Peter Gibbons

[wserra]

We've discussed Peter Gibbons in passing before. He is a lawyer, admitted in California, with an address in Carson City, NV. He has represented various people in whom we're interested - Dave Champion, Kent Hovind and Peymon Mottahedeh amongst them - and it was only in the context of those representations that he's been mentioned here. God knows I personally don't hold the identities of any lawyer's clients against the lawyer. Many years ago, when I was doing criminal work, I represented accused rapists, murderers and terrorists. Everyone is entitled to representation. So I had nothing against Gibbons personally - until recently.

The latest in the long line of sketchy events at which Peymon Mottahedeh routinely spreads his bullshit - attempting to enrich himself at the expense of people who don't know better - was the so-called "Red Pill Expo" (these guys all fantasize themselves Neo) which took place in Rapid City, SD, last weekend. Mottahedeh had last Monday (June 17, 2024) all to himself, along with those with whom he wished to share the stage. One of those was Peter Gibbons. Video of the entire day is a 6G download. Gibbons spoke for under an hour, and I trimmed the entirety to just show him (it's still 3G). The time references below are to the trimmed excerpt.

Mottahedeh leads off, introducing Gibbons as - beverages down - "one of the most renowned constitutional lawyers in America" (00:15). That must be why the address he lists with the CA bar is a UPS store. Gibbons wastes no time in offering his learned conclusion that "the courts are corrupt" (2:55). Damn, haven't heard that one before. Strange how it comes from people who lose a lot. He then joins Mottahedeh in mutual admiration: Mottahedeh doesn't really lose all the time, it's just that his "clients" come to him with pre-existing problems (4:55). Well, yeah, Peter, they didn't pay their taxes. But Mottahedeh himself "has integrity, he's honest" (5:45) - if, of course, you don't count how he lies to people attempting to get at their money.

It's really not worth going through every lie Gibbons tells about the law over the next 40 minutes. Anyone who wants the gory details can watch him. A few high points: "It [income tax] doesn't apply to any of you", pointing at the audience (8:35). People in the audience who believe they have a "trade or business" are "all wrong", ditto with being either employers or employees (9:01). He parrots the Mottahedeh line about how signing a tax form is "electing to become a slave" (14:43). The IRS is a corporation in Puerto Rico (16:55). Only DC residents owe income tax (17:15) because (as he goes on to prove) he doesn't know what "includes" means (lots of time points for this). He cites statutes that, by their terms, don't apply to Title 26. He claims that, since unclear statutes must be interpreted against the govt, he wins - of course, those statutes aren't unclear. "Trade or business" means only performing the functions of public office - again showing his ignorance of the meaning of "includes". You aren't a U.S. citizen. On and on and on - all without mentioning not only that none of these arguments has ever won, but that many have been held frivolous.

Finally, as we noted in the Mottahedeh thread, at one point a couple of years ago Gibbons represented both Peymon and his wife April on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. For unspecified reasons, he later withdrew. Before that, however, the first thing he filed was a motion to extend the time for their briefs (link to Peymon's; April's is substantially identical). The reason:

This case has a [sic] very unique and extensively developed facts and evidence in relation to use of BLS data by Appellee as well as CCPL to estimate proposed taxes against Appellant. Use of BLS in estimating tax is rare and will require significant research to brief. To compose a well-researched brief of this area of tax law, with the voluminous trial document and exhibit records in this case, will require the additional time requested herein.

Of course, not a word about Mottahedeh not being a DC resident or a US citizen, not having a trade or business, and so forth. Why not? Because he knows it's bullshit that would surely lose and likely get him sanctioned. But it's good enough for the marks.

I am a strong believer that professions must police themselves. If you don't, you have no complaint when someone else steps in to do it for you. Still, only once in a 48-year career have I made a bar complaint against another lawyer - and I testified to back it up. I'm still contemplating whether to complain to the CA bar about Gibbons. If I don't, it won't be because he doesn't deserve it.

[The Observer]

In addition to the valid points you brought up, Wes, here are some related ones:

(1) If Gibbon believes that the courts are corrupt, then why does he practice law, especially the type of law that requires him to go before a court to represent and argue for his clients? Imagine going into court every day, knowing that the fix is in, and that your clients had lost before you filed that petition. Either Gibbon is a masochist or he just cherry picks the cases that are favored by those corrupt courts.

(2) In a like vein, why does Mottahedeh accept money from "clients" that come to him with pre-existing problems? It would seem that a "honest" person would explain that he can't help them because their case is already compromised from their actions and/or the corrupt courts won't rule in their favor. Yet Peymon takes on these loser cases (and demands payment up front no less) without any shame or regret. I won't even mention the fact that his clients that don't have "problems" also end up the losing side as well, including - you guessed it - Peymon himself.

(3) Gibbons withdrew from Peymon's and April's appeal because the case was too difficult? But we just were told by Peymon that Gibbons is a renowned constitutional lawyer. How many lawyers of that ilk use that as an excuse to avoid taking on an appeal case? Could you imagine Alan Dershowitz stating that as his reason to withdraw from representation? "Sorry, your Honors, but this case is really taxing my brain. Beyond my ability, too tough, its really giving me a headache." Even if you are an incompetent ass, most "renowned" appeal attorneys at least have some ego, arrogance and/or pride that would keep them from falling back on a lame excuse like this. And it shows you that Peymon ain't is smart as he thinks he is if this is the caliber of attorney that he selects to represent him.

[LaVidaRoja]

You gets what you pays for. I doubt Mottahedeh is willing to pay for (or follow the advice of) competent legal representation

[The Observer]

Of course not - Peymon is not interested in actually following the law in the first place.

[wserra]

(3) Gibbons withdrew from Peymon's and April's appeal because the case was too difficult?

Obs, I agree with (1) and (2). However, in fairness to Gibbons - although I question whether a lawyer who spouts as much non-legal nonsense as Gibbons did in the above presentation deserves "fairness" - that isn't why he says he withdrew. Moreover, given that nonsense, it isn't clear to me how much credence Gibbons' explanation deserves - especially since his proffered reasons are themselves dubious. I linked to his motion to withdraw in my above post. Let's examine it.

Gibbons gives two reasons that, he claims, justify his withdrawal: (1) "I made it clear at that time [when he was retained - WS] that I would only accept representation if my client timely provided a draft of the issues together with the trial exhibits" and (2) "Upon further consultation with my client other irreconcilable conflicts between us have arisen, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege." Although the Ninth Circuit didn't question them - a court will frequently just relieve a lawyer who hasn't yet done substantial work on a case rather than parse his/her reasons - there are issues with both of these. N.B.: Although I've done my share of appeals, in both state and federal courts, I've never been an appellate specialist.

(1) This is the first time I have ever heard a lawyer say that he was relying on a client to "provide a draft of the issues", even one who was pro se at trial. The appellate lawyer will read the record and determine what issues merit briefing (if any). This is especially the case where the client was pro se, because lots of what a client believes are issues either are not, or are not preserved for appeal. A similar point as to the record: the transcript of court proceedings and the clerk's exhibit list decide the record, not what the client says it is. The appellate lawyer therefore cannot depend on the client for either the record or identifying the issues.

(2) Gibbons should have identified those "irreconcilable conflicts" before appearing, not after. In the main Mottahedeh thread, jcolvin and I discussed the conflict between Peymon and April, a serious issue on these facts but apparent from the beginning. Moreover, Gibbons writes of the "irreconcilable conflicts between us", presumably meaning between Gibbons and clients, not just between the clients. Did Peymon want Gibbons to raise his "no law" nonsense? Perhaps, but (as we observed in his thread) Mottahedeh himself didn't raise it, either at trial or on appeal. Moreover, if that was the conflict - client insisting that lawyer raise frivolous bullshit - Gibbons espoused the same frivolous bullshit in his address to the marks.

A bad look all around.

ETA: Oops. I see I didn't link to Gibbons' withdrawal motion in my above post, but rather to his previous motion to extend time. Sorry, Obs. Here is the withdrawal. My description of what it says is accurate.

[The Observer]

Thanks, Wes - I stand corrected. I should have gone back and verified that Gibbons was only asking for more time due to the "difficulty" of the issues. I now remember that he backed out over the Mottahedehs' failure to provide a draft and the conflict as you correctly summarized.

The bottom line is that we can't rely on anything that either Peymon or Gibbons tells us about the appeal. At the time, I thought that this was just a made-up deal between Gibbons and Peymon to win a delay. It made sense since it appeared that Gibbons knew better than to go into court and argue Freedom Law School gibberish. And Peymon certainly knew it would do him no good to do the same pro se which would explain why he didn't raise that garbage when he finally turned his and April's briefs.

Will a complaint to the California Bar actually attract their interest? I am guessing that if there was evidence that Gibbon profited by his appearance, it might be a motivator for the investigators to take a look. But the bar has been accused in the recent past by a state auditor for not being effective in conducting investigations or adminstering discplinary actions.

[wserra]

Will a complaint to the California Bar actually attract their interest?

A very significant question, and the biggest reason for my inaction. Bar disciplinary proceedings not involving conviction of crimes almost universally focus an what a lawyer does or says as a lawyer - in other words, during a representation. Even though Mottahedeh introduced Gibbons as a lawyer, when he spoke to the marks it was not in the course of a representation. Most Codes of Professional Conduct (as they're called) have catchall provisions that arguably might fit, but becoming a lawyer doesn't forfeit one's First Amendment rights.

These guys claim losses as wins. You don't want to give them an actual win, even one that's readily explainable as not on the merits.