A Tale of Three Lawsuits

by Steffan M. Bertsch

It was the best of times for those who covet, it was the worst of times
for justice in America. Like all state of Washington lawyers, I swore an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states. Unlike most
Washington lawyers, I have read the document.

As a lawyer who respects and honors the Constitution, I have had some
strange encounters in the courts, the following being but one of them. My
client, Robert L. Bridges Jr., faced the loss of his home for alleged federal
income tax liabilities in excess of $390,000. The IRS alleged a claim to it via
a "Notice of Lien" and attempted to sell the home on April 25, 1996 at a "public
auction."

I knew from past experience that the courts would not readily protect my
client's Constitutional rights because, unfortunately, the Constitution is based
upon law and today's courts are primarily concerned with equity.

Realizing that I would have difficulty succeeding in a forum where the
Constitution is misunderstood and misapplied at best, and ignored and abused at
worst, I sought alternative remedies. I wrote letters of complaint to the
Washington state Attorney General, Christine Gregoire, claiming that the IRS had
no lawful authority to seize property from Washington state citizens for income
tax liabilities. Ms. Gregoire had a deputy respond to my accusations, but the
responses never addressed the issue of unlawful seizures. Next, I wrote the
Washington State Bar Association's President, Edward Shea, a series of letters
that likewise objected to the IRS seizure process in the state, and asserted
that an ongoing fraud was being foisted upon our citizens. The bar's responses
also ignored my issue. I then wrote the then Governor, Mike Lowry, who responded
by stating that he wished me well, but that as Governor he lacked jurisdiction
over the IRS.

When it was apparent that petitioning the government was a useless effort,
I resorted to my least favorite choice for justice--the courts. Actually, I was
so reluctant to enter that arena that it took the supposed buyer of the property
to drag me into it by filing an unlawful detainer action. Puget Sound Investment
Group, Inc. claimed ownership to the home by virtue of a Certificate of Sale of
Seized Property and sought to have Mr. Bridges ejected from the property in
Snohomish County Superior Cause Number 96-2-05435-4 which was filed on or about
the 18th of July, 1996.

Lawsuit number one began. I responded by asserting my client's ownership
through a statutory warranty deed, which property had later been transferred
into a trust, and further that my client had a 180 day right of redemption that
was being violated. On August 22, 1996, I took the move that I believe won the
case. I entered a document that declared:

Defendants hereby demand that the facts in the above-entitled cause be
tried to a jury of twelve.

The buyer apparently did not want to face a jury, and on August 27, 1996,
by agreement of counsel, Judge Richard J. Thorpe dismissed the unlawful detainer
action. It was the best of times! However, Judge Thorpe would reappear in the
matter to make the times worse.

Lawsuit number two began when I filed a quiet title action against the
buyer under Snohomish County Superior Court Cause Number 96-2-07121-6. Then
began a seeming endless battle where I was accused of dastardly deeds and
unethical maneuvers for trying to circumvent equity with the law.

Ultimately, on October 25, 1996, the buyer convinced Judge Gerald Knight
that the quiet title action should be dismissed because it involved a federal
question, making it again, the worst of times.

I filed a motion for reconsideration of the quiet title being dismissed,
and the judge actually reversed himself and ordered on December 13, 1996 that
the case would proceed to trial with the issues strictly limited to whether the
IRS director's deed and sale complied with the procedural protections of Title
26 of the United States Code for a non-judicial sale of a home. From this ruling
it was apparent that we would have several months to prepare for trial while my
client maintained possession of the house. The times were good.

Lawsuit number three began shortly thereafter when the buyer filed another
unlawful detainer action under cause number 96-2-09183-7. Washington unlawful
detainer statutes authorize an expedited trial, and through legal maneuvering,
the buyer was able to join the unlawful detainer with the quiet title action,
and have a trial set within thirty days. There was no time to prepare for
trial.

The agent who sold the rights the IRS had in the home was Rick Bergmans. I
wanted to take his deposition. Bergmans proved to be a difficult person to
serve, yet Providence was working for my client. There was no deposition and the
jury heard the case beginning February 25, 1997.

Unprepared for my questioning, Mr. Bergmans was called to the stand, and
his remarkable ignorance of the IRC was obvious to the jury. Ultimately, he
admitted after lengthy questioning that he had altered Record 21 of the sale on
advice of counsel.

The trial judge entered a directed verdict against the buyer on the
unlawful detainer action and lawsuit number three was gone. All that remained
was number two, the quiet title action, which was in the hands of the jury.

I gave a closing argument that caused the buyer's lawyer to argue to the
jury that I was attempting to arouse passions instead of sticking to the facts.
I demur to this accusation. I stayed with the facts, only occasionally
sprinkling them with mention of Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Boston Tea Party,
Watergate, Samuel Adams and the like. The only "passion" the jury heard from me
was a response to a claim that my client was unamerican, to which I dramatically
asserted that unlike those who would seek to impose a heavy and progressive
income tax such as suggested in the second plank of the Communist Manifesto, my
client sought justice.

We needed ten votes to win, and the jury took only an hour to return a
verdict of eleven to one in favor of my client finding:

We, the jury, do not find the IRS conducted a sale of the subject property
in accordance with the appropriate statutes and regulations.

It was the best of times, however, trial judge, Richard J. Thorpe had a
surprise in store for us. He decided that the verdict of the jury was advisory,
and ripped away the victory, making it the worst of times.

What will happen to the jury verdict is for a Higher Court to determine.
What is depressing, is how jury verdicts can evaporate. Don't they mean
anything? Rodney King's assailants faced two trials. As did O.J. Simpson. The
Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is effectively gone,
eliminated by judicial invention.

When Robert Bridges won a jury verdict, he also lost it, not because of
law, but because the courts have driven law from the courts and replaced it with
equity.

I have prepared a packet which contains all of the pleadings, motions,
briefs, instructions, and transcript of the trial. I have also annotated the
documents so you might not suffer from mistakes I made in trial. This packet
will make it possible for you to educate a lawyer or yourself so the case can be
tried and hopefully you can fend off a myriad of motions calling your action
frivolous. This packet is available for $50 by writing to my nom de guerre.

TOMMIS PAINE

P.O. Box 668

Lake Stevens, Wash. 98258

Go to: ICE Main
Page