John Jennings and Marlin Hokanson

[notorial dissent]

Anyone know anything about this pair, John Jennings and Marlin Hokanson, they are being touted as "two excellent legal beagles, who have beaten the IRS in numerous cases." They seem to be proponents of the "Three-Judge Court approach".

[ASITStands]

Are you familiar with the Yahoo! Group, Three-Judge Court?

It appears to be a group organized around David Myrland's Methods [Sir David-Andrew].

And, Bob Hurt describes the end of a Tampa Lawman meeting where they appeared.

Perhaps 'Famspear' can contribute something from Bob Hurt's mailing list.

[wserra]

I can't say that I've ever heard of them. Still, we can take a quick look and see how these "two excellent legal beagles, who have beaten the IRS in numerous cases" have fared.

Hokanson:

(1) Hokanson v. O'Neal, 00-cv-00639 (MDFL). Suit against IRS agent to remove lien pursuant to certain provisions of Florida law. Removed, US substituted as defendant by motion of govt, action dismissed all in one order (8-31-00). Example of authentic sovereign gibberish here.

(2) U.S. v. Hokanson, 97-mc-00132 (MDFL). Application of IRS revenue officer to enter defendant's premises to effect levy granted.

(3) Hokanson v. Paradise Fruit Co, 93-cv-00891 (MDFL). Civil RICO action. Voluntary dismissal by plaintiff in face of motion for judgment on pleadings.

Hmm. Doesn't seem as though Hokanson has done so well. Maybe Jennings had better luck.

Jennings:

(1) Jennings v. U.S., 07-cv-00418 (MDFL). Suit to vacate FTL, originally brought in Florida state court. Removed over objection, action dismissed without prejudice to filing proper complaint. Jennings filed amended complaint, that's dismissed too, this time with prejudice, on sovereign immunity and anti-injunction grounds. These guys don't learn easily. Example of authentic sovereign gibberish (including "three judge court" nonsense) here.

(2) Jennings v. IRS, 02-cv-01050 (MDFL). Suit against IRS over FTL. Court doesn't bother substituting correct party (US), but instead dismisses with prejudice two days after removal.

(3) Jennings v. O'Neal, 00-cv-00635 (MDFL). Identical to Hokanson (1), including disposition.

(4) Jennings v. Guard, 98-cv-00515 (MDFL). Suit against IRS agent, including request for a "three-judge district court". Nature not clear due to age of case - docs not online. Dismissed. Jennings appealed to 11th Circuit. Appeal dismissed.

(5) Jennings v. Day, 97-cv-02636 (MDFL). Civil rights action against local sheriff, judge, prosecutor and cast of thousands. Nature not clear due to age of case and docs not online. Dismissed as to all defendants. Jennings' motion for reconsideration before "three judge court" denied. Appeal to 11th Circuit dismissed. Motion for reconsideration in Circuit based on "Non-Acceptance of Order for cause, notice of conflict between procedural law and legislative intent, and challenge of the constitutionality of denial of redress" denied. Motion unfortunately not online for example of authentic sovereign gibberish.

"Legal beagles"? These guys are legal Thanksgiving turkeys.

[LPC]

Anyone know anything about this pair, John Jennings and Marlin Hokanson, they are being touted as "two excellent legal beagles, who have beaten the IRS in numerous cases."

Yeah, right.

A search of PACER turn up two tax-related cases involving Marlin Hokanson.

In USA v. Marlin J. Hokanson, No. #: 8:97-mc-00132-HLA (USDC MD Fl. 12/4/1997), the IRS requested, and got, a court order to enter premises to effect a levy. After the order was entered, Hokanson filed motions questioning the jurisdiction of the court, but the motions were stricken without any response by the IRS.

Hokanson later filed a civil suit in Florida state court against an IRS employee, with predictable results (i.e., the suit was removed to federal court, the US was substituted as the defendant, and the suit was then dismissed). Marlin James Hokanson v. Van E. O'Neal, "aka IRS," No. 8:OO-cv-639-T-23F (USDC MD Fl. 8/31/2000). From the order of dismissal:

The defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. The plaintiff's suit is premised upon Florida Statute, Sections 713.21 and 713.22. [Court's footnote 1: These Sections address the discharge and duration of construction liens in Florida.] However, the United States has not expressly waived its sovereign immunity with respect to suit initiated pursuant to this state law. See Rosado, 885 F. Supp. at 1542 ("The United States is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived its immunity and has consented to suit."). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1).

Hokanson apparently tried to persevere in state court, because the Florida Supreme Court had to dismiss an attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Marlin James Hokanson v. Van E. O'Neal etc., No. SC02-391 (2/26/2002).

Maybe that was just his first try, and he's since gotten better at it.

[grixit]

No sanctions? Victory!

I'm guessing that if they were actually granted a three judge panel they'd try to substitute their own judges.

[Nikki]

Hokanson's son (or brother?) is a (KEYBOARD WARNING) major piece of work -- everything but black helicopters.

A couple of interesting excerpts:

My father says he can legally prove that Congress never granted the IRS the legal authority to tax his business activity. The secret behind this government fraud is, instead of persuading Congress to increase it's "Compulsory" personal taxing authority, beyond a private citizen who manufactures and sells Alcohol, Tobacco and\or Fire Arms, the IRS greatly exceeded its scope of office (somewhat resembling an abrasive traffic cop, who decides he's a homicide detective, crippling anyone who attempts to track down who exactly promoted him, and where exactly did this promotion board get its authority?) by somehow creating a maze of courts, in the hierarchy court system, that only effects a certain class of citizen. This special citizen class is the one that waves all other rights by granting the court the right to make a ruling on how the citizen is going to pay the IRS bill without first determining if in fact the citizen owes the money, and\or if the IRS has any true legal authority to tax that activity.

and

What's odd about this Employee Base thing is, about the time my grade-school test scores pointed to my extremely high potential to become a designer of complex machinery, my father got it in his head that I needed to be beaten with a rubber hose on a regular basis. You see, he's a Jehovah's Witness and I was told the world was going to end in 1975, the year I was eligible for the Vietnam draft. Anyway, there was something in my mental process that god couldn't fix on his own, so he assigned the task to my father.

[notorial dissent]

Thanks. I figured as much, from what little of their nonsense I could wade through I was pretty sure where it was all going. The old grab an obscure legal procedure and then pretend it applies to your traffic ticket and child support problems ploy is about what it all amounts to here. I had heard of the procedure before, forget the exact context now, but it has been quite a while, guess it was time to drag out an oldy to try it on a new audience for a while.

[Paul]

You see, he's a Jehovah's Witness and I was told the world was going to end in 1975, the year I was eligible for the Vietnam draft.

That beating must have really fixed his mental process. The draft ended at the very beginning of 73, and we were out of Vietnam shortly afterwards. But, I'm sure everything else is true.

[The Operative]

This mess being, well over twenty years ago, a group of hooded police representatives, identifying themselves as "SWAT," informed me that they decided to knock me down and conduct a systematic strip search on me (selling off what they've found) using a Mafia racketeering form of community controls and a hypnosis based subliminal soft touch machine.

Is this proof of the unauthorized use of illuminati equipment? Or, was "SWAT" using a prototype?

[Gregg]

Please read my assessment of the situation, as well as what I have to offer. If I'm mentally unstable, something really needs to be done about me. If members of the government are in fact using the power of their office to defraud me of my property, something really needs to be done about them.

I'm gonna go with "A"

[fortinbras]

I found a bundle of decisions involing either John Carol Jennings, Sr. or Marlin James Hokanson, both of the Tampa, Fla, area, both of them Very Consistent losers.

Jennings tried repeatedly to get the federal district court to undo an IRS tax lien. In one instance the court simply said that what he wanted was not permitted under the Anti-Injunction Act {100 AFTR2d 6502}, and in another case the court noted that Jennings had built his entire argument on a provision in the state laws about a construction lien {91 AFTR2d 1482}.

They both tried, in both state and federal courts, to sue an individual IRS employee named O'Neal. The state courts simply dismissed the suits for lack of jurisdiction, and the federal courts would first substitute the United States govt as the true defendant and then dismiss the suits for lack of jurisdiction.

Evidently Jennings was in deep trouble at least once, because there are a few decisions in state court where he tried to get a writ of habeas corpus (apparently while framing an appeal), which were consistently denied.

Then there is a smattering of one line decisions from the state courts in which either their suits were dismissed or a decision which they are appealing (which may be the dismissals by the trial courts) is summarily affirmed, without any clues as to the subjects of the suits.

[Prof]

Three judge federal DISTICT court panels are authorized under 28 USC sec. 2284. Is that what these bozo's are talking about? I thought they believed all judges to be corrupt? Why ask for three corrupt federal judges -- isn't that worse than one corrupt judge? The practice is generally limited to cases involving apportionment of congressional districts and of statewide legislative bodies, unless otherwise provided for in a federal statute.

(Federal Circuit Courts generally consider appeals in three judge panels; rarely, the Circuit will consider appeals en banc with all judges participating.)

[The Observer]

Three judge federal DISTICT court panels are authorized under 28 USC sec. 2284. Is that what these bozo's are talking about? I thought they believed all judges to be corrupt? Why ask for three corrupt federal judges -- isn't that worse than one corrupt judge?

Maybe their desperate strategy was to hope that 3 corrupt judges would too be suspicious of each other to render a unanimous verdict. And if the TPs were really lucky, the judges would cannibalize each other.

But this is another moment of Planet Bizarro disconnect. TPs scream about how the judiciary is totally corrupt, yet 99% of the time this is exactly where they head to fight their battle.

[notorial dissent]

Although no real explanation of why this is such a “powerful” method, probably because they don’t have clue one about what it is for, but since the use has been severely restricted, and all but done away with, then the it must therefore must be “powerful” and effective where the regular courts are corrupt, TP logic remember. As I said before they also seem to think it is a remedy for their parking tickets and child support problems, or at least something of the sort, and since it is being restricted, their rights to remedy are being restricted. TP Logic remember.