KSL – State pushes back on Utah bail reform lawsuit – Judge Christine Johnson named a Defendant

Written By: admin - Jul• 24•22

The suit names five Utah judges as defendants: 4th District judges Christine Johnson and Thomas Low, 5th District judges Ann Marie McIff Allen and Matthew Bell, and 7th District Judge Jeremiah Humes.

 

SALT LAKE CITY — Attorneys for the state responded Friday to a lawsuit challenging what the complaint called Utah’s “unconstitutional wealth-based bail system.”

David Wolf, Lance Sorenson and Jeffrey Teichert, all assistant Utah attorneys general, filed the 52-page response in Utah’s federal court. They argued that bail procedures are “integral” to state courts’ criminal proceedings; that federal courts should defer to state courts in bail bond matters; and that the plaintiffs have not yet exhausted their state court options when arguing this case.

They also argued that HB2003, which passed several weeks after the suit’s filing and requires judges to consider defendants’ financial circumstances when setting bail, addresses the litigation’s concerns.

Utah attorney Karra Porter, of the law firm Christensen & Jensen, filed the lawsuit in October 2021 after Gov. Spencer Cox repealed and then didn’t replace a bail reform bill.

“I don’t have confidence that things are being done,” Porter told KSL at that time. “We waited to see whether some changes would be made even though the legislation was repealed. And then when we checked with numerous jurisdictions and we easily concluded that nothing had changed.”

The suit names five Utah judges as defendants: 4th District judges Christine Johnson and Thomas Low, 5th District judges Ann Marie McIff Allen and Matthew Bell, and 7th District Judge Jeremiah Humes.

Porter doesn’t believe any of them are intentionally breaking the law, she told KSL in October. Rather, she says they are following the same “unconstitutional procedures” that judges in nearly every county across the state are doing.

Reached by phone on Monday, Porter said she had not yet had a chance to read the defense’s response to her suit. She also said the time it took for the defense to file a response — over nine months — is typical.

The hotly contested issue of bail reform has centered around whether poorer Utahns accused of committing nonviolent offenses are unfairly being held in jail longer because they can’t afford to pay their way out with bail.

When a person is arrested, a magistrate can either order that person to be held without bail, released on their own recognizance, or released if bail money is paid. But that decision is based almost exclusively on information provided by the arresting officer. It isn’t until a person is formally charged and appears in court — which can sometimes take days after charges are filed — that they have a chance to disclose financial information and have the court appoint them an attorney if they can’t afford one, according to Porter’s lawsuit.

But the state’s response filed Friday says that the state constitution applies different due process standards to bail determinations than it does to bail hearings. The former, it argues, must be made by a “neutral and detached” magistrate within 48 hours; the latter comes with a wider range of due process elements — such as presentation of evidence and assistance of counsel — and must be held within 14 days.

The Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that criminal defendants must have the same due process at bail determinations as at bail hearings, the state attorneys argued.

The response also states that several weeks after Porter filed her lawsuit, the Utah Legislature enacted HB2003, which requires police to include an individual’s known financial circumstances with arrest documents. The law also requires magistrates and judges to consider an individual’s ability to pay bail.

“If Plaintiffs’ complaint is truly about a ‘wealth-based detention program’ as alleged in their Amended Complaint, then H.B. 2003 addresses those concerns,” the response states. “Indeed, it moots any claims that derive from Plaintiffs’ socio-economic status because the law now explicitly requires judges to tailor bail to the financial circumstances of each arrestee.”

The plaintiffs’ responses to HB2003 are addressed in the state’s filing. For instance, the plaintiffs argue that under the bill, people who are arrested still do not receive the appointment of counsel or the ability to participate in initial bail determinations. Utah’s attorneys argued that the state constitution does not require a detainee to participate in or have access to counsel during initial bail determinations.

The plaintiffs also argue that under HB2003, defendants who cannot afford the bail that was set initially must still wait days to be seen in court.

The state’s attorneys said earlier in their response that Porter points to no case in which the 14-day maximum for holding a hearing has been found unreasonable.

They also argued that removing bail procedures would interfere with the state’s interest in ensuring defendants appear in court.

“For this reason, many courts have found that bail procedures are an important, integral, and profound part of a state’s criminal proceedings,” the response states.

 

HB2003…

https://le.utah.gov/~2021S2/bills/static/HB2003.html

 

Utah lawsuit is latest step in embattled bail reform controversy

By Pat Reavy, KSL.com | Posted – Oct. 9, 2021 at 12:20 p.m.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50256184

Bail reform took effect 4 months ago, here’s why Utah lawmakers want to repeal it

By Katie McKellar, Deseret News | Posted – Feb. 6, 2021 at 5:33 p.m.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50102645/bail-reform-took-effect-4-months-ago-heres-why-utah-lawmakers-want-to-repeal-it

 

 

.

BREAKING NEWS: Response and Amendments Directed to Chief Judge Matthew B. Durant of the Utah State Supreme Court

Written By: admin - Jul• 24•22

News Release – 7/19/2022

Breaking News: Response and Amendments Directed to Chief Judge Matthew B. Durant of the Utah State Supreme Court in Behalf of Barbie & Ken Cromar  vs Goliath IRS
Community Support Foundation
PO Box 139
Logan, Utah 84323

 

Barbie & Ken Cromar vs Goliath IRS, et al

Late in the afternoon of Monday July 18, in the Utah Court of Appeals, a Response and Amendments to Barbie & Ken’s cases was filed in the Appellate Court, with specific direction for sending the documents to Chief Judge Matthew B. Durant of the Utah State Supreme Court.

Four key violations of LAW have been used by the courts to deny the Cromars Justice:

  1. Many foundational mistakes were made in the criminal case against the Cromars, which voids their cases,
  2. A civil case was morphed into a criminal case, which is illegal,
  3. The courts have systematically bullied the Cromars out their access to the court record, their  Counsel, AND any remedy to their cases;
  4. The courts have abused judicial authority in an attempt to control the narrative and tamper with witnesses and the jury.

 

URAP RULE 19(a) PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO A JUDGE

Dean Marshall Spencer, Authorized Person, in behalf of Allegedly Disabled of the above said Cromars – Applicants applies to the Appellant Court Clerk under Rule 19(a) addressed to Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant with this answer to the response by and through Counsel Stacey R. Haacke as an Amended Application.

In her response Haacke claims the Cromars were devoid of reference or relevance of court records. Haacke noted the criminal case pending in the trial court and attached the affidavit of Probable Cause. Yet Haacke fails to note in Addendum B that three (3) other affidavits were filed. (Officer Quinn Adams Affidavit, the affidavit/declaration filed on 9/27/2022 and the corrected affidavit filed on 9/27/2022).

Haacke boldly declares, “the Cromars were evicted from their home after the federal government forced the sale of their home to collect a tax debt.” Yes!, a “tax debt” that was never proven in court.  Ironically, this is the very point the Cromars have been trying to highlight in each court through Judicial Notices to the courts, but have been blocked from doing so.  It is Haacke who is wholly devoid of reference to, nor provides the inclusion of relevant portions of the court record that would support any of … Haackes’ ‘tax debt’ claims in the response, and the conclusion of this answer to Haackes response, is Abuse of Process and Judicial Authority. Haackes makes a determination, and thus an admission, that the case against the Cromars is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

Haacke further states, “At the pretrial conference held on June 2, 2022 the minutes of the hearing on the case docket indicates the public defender, Ms. Lisa Estrada, had concerns with going forward with the trial and stated that she may file a petition for competency. No such petition was filed.”

Haccke also states, “Although self-represented litigants are allowed leniency… they are held to standards that allow opposing parties to adequately respond.” However, starting with Judge Robert J. Shelby’s declaration that the Cromars are ‘Abusive Litigants’ on 8/28/2018 and the restrictions placed on the Cromars from filing additional motions or other documents without first obtaining written permission from the court [Civil Docket For Case # 2:17-cv-0123-RJS Item #74], which was parroted by Judge Christine Johnson, who declared the Cromars to be Vexatious Litigants, with similar restrictions, and then again parroted by Judge James M. Brady in the unresolved related case Copper Birch Properties v. Cromars Case # 200400972, (and also now with similar denial of remedy by US District Court Judge David A. Barlow case 2:20-cv-00224-DBB and 2:20-cv-00625-DBB) the Cromars have been Denied Leniency and Remedy through the Wrongful Use of Judicial Authority or a Failure to Comply with Duty. Basically, the courts have preferred to bully Barbie & Ken in submission with legal technicalities, rather than make the pursuit of equal justice their only goal. The restrictions placed upon the Cromars have been intentionally used by the court to ignore, evade, refuse and to reject the Cromar’s Constitutional Common Law Appeals and Remedies, all of which is an Abuse of Process.  In other words, the Cromars have been blocked from access to Justice.  For example:

Merged Civil Action Ties With Cromar Criminal Case

The Violation of Utah Code 68-3-4 Civil And Criminal Remedies Not Merged (Meaning Civil and Criminal Cases Cannot be Merged) began with Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Case # 2:17-cv-0123-RJS where in Judge Shelby recognized Copper Birch Properties, LLC as a Movant, without standing, in that case.

While under an Appeal with the Tenth District Court [Civil Docket For Case # 2:17-cv-0123-RJS Item #112 5/17/2019], the Defendants discovered an ex parte Application for Writ of Assistance had been made by a “Copper Birch Properties, LLC”, hereinafter “Copper Birch”, who had made the application for a Writ of Assistance in the court without any factual involvement in the civil action and without personal involvement in the IRS auction sale of the property, which was made to a “Nathan Eddington”, not “Copper Birch”.  According to established IRS procedures Eddington should have forfeited his $31K when he failed to meet the terms of the auction sale within 30-days.  

For some unexplained reason Copper Birch asked the district court to enforce a “private sale” of property to Copper Birch under Title 28 USC Section 2001(b) without conducting any hearing in the courtroom as required by law thereunder, as ruled by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the dispute on appeal.

On September 10th, 2019 the Internal Revenue Service conducted an auction of the Cromar property located at 9870 N. Meadow Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah 84062-9430 (hereinafter, “the property”).  By the sworn Declaration of Gary Chapman, IRS Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialist, made on March 4, 2020 (Civil Docket Item 117 Attachment #1 Declaration of Gary Chapman), the winning bidder, a “Nathan Eddington”, then failed to make the required 10% deposit of the winning bid of $330,000, depositing only $31,000 on September 10th, 2019 in violation of the applicable and controlling “Terms of Sale” as published by the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. Eddington then failed to pay the balance of the purchase price as required within 30 days of making the winning bid, in violation of the applicable and controlling “Terms of Sale” as published by the U.S. Treasury. By the sworn Declaration of Gary Chapman, IRS Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialist, made on March 4, 2020 [Civil Docket Item 117 Attachment #1 Declaration of Gary Chapman], the balance of the payment owed by Mr. Eddington was received by Mr. Chapman on January 21, 2020, over 130 days after the September 10th, 2019 auction, failing the 30 day purchase-contract fulfillment requirement.

Copper Birch fraudulently claimed in its application for the Writ of Assistance, to have been the “winning bidder” at the IRS auction on September 10th, not “Nathan Eddington”, directly contradicting the factual record of this civil action (Civil Docket For Case # 2:17-cv-0123-RJS Item 117) and also contradicting the testimonial Declaration, sworn  under penalty of perjury, of IRS Specialist Gary Chapman who conducted the IRS auction and whose sworn Declaration was used by this court as the basis for finalizing the sale and distributing the sale proceeds. 

In stating a false pretense and making the fraudulent claim of being the winning bidder at auction, as an alleged foundational fact to the application for the Writ, in order to try and manufacture an otherwise non-existent legal standing in the court and civil action, the applicant absolutely strips the federal district court of its ability to legally establish and take a jurisdiction of the district court over the Application, necessary to act on the Application for the Writ in any manner other than to deny the Application for false pretenses.

COPPER BIRCH HAD NO STANDING: The US District Court kicked Copper Birch’s Application for Writ declaring “Lack of Standing” to file in this case NOT related to them. By failing to truthfully explain how they allegedly have come to have a legal claim to the disputed property, Copper Birch fails to establish, and therefore lacks, legal standing in the civil action to seek the assistance of the federal district court through the Application for a Writ of Assistance that has been made, because they have not properly established that they have any legal interest in the Title, neither as a result of any “private sale”, nor as a result of the public auction that was conducted and won by “Nathan Eddington”, not Copper Birch, – and where Eddington failed to meet the terms and requirements for completion of the auction sale, i.e.: by first making a full 10% deposit of the purchase price on the day of the auction, and then subsequently failing to make full payment of the purchase price within 30 days of making the winning bid at auction), thus coloring, and making fatally defective, his (Eddington’s) claim to any deed or title based on the IRS auction.

By the language used by Copper Birch in its pleading for an Application for a Writ, stating that promises were made to Copper Birch by counsel for the United States Ryan Watson, it appears that the plaintiff United States improperly has secretly and improperly abandoned the results of the IRS public sale at auction, won by “Nathan Eddington”, not “Copper Birch”, and have replaced that public auction result with a “private sale” of the property to Copper Birch in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2001(b) which requires a hearing be conducted in the court before any private sale is made.

No Hearing, No Sale! –  No such hearing was ever held in this civil action, and no such court Order for any “private sale” was ever issued by the court, which is a violation of the required legal due process of a hearing, and of the required legal process, demanded by the statute that was invoked by this court itself as applicable and controlling.   Without the due process of the statutorily required hearing, the “private sale” to Copper Birch is void.

The statute further requires that “notice to all interested parties [of the hearing] shall be given” before the Order of the Court may issue. Again, no such statutorily required hearing, prerequisite to any “private sale” of the property, was ever scheduled, held, or conducted by the federal district court; – and no such required Notice was ever issued or given to any defendant in the litigation, or any other person or party with real interests in the property and its ultimate disposition and disposal by the court.

The conclusion that an unlawful “private sale” of the property has been conducted in violation of this law is certainly demonstrated and is factually supported by Copper Birch’s demands that the United States be the party that refunds their purchase costs, and not “Nathan Eddington”.  By this demand of Copper Birch, it is clear that Copper Birch did not buy the property or acquire title or deed to it from “Nathan Eddington.” As provided by counsel Nathan S. Dorius within his ex parte filing he provides a April 27,202 at 10:52:28 am EMAIL from “BRE? Belliston” [Brett Belliston of Copper Birch Properties LLC] to “Gary Chapman” [IRS auctioneer / PALs], which was CC’d to “Nathan Dorius, Ryan Watson, John R. Barlow, Ty B, Doug Gilmore [who was served a Subpoena but dishonored himself by not appearing at trial as required by law], and Bucky Gay”, his complaint and apparent ultimatum:

“Gary and Ryan,

            “…At this point we would like to know

“1. Will you do anything to not only provide clear title but ensure that we have clear access to the property through restraining orders and other legal remedies as needed?

“2. Return our funds if the government cannot take care of this as we have been told you would?’ (See 2:17-cv-123-RJS Document 122 – Page 17 of 54)

SOMEBODY AIN’T TELLING THE TRUTH:  By this demand of Copper Birch, it is clear that Copper Birch did not buy the property or acquire title or deed to it from “Nathan Eddington”, or they would be seeking a refund of their funds in Utah State court from Mr. Eddington, and not in federal district court, from the original plaintiff “United States of America”.

The demand made by Copper Birch, that the United States and Ryan Watson refund the failed purchase price to Copper Birch, is clear evidence that an unlawful ex parte “private sale” has been secretly conducted by attorney Ryan Watson and the plaintiff United States (without a “due process” hearing as required under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2001(b)), in place of the public auction that was won by Nathan Eddington on September 10th, 2019, and not Copper Birch.

Therefore if a “private sale” has indeed been unlawfully perpetrated by the United States and Ryan Watson, in place of the IRS’ public auction conducted by IRS Specialist Gary Chapman, then the federal court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the secret unlawful private sale for lack of the due process of a hearing as required under IRC Section 2001(b), as just held by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, if IRS Specialist Gary Chapman’s sworn Declaration that “Nathan Eddington” won the IRS auction on September 10th, 2019, is false, then the entire auction sale and result are impeached and rendered void for fraud by virtue of his false Declaration made on the record in the federal district court at Civil Docket Item 117 Attachment #1 Declaration of Gary Chapman, filed with the court on March 4th, 2020, and sworn to under penalty of perjury.

URCP Rule 11. Signing of pleadings, motions, affidavits,
and other papers; representations to court; sanctions

On May 29, 2020 a Notice of Appearance by Nathan S. Dorius on Behalf of Copper Birch Properties was Entered (Civil Docket for Case # 2:17-cv-01223-RJS Item # 121) followed by the ex parte Motion for Writ of Assistance in support of Copper Birch Properties (Item #122). A Notice of Appearance by Andrew V. Collins on behalf of Copper Birch Properties as also entered (Item #123).

As part of Motion for Writ of Assistance, Nathan S. Dorius provided a “deed to real property” signed and sealed by Andrea Ventura Advisory Manager, Southwestern, on behalf of the Director, Southwestern Area Collection of the Internal Revenue Service as duly authorized delegate of the Department of the Treasury, on April 24, 2020 as grantor and Copper Birch Properties, LLC as grantee. (Civil Docket for Case # 2:17-cv-01223-RJS Item # 122 Exhibit A Page 10 of 54) The document was notarized on April 23, 2020 the day prior to the said signing of the “deed to real property.”

DOES ANYONE TRUST THE IRS?:  Andrea Ventura witnessed stating, “WHEREAS, the United States District Court for the District of Utah, in a judicial order of sale entered on March 20, 2019 in the case of United States of America v. Paul Kenneth Cromar, et al. Defendants, ordered that the subject property located at 9870 N. Meadow Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah 84062-9430, the hereinafter described real property sold in order to pay delinquent Internal Revenue income tax liabilities assessed against Paul Kenneth Cromar. AND WHEREAS, the said property sold on September 10, 2019, to Copper Birch Properties, LLC, for the sum of $331,000.00, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does grant, bargain, and sell to Copper Birch Properties, LLC all rights, title and interest in the real property, in Cedar Hills, Utah County, State of Utah.” (The Deed is in Complete Contradiction to the Sworn Statement of Gary Chapman – Civil Docket Item 117 Attachment #1 Declaration of Gary Chapman)

Nathan Dorius also provided a Declaration in Support of the ex parte Application for Writ of Assistance dated May 29, 2020 (Civil Docket for Case # 2:17-cv-01223-RJS Item # 122 Exhibit B Pages 13-15 of 54). In his declaration, under criminal penalty, Dorius stated, “On or about April 30, 2020, Copper Birch began working with [Ryan S.] Watson [US Department of Justice], the American Fork Police Chief, and the Utah County Sheriff to enforce Utah’s criminal trespass law and remove the Cromars and other occupants from the property to deliver possession to Copper Birch. Despite many broken commitments to help remove the Cromars from the Property, the local law enforcement ultimately refused to take any action to remove the Cromars from the property, asking that Copper Birch instead work with the federal government to resolve the situation. The federal government refused to take action to remove the Cromars, requesting Copper Birch instead to work with local authorities to resolve the situation… To date, the Cromars continue to defy the Court’s Order of Foreclosure and Order Confirming Sale and remain in unlawful possession of the Property, the local law enforcement and the U.S. government representatives are refusing to forcibly remove the Cromars and deliver possession to the Property to Copper Birch despite the Court’s Order of Foreclosure and Order Confirming Sale and despite the multitude of pleas from Copper Birch to assist them in gaining possession of their Property.” (A CIVIL MATTER)

FILING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS ON THE COURTS?  On July 13, 2020, Copper Birch Properties filed a complaint in the 4th District Court – Provo, Utah County, State of Utah Case # 200400972, wherein Copper Birch Properties LLC failed to apply for a Writ of Execution in the state courts as per URCP Rule 64(E) Writ of Execution, chapter (e) Governed by Title 78B, chapter 6 part 9, and without lawful judgement or lawful order, filed civilly as an unlawful detainer as governed by the above said rules under 78B – 6 -802, thus placing Nathan S. Dorius and Andrew V. Collins of MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD under violation of URCP Rule 11 sanctions; by the court for representation to the court that to the best of a person’s knowledge for improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless cost of litigation and/or frivolous claims, or other legal contentions, not warranted by existing law. Therefore, the allegations and other factual contentions have (no) evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have (no) evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

On August 21, 2020, Judge Robert J. Shelby ORDERS the unsealing of the Copper Birch Properties ex parte Application for Wirt of Assistance (Civil Docket for Case # 2:17-cv-01223-RJS Item # 135 – It is hereby Ordered that the following documents be Unsealed, document numbers 122, 124, 125, 126, 129,and 131).

THE BULLIES PILE ON:  On October 28, 2021, Utah Fourth District Court Judge James Brady made a Ruling Entry – SUA SPONTE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER (4th District Court – Provo, Utah County, State of Utah, Case #200400972) “The Court has been made aware that a vexatious litigant order was filed in case 201402860 on September 22, 2021 as docket item 264 by Judge Christine Johnson. That vexatious litigant order found that the defendant Paul Kenneth Cromar is a vexatious litigant and requires that any pleading submitted on his behalf must be submitted by qualified legal counsel in that case. Pursuant to rules 83(b) and 83(j), based on the findings in case 201402860, this court also finds Paul Kenneth Cromar to be a vexatious litigant and orders that in this case, the defendant Paul Kenneth Cromar may not file any pleadings with the court except through qualified legal counsel. Any pleadings filed that are not in compliance with this order may be stricken by the court.” (Judge Christine Johnson’s Influence is a Violation of Utah Code 68-3-4 Civil And Criminal Remedies Not Merged – No Remedy is Available – Wrongful Use of Judicial Authority or Failure to Comply With Duty)

Wrongful Use of Judicial Authority or Failure to Comply With Duty – Conflict of Interest

It has been repeatedly alleged that the real property belonging to the Cromars was sold in order to pay delinquent Internal Revenue income tax liabilities assessed against Paul Kenneth Cromar. Many of the rejected filings by the Cromars included evidence from the Commissioner of the IRS showing that the case against the Cromars was dismissed because “no notices of deficiency or notices of determination had been issued” to the Cromars for the years 1990 to 2020. Thus in a rare admission, the IRS agreed that the Cromars never owed any income taxes from 1990 through 2020 due to lack of the lawfully signed Notices of Dificiency and Notices of Determination!

On April 15, 2020 Judge Robert J. Shelby signed an Order Confirming Sale and Distributing Proceeds (Civil Docket for Case # 2:17-cv-01223-RJS Item # 119) which stated, in part, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the proceeds of the sale on September 10, 2019, of the property shall be distributed by the Clerk of the Court as follows:

  1. First, by check made payable to the ‘Internal Revenue Service’ in the amount of $683.80for costs of sale, mailed to Internal Revenue Service.
  2. Second, by way of check made payable to ‘Utah County, Utah’ in the amount of $2,114.49, as of March 3, 2020 plus an additional $0.44 for each day past March 3, 2020 mailed to Utah Count Treasurer.
  3. Third, by way of check made payable to the ‘United States Department of Justice’ with ‘United States v. Cromar, et al., Case No 2:17-cv-01223’ written in the memo field, in the amount of the remaining proceedsfrom the sale, mailed to Department of Justice.

It is unclear as to how much of the $31,000.00 deposit from Nathan Eddington’s winning bid of $330,000.00 or the alleged sale price to Copper Birch of $331,000.00 was actually paid to the Department of Justice. Nor do we know how much of the proceeds from the sale of the Cromar home was actually paid against the Cromar’s non-existent tax lien.   Nor have the Cromars been able to get an accounting from the IRS on their current balance of “claims” if any against Barbie & Ken.

FOLLOW THE MONEY:  What is most troubling is that the Department of Justice, as indicated in the referenced Order,  is the recipient of the remaining proceeds and it was the Department of Justice who brought the alleged tax claim against the Cromars in the first place. That fact certainly shows there has been a huge conflict of interest in the prosecution of these cases and a full accounting is required, including but not limited to a current and official declaration by I.R.S. to the current balance (including but not limited to all debits and/or credits that manifest a current accounting) for each Paul Kenneth Cromar and Barbara Ann Cromar..

Reckless Breach of Duty:  Sadly, Every Effort has been Employed by the Officers and Judges, in which the Courts have participated in Abuse of Process and in the Wrongful Use of Judicial Authority or Failure to Comply With Duty to Obfuscate, Hide, and Conceal Fraud UponIn and Of the Court.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

All Charges and complaints against the Cromars need to be dismissed with prejudice along with full and immediate restoration of their home and property including an appropriately more dramatic ceremonial escort back into their home/property, than was the dramatic and unlawful public humiliation of “75-man SWAT” of September 24, 2020, complete with 2 helicopters, 2 MRAPs and snipers commandeering and terrorizing an otherwise peaceful neighborhood, wherein the Cromars were falsely arrested and dishonorably and without lawful cause falsely accused of burglary of their own home, and their public honor irreparably trespassed and damaged beyond perfect restoration. Barbie & Ken should also be awarded damages and punitive damages to guarantee that this kind of abuse will not be tolerated in Utah and against men and women of Utah, and sanctions should be given to those who have failed to uphold their Oaths of Office in the interest of justice. – Justice demands it(AO 242 (12/11) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 / Utah Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 65B)

Put An End To The Charade

We the People and filers of the Friend of the Court Brief in defense of the Cromars demand, IT’S TIME TO END THE CHARADE! and recognize that kangaroo court actions have made VOID all of the claims against Barbie & Ken (a living and breathing man and woman who stand only under God and the Supreme Law of the Land) and that this for-profit CORP court (EIN #87-6000545 & DUNS #009094301) has no lawful jurisdiction over them as non-corporations – a living man and woman with God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed un-a-lien-able rights.

The Community Support Foundation publicly acknowledges the TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE, so grossly displayed in the case against Barbie & Ken Cromar and reminds everyone that:

Together, we stand to urge the Court to rule in favor of the Defendants, by moving to satisfy any claims, dismiss this case with prejudice, and facilitate a process that will restore them back to their home immediately, and reconfirm the belief that communities are bound together by a common unity in principles, such as the “Principles of Good Business©,” and that “good conduct” is a mandatory requirement by the courts and community at large.” – Where there is smoke, there is fire!

May GOD bless Barbie & Ken in their cause of Liberty and Justice for All.

Follow the Cromars’ progress here:  www.MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com/BarbieandKenvGoliathlRS/  and more detailed stories at  www.CedarHillsCitizens.org

 

Tom Fairbanks
Community Health Advocate
Community Support Foundation
(435) 512-1053
thfairbanks@gmail.com

 

.

“Barbie & Ken’s” REPLY to RESPONSE at Utah Court of Appeals – NOW with 23 Defendants before Utah State SUPREME Court Chief Justice Durrant

Written By: admin - Jul• 24•22

 

 

2022 07 18 – UT COURT OF APPEALS – Answer to Repsone and Amendment to appellate Case No(s) 20220593 & 94 – signed n SEALED -160304

In a LANDMARK filing, the following 23 DEFENDANTS were named in a filing to the Utah Court of Appeals with attention to the Utah State Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant:

Judge Christine Johnson

Magistrate Anthony Howell

Judge Darold McDade

Judge Kraig J. Powell

Judge Robert Lund

Judge James M. Brady

Judge Lynn W. Davis

c/o  UTAH FOURTH DISTRICT COURT
137 North Freedom Blvd
Provo UT 84601

Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith

c/o UTAH COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
3075 North Main
Spanish Fork, UT 84660

AFPD Darren Falslev

c/o American Fork Police Department
75 E 80 N, #101
American Fork UT 84003

Utah County Attny David O. Leavitt

Attorney Jared Perkins

c/o  100 East Center Street, Suite 2100
Provo Utah 84606

Attorney Nathan S. Dorius

Attorney Andrew V. Collins

c/o  Mitchell Barlow & Mansfield
Boston Building
Nine Exchange Place, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

U.S. Solicitor General

Washington, D.C.

US Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby

US District Judge David B. Barlow

Magistrate Daphne Oberg

c/o  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
351 South West Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Ryan S. Watson, Trial Attorney

Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Ben Franklin Station / P.O. Box 683

Washington, DC.20044-0683

US District Judge Timothy DeGiusti

c/o United States District Court – W. OK
200 NW 4th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

  

US Attorney John Huber

c/o Greenberg Traurig

222 South Main Street, 5th Floor

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

US Asst. Attny John Mangum

c/o  US Attorney Office

111 South Main St., Suite 1800

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2176

Utah AG Sean Reyes

Asst. Utah AG Heather Chesnut

c/o  UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

EXHIBITS

 

Click the PDF below to read the exhibits:

2022 07 20 – UTAH COURT OF APPEALS case #20220593 & 94 – Additional Exhibits to July 18th ANSWER TO RESPONSE AND AMENDMENT TO APPELLATE CASE

 

.

Wednesday June 29, 2022 – MIRACLE #2 was read directly into the court record

Written By: admin - Jul• 21•22

MIRACLE #2     Barbie & Ken invoked the “Savings to Suitors” rule

June 29, 2022

Towards the end of Trail Day #3 – Wednesday – the prosecution had finished its case.   “Barbie & Ken” asked Madam Johnson if she had received the 2nd Habeas Corpus – this time from the Utah Court of Appeals (the first having been filed on Friday June 24 in the American Fork District Court – but had been ignored) Again, Madam Johnson showed great displeasure towards the Cromars when they asked about a matter of foundational Constitutional Law (Habeas Corpus) that does not allow the judge any discretion to ignore, but she said that she had been instructed to continue the case anyway, and showed uncharacteristic anger to her apparent embarrassment.

The transcription is not available yet, but the legal explanation was on printed on paper and was read directly into the record exactly as provided below – including punctuation as necessary –  as follows:

 

KEN:   Madam Johnson, every time I try to get something into the record, you interrupt me. Do you think you could be quiet and allow me to get something into the record, without being interruption. May I proceed without being interrupted or having my microphone shut off?

MADAM JOHNSON:   Go on.

KEN:   We, barbara and ken, are INVOKING the “Saving to suitors, in all cases, any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled”

The Constitution is Common Law! There are two sides of every courtroom: the civil law side, and the Common Law side. They run concurrently. But the Common Law is hidden and ignored as if it does not exist. This is long but they will not let you submit it. But you are allowed to say it in your defense. Johnson will seek to shut you up. Maybe the best way to start is to read what is bold.

“…Statutes and the law both state ‘saving to suitors in all cases, all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.’ Now that I have stated this rule from the federal rules of civil procedure this court is bound to let me explain this rule!”

Let the record show that we now in this courtroom invoke the language from the Committees on Rules of PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Announcement of the Chief Justice of the United States SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. April 4, 1960.

My wife and I being Suitors in this case, now having secured our Rights, I will Explain this language from that same committee.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

  • Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

(As amended May 24, 1949, c. 139, section 79, 63 Statute 101.)

REVISION NOTES for 1948 ACT

Based on title 28, U.S.C. 1940 Edition, sections 41(3) and 371(3), (4) (Mar. 3, 1911, chapter 231, sections 24, par. 3, 256, paragraph 3, 4, 36 Statute 1091, 1160; Oct. 6, 1917, chapter 97, sections 1, 2, 40 Statute 395; June 10, 1922, chapter 216, sections 1, 2, 42 Statute 634).

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41(3) and 371(3) of U.S.C. Title 28 1940 edition, was changed by substituting the words, “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled”, for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.”

 

RULE 2.  One Form of Action

There shall be one form of action to be known as “civil action”. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES 1937 ADOPTION

  1. Reference to actions at law (meaning common Law) or suits in equity in all statutes should now be treated as referring to the civil action prescribed in these rules.

The saving of a common law remedy by section 9 of the Judiciary act of 1789  (” * * * saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it”)

So Common Law runs Concurrent in this courtroom with this court at this moment. Common Law being the Law of those standing on land. Having invoked this Jurisdiction it being superior to the Jurisdiction of this court: I open our common Law court here and now on the correct side of the court.

(“we judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.  The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” See Cohen v Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v will, 499 U.S. 200)

(“”The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules.” — Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Supreme Court 826, 49 L. Edition 99 “)

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. Marbury-v-Madison 5 U.S. 137 1 Cranch 137 2 L. Edition 60

__________________

Clerk Johnson, I move the Court that you Order: all fiduciary funds drawn with Bonds upon our trust accounts be immediately returned to us, the Cromars: All Bail Bond Monies, All Bid Bond Monies, all Performance Bond monies, along with any other Bond Monies that have Been set against our trusts. The Court is so ordered to Forbid any agency to declare Bankruptcy to avoid paying the Bonds. All Dun and Bradstreet accounts must forfeit these Monies forth with.

___________________

Clerk Johnson I move this court to order that all Documents to date that have been submitted, then purposely un-received and stricken from the record by this court to be accepted, immediately. Further all Utah corporate imposters impersonating State officers will have their power of Attorney transferred to Ken and Barbra Cromar from Governor Spencer Cox, et. Al.

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal

and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.

I Move the Court to Order This Action be Dismissed With Prejudice on grounds of lack Jurisdiction on the other side of the court.

 

___________________

 

MADAM JOHNSON:   I overrule.  This trial is closed until tomorrow.

 

Her over-rule was without authority hence Void — and the record shows that fact, and there are ramifications.

.

 

 

 

LIBERTY ROUNDTABLE – Post-Trial Interview – Ken Cromar with Sam Bushman

Written By: admin - Jul• 19•22

 

* Guest: Dr. Scott Bradley – To Preserve The Nation – FreedomsRisingSun.com

* Guest: Ken Cromar, Please SUPPORT: Barbie & Ken vs. Goliath IRS If it could happen to Barbie & Ken, it could happen to you – MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com

* Barbie and Ken Denied Right to Subpoena Witnesses for Crooked IRS Trial!

* Are You A “Vexatious Litigant”? – Do you even know what that means?

* Blocking and striking record of all filings because considered “vexatious” litigant which is impossible because they did not bring suit, but rather they are the victims of the suit, and are simply Defending themselves.

* Denial of witnesses of Ken’s choosing.

* Denial of Counsel claiming had to be “state-licensed BAR attorney”

 

 

 

* Guest: Ken Cromar Interview Continued – MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com

* The Declaration of Independence was Written and Carried out Why? Because of a “vexatious Government”!

* Has Ken Been Forced into an Unconstitutional Star Chamber?

* Witness tampering / my hostile witnesses Nathan & Michael Eddington coached by prosecutor just prior to testimony.

* Does “The BAR” Stand for British Accredited Registry?

* Will Barbie & Ken File an Appeal?

 

.

July 1, 2022 – MIRACLE #1 happened during Trial

Written By: admin - Jul• 15•22

On Friday morning July 1, 2022 a MIRACLE happened during the Utah Fourth District Court trial against “Barbie & Ken” Cromar.

_________________________________

.
The Miracle was set up by one juror.  One of the eight jurors (supposed to be 12) had previously slipped a note to the judge which read, “Did I hear Ken Crowmar (sic) state that the IRS ruled the Cromars didn’t own any taxes?”
.   
.
Throughout the trial the Prosecutor Jared Perkins continuously would blurt out “Objection! Res Judicata”, which meant that NO other court case of the 15 “Barbie & Ken” had been through could be talked about to the Jury except his case against us, and especially NOT the two US Tax Court (Washington D.C.) lawsuits against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue (Charles Rettig) which Barbie & Ken WON.
This 100% Exonerated the Cromars of the original false Complaint in USA v Cromars claiming that they “owe $1,053,028.65 in federal income taxes”, which was used as the justification for stealing and auctioning off Barbie & Ken’s dream home!
There’s NO WAY the win-at-all-cost prosecutor could allow the Cromars’ US Tax Court case wins to be discussed before the Jury.  If the Jury heard those facts, what reasonable person could find Barbie & Ken guilty of Burglary of their own home!.   
But on Friday morning July 1, Danielle D’Angelo, a former neighbor who lived across the street from the Cromars for much of the turmoil leading up to the 75-man SWAT of September 2020, testified that she had indeed read the US Tax Court’s final ruling (doc #007 October 20, 2021) signed by Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley and testified that the Cromars were vindicated.
.
Prosecutor Perkins, as he had done to many of Barbie & Ken’s witnesses attempted to challenge their understanding of law said to Ms D’Angelo, “Are you an attorney?  How could you properly understand a court ruling?”  Her answer was, “I did read it.  It was in plain English.  It completely exonerated the Cromars of any federal income tax liability from 1990 through 2020.”  Perkins then turned witness Danielle D’Angelo back to Ken, who produced copies of the US Tax Court ruling which he handed to Perkins and the judge.  Madam Johnson sat on the bench and read the simple one-page ruling for about 5-minutes digesting the “plain English”.  She then excused the jury from the court.
.   
Madam Johnson asked Perkins for his opinion.  “Mr. Cromar does not understand the meaning of this document,” and he continued to explain that he had researched the case and determined though it seemed complicated at first that it was simple, and that, “It does not say what Mr. Cromar thinks it does,” and offered a flippant dismissive and flawed interpretation.
.   
Ken responded with, “Mr. Perkins likes to tell our witnesses that they can’t possibly understand law or the Constitution without the benefit of being BAR attorneys, but he is dead wrong.  But he himself is not even a tax attorney, and hence by his own standard incapable of understanding our US Tax Court win, and I can prove that fact very easily.
.   
Ken explained that in lRS Commissioner’s final filing filing flipped from its original testimony filed in doc #004 of having served lawful federal tax lien notices on the Cromars, to instead agreeing with Barbie & Ken that there had been, ’No lawful Notices of Determination’ and ’No Notices of Deficiency’ served on the Cromars from 1990 through 2020”.
.   
Ken went on to explain that Mr. Perkins could have and should have understood the meaning of the ruling, if he had actually read the Cromar’s filing just prior because they responded to the lRS Commissioner except that after the Cromar won, the US Tax Court removed their winning argument from the court record in doc #006 filed October 15, 2021, BUT NOT before Cromars had obtained a Certified Copy, attached here (PLEASE share this IMPORTANT tax-liability-claim-destroying argument far and wide)…
.
.
In the Cromars’ winning argument they agreed with Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, but OBJECTED to the lRS Commissioner’s reasons cited in Motion in doc#004 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.   In the Cromars’ response doc #006 above, filed October 15, 2021, they countered the lRS claim of ever having had lawful “federal tax lien notices” over the Cromars.  The lRS Commissioner Counsel’s pleading in doc #004 of Sept 9, 2021, claimed in paragraphs 10-17 that the lRS “DID provide Notices of Determination’ and Notices of Deficiency” because their super-duper computers – the “EUP”, “IMFLOT” and “IDRS” computers said so, while admitting not having the documents now.
.   
Ken’s response said essentially, “Fine, Commissioner Rettig!  If you can’t find the original signed lRS declarations you say you sent to the Cromars, no problem sir.  If your records are as accurate as you testified that they are, then just simply go back to your super-duper “EUP”, “IMFLOT” and “IDRS” computers and recreate the Notices of Deficiency and Notices of Determination, and simply have the current lRS Commissioner simply sign (with a wet ink signature), as required by law, swearing to the accuracy of the recreated Notices under penalty of perjury.  Then you win!  But if you can’t or won’t, then clearly you never had lawful Notices of Deficiency or Notices of Determination and hence have no claim over the Cromars from 1990 through 2020.
.   
Five days later US Tax Court Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley entered his ORDER, which Ken read on and for the court record, directly from the document as follows:
Unfortunately, the Jury was out of the court room when Ken read this into the record.  Ken called it “Unforgivable”, that a “judge seeking justice” has not allowed the jury to hear the “plain English” for themselves.
.   
The Juror who wrote the note to the judge did not get his/her question answered.
Justice was not sought by this court.
.   
In fact, when the Jury was brought back in, Ken attempted again to enter the US Tax Court ruling into the record, but the “judge” overruled, and instead had the prosecutor re-read a declaration to the jury that said essentially anything you may have heard about a court win over the lRS is not accurate and is NOT to be considered in your decision on guilt regarding “Burglary” charges.
.   
“Game over”?  Mistrial?  Injustice?  Kangaroo court?  The destruction of “Barbie and Ken”’s quest for justice in behalf of ALL of We the People?  They say, “No way!  This is the Lord’s battle.  He wins.  We’re far from done.”
.

TRIAL RESULTS: The Good News, the Bad News, and the GREAT NEWS!

Written By: admin - Jul• 10•22

“Barbie & Ken” faced trial the week of June 27 thru July 1, 2020 in Utah Fourth District Court in an epic battle wherein the Cromars declared to be in possible mistrial before it began.  By the end of trial it was clearly a Mistrial for reasons below:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.   (Ephesians 6:12)

The Good News:

According to the judge, Madam Christine Johnson, it does not appear that any prison time is not being considered.

The Bad News

A Jury of the Prosecutor’s Peers found Barbie and Ken to be guilty of a Felony 2 – “Burglary of a Dwelling” (their own home!) and a Felony 3 – “False Appropriation”.   Because Barbie & Ken, a man and woman, know that they are 100% Innocent of all charges, their battle to defend their God-given, un-a-lien-able rights under the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution – their struggle in behalf of We the People continues.

GREAT News!

TWO MIRACLES occurred during the Kangaroo Court (an actual legal term) trial establishing important foundation for a facts i Law and a likely Appeal.  Despite powerful efforts by the Court and Prosecutor to block or stop Barbie & Ken’s defense, two critically beautiful MIRACLES occurred and are documented for the world on the record of this Court:
1.)    Miraculously, Ken was able to read the critical parts of the VICTORY over the Commissioner of the lRS in US Tax Court (Washington DC) signed by Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley into the record, and chastised the court for blocking the critical evidence for the Jury to judge the case and provide justice, declaring it, “Unforgivable”.
2.)    The court was officially and lawfully captured into Common Law, and the Cromars lawfully provided ORDERS to the court to release the bonds, the bail bond, etc., and to Dismiss this case with Prejudice.  It’s Miraculously on the record and undeniable, and the judge did not understand how or that it had happened.  (Her “over-ruled” was then meaningless.)
During WW2 pilots would say, “We know we must be flying over the target because of all the FLAK we’re taking”.  The “flak” meant that all the anti-aircraft fire which was proof that it was time to “bombs away” to take out the enemy.  Such is the case for the Cromars.  In the addition to the two Miracles noted above, massive amounts of APPEALABLE errors, omissions and denial of rights of law were documented on the record of the court, including:
  •  Denial of Constitutionally guaranteed right to Counsel of choice
  •  Unlawful and UN-Constitutional “requirement” by judge to use BAR attorneys
  •  Blocking of access to the Court record to file defense
  •  Destruction of Evidence (striking out filings or declaring filings “UN-received”)
  •  Ignoring of 3 Habeas Corpuses – including two at Utah Court of Appeals.   ($5000 fine to anyone blocking, delaying or ignoring Habeas Corpus process)
  •  Jury tampering
  •  Witness tampering 
  •  Denial of right to provide critical evidence to Jury
  •  Denial of our Instructions to the Jury to “judge the facts and the law” & not blindly do whatever the judge instructs.
  •  Ignoring of “NOTICE:” of “Malicious Prosecution” documenting numerous instances of denial of due process.
  •  Ignoring of “NOTICE:” of “Criminal Referral to Utah Attorney General – for TREASON in the Court”
  •  Apparent perjury by at least two witnesses while under oath.
There is so much more we wish we could share with you, but cannot do so as we are “behind enemy lines”, and much needs to be done in silence so as not to tip of Satan’s minions.
Rest assured that we can see the Good Lord’s hand in orchestrating events and our actions in a way designed for His VICTORY.  This is His battle, not “Barbie & Ken’s”.
We’ve also come to learn just how much value the Lord places on freedom and liberty for those of His children who choose to follow Him.  Your kind prayers in our behalf for our protection, wisdom and understanding beyond our own so that we can accomplish our “mission” are requested and appreciated.
Please check back here regularly for updates, as we hope to share much more freely in the coming days.  In the meanwhile, please consider our Cromar family’s favorite scripture:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 

… In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.       (Proverbs 3:5-6)

“Barbie & Ken” Cromar believe their safety is helped by this information being shared and copied off for their protection.
They ask that you Please SHARE this and visit this website often for updates.  Also please see:

www.MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com/BarbieAndKenvGoliathlRS/

______________________________________________

“Barbie & Ken” Tour of their Dream Home May 9, 2020 just after LAND PATENT #392 and after 13+ US Marshal SWAT

Written By: admin - Jul• 04•22

So much evidence, court documents and and videos were denied the Defendants “Barbie & Ken” Cromar to SHARE with the Jury during the Trial.

This included their most important document — VICTORY at the US Tax Court in Washington DC, wherein the Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley Ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdicion, because the Commissioner of the lRS admitted that the lRS had NO lawful Notices of Deficiency, or Notices of Determination over “Barbie & Ken” from 1990 through 2020 — which is 31 straight years.  But this CRITICAL evidence was blocked in the Provo TRIAL.  Why?  Afraid the jury might get in the way of the orchestrated public destruction of the Cromars.

Barbie & Ken are 100% EXONERATED

Therefore the original case brought by the lRS / DOJ against the Cromars in November of 2017 in the US District Court (SLC), is VOID for lack of jurisdiction, and will be proven so as soon as possible, now that the life-threatening jail time (of up to 15 years) is now apparently past.

So, the 13+ man US Marshal SWAT of June 25, 2019, put the Cromars on the street, making them homeless for 10 months before they officially and lawfully “accepted” the LAND PATENT #392 – part and parcel thereof, as originally “granted” (not sold) to the “heirs and assigns forever”, which means the government could never lawfully claim it as the lRS declared.  So, the Cromars moved back into their home, the title was still in their names, and the Land Patent’s pure allodial title was the final block which could only be challenged by an Article III court in lawsuit initiated by the US Attorney General or his designee.  That didn’t stop the under-informed “law enforcement”, and incompetent and/or malicious courts and their attempted theft of our our “Barbie and Ken’s” home.

Little did Ken & Barbara Cromar know that a few months later, suddenly one night September 24, 2020, incompetent leadership (Sheriff Mike Smith & Sgt Weidlein) with way more fire-power than brains, with an over-powered 75-man SWAT team, made up of 2 MRAPs, 2 helicopters, snipers, etc., “extricated” one un-armed 57-year old grandmother of 7 grandkids from her paid-off home of almost 30 years.

Over kill?  Yep.  As other videos and evidence in court showed, all they had to was knock on the door, and present a lawful signed and sealed WARRANT.  As it turns out they wouldn’t even provide the warrants until after the raid.

So, as of July 1, 2022 “Barbie & Ken” are “officially” labeled felons, — but only temporary!

 

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY! – Do you have a Family Declaration of Independence?

Written By: admin - Jul• 04•22

JULY 4, 1776

Declaration of Independence

“… We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (un-a-lien-able), that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …”
Have you ever considered writing your own Family’s Declaration of Independence?
How would you do it?
Below is “Barbie & Ken’s” Cromar Family Declarations of Independence.  Maybe it will spark some ideas for you and your family.  Give it a try….

CERTIFIED Utah County Recorder – 2012 07 05 – Cromar Family Declaration of Independence – 20220204163348 copy 2

 

Our family tried this exactly 10 years ago today.  

We didn’t know what we were doing.  Give it a try.  Short or long. Whatever.  You can’t get wrong.  Make it your own.  Make it YOU!

It is literally FREE-ing to Declaration your Independence before GOD, and officially and publicly side with Him!  That’s a good place to be. It’s THE winning “team”.

In Utah County you can file it on the public recorder at the Utah County Recorders Office under your property or “Misc”.   It’s only $40!

Happy Independence Day!

 

 

TRIAL DAY 5 – EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF HABEAS CORPUS filed at Utah Court of Appeals IGNORED by Judge Johnson to secure fraudulent conviction of Barbie & Ken

Written By: admin - Jul• 04•22

READ the EMERGENCY APPLICATION for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for Refusal to Allow Habeas Corpus, with the stated concern that IF this Court was allowed to continue to a Jury Verdict and if it was harmful to the Cromars, the DAMAGE WOULD BE IRREPARABLE.  And so it was!

2022 07 01 – EMERGENCY APPLICATION for Injuctive Relief for Refusal to Allow Habeus Corpus – 19483308 copy

 

Despite bringing up now the THIRD Habeus Corpus Christine Johnson seems to think that she and her Head Judge Brown and Associate Judges Kraig J. Powell of the Court (in a conflict of interest with the Cromars – Johnson Powell and Perkins area all in a financial conflict of interest with “Barbie and Ken” and are lawfully required and requested numerous times to RECUSE themselves) now above the Constitution of the United States of America and the Utah Constitution in thinking they can attempt to permanently destroy “Barbie & Ken” with the GUILTY verdicts and the temporary “felon” label they were hell-bent on tarnishing them with.

Clearly these people have proven themselves unworthy of the powers entrusted to them by We the People.

BEWARE !  If it can happen to Barbie & Ken Cromar right here in little ‘ol Cedar Hills, DON’T think it couldn’t happen to you.

Ken was a City Councilman from June 0f 1994 to January 0f 2000. After leaving office he and many others banded here at CEDAR HILLS CITIZENS to research the City records, budgets, golf course financial fiasco and alert the good people of Cedar Hills to what their government was doing selfishly for themselves with the People’s money.  Ken was an outspoken and oft attacked resident bullied by the City Council and city officials.  They were not surprised by the Weaponization of the lRS against them, but they didn’t know how to defend themselves from the “GOLIATH lRS”.   See their website for other court details….

www.MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com/BarbieAndKenvGoliathlRS/

Barbie & Ken believe they were likely targeted by certain  corrupt political enemies past and present who didn’t like their massive amounts of FREE golf exposed on the backs of Cedar Hills residents.  There is evidence to believe that angry and embarrassed officials may have acted to encourage weaponized the lRS against the Cromars in an attempt to permanently silence them, and discourage them from GRAMA requesting the public record and exposing the questionable actions of certain City officials present and the past.

Who does that sort of thing?  Really!

.