since SC proceedings are also both glacial and include lots of jargon. But there isn't a single ex-sovcit who seemed to follow this route.

How can his selective attention and confirmation bias be so honed as to disregard literally every legitimate thing, of which he must have come across much? It almost seems to imply that he must actually be a legal scholar, for he so deftly filtered out that which was legitimate and compiled that which was not; on a "law or pseudolaw" test, he'd get 100%, albeit by selecting for the wrong category, whereas I'm sure there are attorneys who could be fooled by a sufficiently tricky test.

In any case, I'm glad we got to hear this one. Great insight into the inner workings.

[khmacdowell]

Also, what's the threshold to establish vexatious litigant status, aka the judicial equivalent to smashing a car window with a baton? I do understand that in the overreaching and fundamental interest of ensuring due process extraordinary lenience is more often than not warranted, but I think in this case the substantive argument against is, come on.

Due process doesn't achieve much if the filer is just making himself worse off.

[notorial dissent]

Schware was a long boring case about "moral character" when you come right down to it, and the Bar Assn's right to say what it was, and if they didn't like your character you didn't get to practice law.

Several years ago I saw someone take a big collection of sovcit cases that cited various legal cases and then took what they claimed the cases actually said or were about, and in each and every case the actuality was that the cases didn't exist to begin with, weren't about what was claimed, didn't say what they claimed, and if they actually quoted from the case it either didn't exist or didn't say what they claimed. In other words, ALL FANTASY. There were pages and pages of it. My copy was unfortunately on a hard drive that failed, I 've also seen it done for taxes and "right to travel" all with the same results and effect. Total fantasy. The cases and rulings "may" exist but if they do they don't say or mean what they claim and were often about totally unrelated things. Sucks to be a Private Attorney General dealing in made up and fantasized cases.

[khmacdowell]

Schware was a long boring case about "moral character" when you come right down to it, and the Bar Assn's right to say what it was, and if they didn't like your character you didn't get to practice law.

Right. I did in fact listen to the whole thing. On the bright side, I learned the Communist Party in America was way ahead of society on integration and gay rights. The entirety of everything else seems like what I'd expect, or in the case of their Soviet funding, even worse. But the good thing is pretty impressive given the time period.

The cases and rulings "may" exist but if they do they don't say or mean what they claim and were often about totally unrelated things. Sucks to be a Private Attorney General dealing in made up and fantasized cases.

Yeah, that's essentially what I figured. It's really immaterial, but I do wonder why at least many of them are based on cases generally adjacent to the claimed topic, but it's never really even close to a substantively correct reading, whether in the literal words themselves or their context.

On the one hand, it seems obvious the people who peddle this stuff would choose cases that at least facially seem related to the claimed incantation, because the poor saps who buy their kits will only do a cursory review of the evidence. But (1) no matter how badly the spells fail, there is always a way to claim that the magicks of the acolyte are simply not yet complete, and (2) another part of the whole shtick is that the gurus/scammers always urge their cultists to spend time doing their own "research" to find more "information." (1) suggests the claimed sources literally do not matter, and (2) suggests that you'd expect constant debunking by the padawans, but you don't see any, ever, reaffirming it doesn't matter.

Which leads to the alternative: the people who scrounge this stuff up really just misapprehend it so badly, along with perhaps telephonic degradation, that the result you get is not only interpreted incorrectly, it is more often than not simply not real. The one keeping me up at night is, I've not heard a single one actually explaining how it is that the U.S.A. is a corporation, and yet you can incorporate under U.S. laws. Nevermind the fact that the necessary notion of a "sub-corporation" is just conspicuously unintelligible, least of all because any corporation in existence could just establish quasi-legal authority itself, and none do in stable democracies, they don't even bother to provide a hand-waving explanation. The word "corporation" is just one with particularly sinister mana.

The Pvt. Attn. Gen. has clearly memorized so much, but literally none of it is from actual case law or any source of codes and statutes. The pipeline has to be very well established, which is why I'm curious. He managed to accumulate all of this information through all of his research, but it is without exception utterly or essentially falsehood. He managed to not commit a single act of genuine education, such as stumbling across two hours of debating whether belong to the CPUSA for several years as a young man constitutes evidence of moral infirmity, or if judging it so is a violation of constitutional rights. Even if the good General could not follow all the lines of argumentation, it would be obvious the case is about a guy who wants to join a bar and be licensed to practice law and is not being allowed, aka, something that the sovcit interpretation of the exact case renders illegal.

[wserra]

How can his selective attention and confirmation bias be so honed as to disregard literally every legitimate thing, of which he must have come across much?

Welcome to Q, kh. I understand that the quoted question is rhetorical. Still, I'm sure that you've come across one of the most frequently quoted legal principles on this board: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 732 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

We point and laugh instead.

[khmacdowell]

How can his selective attention and confirmation bias be so honed as to disregard literally every legitimate thing, of which he must have come across much?

[...]"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 732 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

[...]

This actually speaks to another speculation I've had. The fact that these exact arguments have been known to the courts for so long tends to affirm the feeling I have that judges, and even LEOs, dramatically downplay their familiarity with the "movement," because if the judge just immediately said "no sir, you may travel freely but you need a license to personally operate a vehicle, or automobile, or car, or conveyance, and you do need tags, and I do have jurisdiction, and the United States is not a corporation, and you are an individual human however you want to say, and one who has charges brought against him, and the fringe is literally a decoration, and this is not maritime law, and the UCC is uniformly inapplicable, and you are a United States Citizen, and you cannot even renounce it if you would become stateless*, and you must pay taxes..." etc.

Because if they did that, it would in fact violated due process, and would also be the most powerful conspiracy fuel imaginable. Better to play it cool and let them portray themselves as the idiots they are. No reason to try to take the rope from them.

*This only applies to tax avoiders I guess. You CAN become stateless. Now that's a sovcit YouTube video I'd pay good money to see. And then sue to try to get the money back because of the affront to conscious thought I will have witnessed.

[notorial dissent]

Kind of like the TP/sovcit/fotl of challenging jurisdiction. Yes you can, at any time, it usually doesn't work though since when you were charged you told under what statute you were charged and then told what the court's jurisdiction was. Yes, they have to stop and deal with the challenge, which is almost always met with we have jurisdiction under such and such statute or such part of the constitution. Challenge ended trial continues.

[TBL]

This actually speaks to another speculation I've had. The fact that these exact arguments have been known to the courts for so long tends to affirm the feeling I have that judges, and even LEOs, dramatically downplay their familiarity with the "movement," because if the judge just immediately said "no sir, you may travel freely but you need a license to personally operate a vehicle, or automobile, or car, or conveyance, and you do need tags, and I do have jurisdiction, and the United States is not a corporation, and you are an individual human however you want to say, and one who has charges brought against him, and the fringe is literally a decoration, and this is not maritime law, and the UCC is uniformly inapplicable, and you are a United States Citizen, and you cannot even renounce it if you would become stateless*, and you must pay taxes..." etc.

Because if they did that, it would in fact violated due process, and would also be the most powerful conspiracy fuel imaginable. Better to play it cool and let them portray themselves as the idiots they are. No reason to try to take the rope from them...

I can only speak with authority as to the LEO-side. I feel that the LEO training I received on the sov-cit movement was too focused on their physical threat level, particularly after the two West Memphis officers were shot by the teenager when his father was detained. Yes, focus must be placed on that, however, I feel that being able to logically and intellectually hold your ground when confronted with the pseudo-law gibberish they spew on the side of the road should be better addressed, at least in my former department training. There should be simple how-to negotiation tactics courses for ending arguments over this hogwash with ideas around the "If you feel that way great, feel free to express that to the judge, but today I'm going to have to tow your car" variety.

[khmacdowell]

This actually speaks to another speculation I've had. The fact that these exact arguments have been known to the courts for so long tends to affirm the feeling I have that judges, and even LEOs, dramatically downplay their familiarity with the "movement," because if the judge just immediately said "no sir, you may travel freely but you need a license to personally operate a vehicle, or automobile, or car, or conveyance, and you do need tags, and I do have jurisdiction, and the United States is not a corporation, and you are an individual human however you want to say, and one who has charges brought against him, and the fringe is literally a decoration, and this is not maritime law, and the UCC is uniformly inapplicable, and you are a United States Citizen, and you cannot even renounce it if you would become stateless*, and you must pay taxes..." etc.

Because if they did that, it would in fact violated due process, and would also be the most powerful conspiracy fuel imaginable. Better to play it cool and let them portray themselves as the idiots they are. No reason to try to take the rope from them...

I can only speak with authority as to the LEO-side. I feel that the LEO training I received on the sov-cit movement was too focused on their physical threat level, particularly after the two West Memphis officers were shot by the teenager when his father was detained. Yes, focus must be placed on that, however, I feel that being able to logically and intellectually hold your ground when confronted with the pseudo-law gibberish they spew on the side of the road should be better addressed, at least in my former department training. There should be simple how-to negotiation tactics courses for ending arguments over this hogwash with ideas around the "If you feel that way great, feel free to express that to the judge, but today I'm going to have to tow your car" variety.

You know my inclination is to proffer even less charity than your sample demonstrates, but on the other hand, for the ones who are actually dangerous, just ignoring them out of hand, or ignoring them after the first dismissal of their ideas, or just talking over them about the responsibilities in the stop and the consequences of disregarding them and offering three strikes, etc., might increase the risk of violent retaliation, and for the ones who aren't dangerous, might squander some of the illimitable goodwill sovcits generate towards LEOs in the eye of the public.

For example, that debacle that occurred at Oregon State with both a state trooper and municipal policeman confronting a girl for upwards of an hour total who was cycling on the wrong side of the road, is being nearly universally portrayed as an example of police overreach and excessive force. And so many articles, like the Orange Media article this is from, make statements like

Although bicycles are considered a vehicle under ORS 814.400, and a driver’s license must be presented when lawfully stopped while driving a car, there is no statutory requirement stating that bike riders must provide identification when stopped by police, meaning Hansen was within her rights to refuse to provide identification.

.

Conveniently leaving out the fact that refusing to provide identification is not an infraction, but suspected offenders can be detained until they are identified. Lots of articles give the impression you can just say "I'm not telling," and then the officers can only respond "gosh darnit, you're free to go," aka, a sovcit fantasy.

Going from 0 to 100 against all spurious legal arguments in traffic stops sounds sensible except for the fact that in rare instances in may incite violence, and in all other instances, yields otherwise gratuitous moral high ground.

"You're allowed to believe that" and "okay, I'm writing you a citation, you have free will and can decide what to do from here, but [court date, consequences, etc.]."

[TBL]

I think you may be reading too much into my statement. I'm not saying that you lose all sense of risk-awareness or just ramble over them. I'm saying there needs to be more training in what we called "verbal judo" as it pertains to LEO interactions here. The idea is like any other violator interaction, use your judgement and handle the situation, but here are some tools that may help.
I spent 8 years in patrol Charlie shift (graveyard), I had to go physical hands-on and actually fight a suspect into cuffs twice out of hundreds of arrests, most commonly drunks in a DUI arrest.
The whole plan was to talk them into cuffs. And yes, I would flat-out lie if necessary, but usually I would just avoid the truth until I had them cuffed and contained in the back seat. In the end, those lies-of-omission protected my safety as well as the suspect's.
I just think that while you cannot convince these people to change their crazy views, you may be able to convince them to cooperate for now and take their crazy ramblings to the proper venue, i.e. traffic court.

[Baidn]

In some ways Williams disappoints me more than most of the low level sovcits out there. Reading through the reams of BS filings and nonsense quotes hes put out confirms that at the least he has the patience and ability to learn some meaningful trade instead of being a two-bit con. Unlike others mentioned in other threads he doesn't seem mentally ill like Holland, or even pathologicaly incompetent like Parsons. He doesn't have an "empire" to defend like Hovind, just this strange need to prove that he's smarter than everybody else. He could have just as easily become "Anthony Troy Williams: successful licensed contractor" and a respected productive pillar of his community. Even still would have time to become that of hed turn his not inconsiderable patience towards useful education, but something tells me hed rather die behind bars than admit hes overplayed his hand and accept defeat.