| Country | United States |
| State | Chad |
| City | TIJERAS |
| Phone | 5052863096 |
RECENTLY TRUSTEE JEFFREY HILL BECAME AWARE OF THE HIDDEN ASSETS WHICH TODD AND JOLYNN STOCKTON CONCEALED FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, WHEN THE FILED AND LATER RECEIVED THEIR APPROVAL OF THEIR NO-ASSET CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY. AS TRUSTEE JEFFREY HILL SAID, THE STOCKTONS WERE TO DISCLOSE ANY ASSETS WITHIN 2 YEARS FOLLOWING THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR BANKRUPTCY(AFTER THE STOCKTON'S DEBT WERE WIPED CLEAN). MOREOVER, THE STOCKTONS LISTED A LOT OF BUSINESSES AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES AS WELL AS THEIR VICTIMS FROM TODD'S FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS CALLED "AMERICASTRADELINES.COM". A COMPANY WHICH PURPORTED TO " IMPROVE ITS CUSTOMER'S CREDIT SCORES VIA AUTHORIZED USER OF ANOTHER PERSON'S CREDIT CARD AS WELL AS OFFERING "PRIMARY ACCOUNTS".
TODD STATED THAT HE WAS ACTING AS THE "BROKER" BETWEEN DENVER BRONCOS JOHN ELWAY; WHO'S 100K VISA BANKCREDIT CARD WAS BEING USED TO CUSTOMERS, WHO COULD "LEASE" AN AUTHORIZED USER SLOT ON MR ELWAY'S CREDIT CARD. TODD WOULD ANSWER HIS TOLL FREE PHONE WHEN A PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMER WOULD CALL IN,AFTER SEEING TODD'S AMERICASTRADELINES.COM WEBSITE.
THEN TODD WOULD GIVE THE CUSTOMER HIS "PRIVATE PHONE NUMBER OF 303-330-7659(WHICH BTW, TODD RECENTLY USED THIS SAME NUMBER WHEN HE STARTED HIS CHURCH. THAT HAS THE SAME ADDRESS THAT AMERICASTRADELINES.COM HAD. THAT ADDRESS IS LOCATED INSIDE A UPS STORE AND THE STOCKTONS USED A PERSONAL MAILBOX FOR A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, WHICH IS AGAINST THE POLICY OF ANY PRIVATE MAILBOX FIRM INCLUDING THE UPS STORE. TODD'S CHURCH HAS VERY RECENTLY MOVED FROM THE UPS STORE TO HIS RENTAL HOME LOCATED IN GREEN HAVEN CIRCLE AS EVIDENCE BY HIS OWN ADS ON YELP.COM AND GOOGLE+.
NOW AMERICASTRADELINES.COM HAD ON ITS WEBSITE A PAGE THAT HAD SEVERAL BANKCREDIT CARD ACCOUNT WITH THEIR CREDIT LIMITS AND NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SLOT OPENINGS FOR PLACEMENT. ALONG WITH THEIR FEES TO PURCHASE SAID PLACEMENT.
TODD HAD INTIMIDATED AND THREATENED HIS DAD & MOM, BECAUSE BROOKY STOCKTON WOULD NOT "LIE" TO COVER TODD REAR, IN COURT. SO THAT TODD COULD GET OFF AND NOT END UP A FELON. BROOKY STOCKTON POSTED HIS COMPLAINT WITH another CONSUMER COMPLAINT BOARD, UNDER HIS OWN NAME-WHICH IS HOW YOU CAN FIND IT SHOULD YOU WANT TO READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
TODD AND JOLYNN STOCKTON GOT THEIR DISCHARGE OF THEIR DEBTS FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON AUGUST 29, 2012. AND THEY ALREADY HAD RECEIVED THEIR CIVIL LAWSUIT CASH AWARD IN LATE 2010. A FACT THAT "FAILED" TO INFORM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ABOUT WHEN THEY FILED THEIR NO-ASSET CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY IN EARLY 2012. A "MEETING OF CREDITORS LETTER WAS DATED MAY 2012" AND TRUSTEE JEFFREY HILL WAS BLINDSIDED BY TODD AND JOLYNN'S DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF THAT ASSET FROM THE COURT.
TRUSTEE HILL HAS SENT THAT INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE STOCKTONS BE PROSECUTED FOR DEFRAUDING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. THE PENALTY FOR SAID ACTION IS PRISON OR PRISON WITH A SUBSTANTIAL FINE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROBATION .
TODD STOCKTON LIKES TO TELL PEOPLE THAT HE IS A PASTOR AND HE POSTED A COMPLAINT ON ANOTHER COMPLAINT BOARD, WHERE HE CALLED AN EXPENSIVE PRIVATE SCHOOL'S SWIM COACH "CHICKENSHIT"(EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TODD WROTE UNDER THE SCREEN NAME OF "JLSTUD")
TODD OR JLSTUD GOT AN IMMEDIATE REPLY FROM "BEWITHHIM" AND SHE WROTE " I SEE THAT I HAVE TO RE-POST. THIS SOUNDS LIKE TODD STOCKTON" . THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY THE ELDEST DAUGHTER OF TODD'S 2 TEEN DAUGHTERS. IS VERY LIKEABLE BUT FOR THE LIFE OF HER, SHE CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW SUCH A SWEET GIRL COULD COME FROM SUCH A "VILE MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE A PASTOR".
THEN THERE IS THELADY WHO MADE THE MISTAKE OF ANSWERING A ONLINE AD FOR A ROOM RENTAL IN THE LONE PINE COLORADO AREA, AN AD POSTED BY PASTOR TODD STOCKTON. NOW SHE IS SUING TODD STOCKTON AKA PASTOR TODD STOCKTON FOR THE REFUND OF HER MONEY. TODD AND JOLYNN ARE INVOLVED IN AN "ILLEGAL SUBLEASING OF AN APARTMENT. TODD HAD TOLD THIS VICTIM "NOT TO TELL THE LEASING OFFICE OF THIS APARTMENT". THIS LADY DID NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTS, WHICH IS WHY SHE BACKED OUT OF THE ROOM RENTAL AFTER SHE HAD 2ND THOUGHTS ABOUT IT, AFTER SHE HAD GIVEN TODD HER MONEY.
TODD THEN WENT ON 1 OF HIS FAMOUS "RANTS", HE THREATENED THIS LADY, HE TOOK OUT HIS SMART PHONE AND VIDEO TAPED THIS LADY, WITHOUT HER CONSENT. THREATENED TO SUE HER FOR 100K FOR POSTING ONLINE ABOUT HIM, TODD LATER REDUCED THAT AMOUNT TO 15K. THIS LADY BTW, NEVER POSTED A SINGLE COMMENT ABOUT TODD, ONLINE. INSTEAD SHE LAWYERED UP. SHE HAD SOUGHT AN APARTMENT IN THE LONE PINE AREA BECAUSE OF A JOB. SHE WANTED TO BE CLOSER TO HER JOB.
WHAT KIND OF FRIENDS DO TODD AND JOLYNN HAVE? I SAY THIS BECAUSE "HOW CAN THEY LOOK AT THEMSELVES IN THE MORNING , KNOWING THAT TODD & JOLYNN ARE WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS . IT IS AMAZING BEYOND BELIEF!!!
TODD AND JOLYNN WENT SO FAR AS TO "HI-JACK" THEIR 2 DAUGHTERS' ONLINE PHOTO PORTFOLIOS. THE BAD PARENTS PLACED INTO EACH GIRLS PHOTO ALBUM, A COPY OF THE SANTA MONIC SMALL CLAIM DOCUMENT OF 1 OF TODD'S VICTIMS. THIS VICTIM TRIED TO GET HIS MONEY BACK UNSUCCESSFULLY. HIS CASE WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT BECAUSE THE CONTRACT OF AMERICASTRADELINES.COM STATED IN THE FINE PRINT-ALL SMALL CLAIMS HAD TO BE DONE IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. WHICH IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LIES THAT TODD AND JOLYNN HAVE BEEN TELLING THEIR FRIENDS. THEY TOLD THEM THAT THEY WON IN COURT DUE TO THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. BTW THE SO-CALLED LACK OF EVIDENCE WAS USED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO SET A TRIAL DATE FOR TODD STOCKTON, WHO BTW KEPT GETTING "CONTINUANCES" FROM THE COURT.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST TODD WAS VOLUMINOUS. AND TODD;S REAL FEAR WAS INTENSE, SO MUCH SO THAT WHEN HE COULD NOT RUN ANYMORE AND THE TRIAL DATE WHERE HE HAD TO ATTEND WAS SET FOR JUNE 23, 2014. TODD WHO HAD GO FROM A PRIVATE LAWYER(A FORMER LANDLORD-TENANT JUDGE: " I WONDER WHAT HE WOULD THINK OF TODD AND JOLYNN NOW. AS THEY'RE BEING SUED FOR AN ILLEGAL APARTMENT SUBLEASING)
ON JUNE 19,2014 A MERE 4 DAYS EARLIER, THE TRIAL WAS HELD AND IN THE JUDGE'S CHAMBER(BTW THIS WAS A TRIAL BY THE BENCH IE JUDGE AND NOT A JURY TRIAL). TODD'S PUBLIC DEFENDER(THAT'S RIGHT, NOT A PRIVATE ATTORNEY PAID FOR BY TODD). MS EMILY K WICKHAM NEGOTIATED WITH THE PROSECUTOR AND THE INITIAL CHARGE OF "CLASS 4 FELONY" WAS REDUCED TO A "MISDEMEANOR".
TODD STOCKTON WAS GIVEN A "2 YEAR DEFERRED SENTENCE AND JUDGEMENT, ALONG WITH 2 DAYS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND SUPERVISED PROBATION".
DUE TO THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF TODD'S HIDDEN ASSETS, AND THE EXCEEDING VERY LOW SCHEDULED PAYMENT AMOUNT OF $25/MONTH. TODD'S PROBATION WAS MOVED FROM RMOMS(A PRIVATE PROBATION COMPANY) TO THE STATE OF COLORADO'S PROBATION DEPARTMENT. AT RMOMS TODD HAD A WOMAN PROBATION OFFICER BUT WITH THE STATE NOW INVOLVED WITH HIS PROBATION. AT CASTLE ROCK PROBATION DEPARTMENT, TODD'S PO/PROBATION OFFICER IS A MAN. THIS MAN HAS FULL DISCLOSURE ON TODD'S EVERY SULLY ACT. HE KNOWS ALL THE "DIRT" THAT TODD STOCKTON HAD PERFORMED OVER THE YEARS, OF TODD'S EVERY MISDEED.
IN SHORT, TODD JEREMY STOCKTON /AKA PASTOR TODD STOCKTON CAN NO LONGER "PLAY" THE PROBATION OFFICER AND GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING ANYMORE!
IF YOU WILL NOTICE THAT I HAVE NOT USED ANY CURSE WORDS, NAME CALLING OR ANYTHING LIKE TODD LIKES TO USE IN HIS ONLINE RANTS.
JOLYNN IS A REPUBLICAN AND TODD IS SOME OFF-THE-WALL RADICAL POLITICAL PARTY(AND NO! HE IS NOT A TEA PARTY-WHO WOULD DISOWN HIM,IF HE WAS).
TODD HAS THIS WIKIPEDIA THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIMSELF AND IN IT, HE CLAIMS THAT HE WORKS FOR THE FBI,DOJ, AND THE LAS CRUCES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. DO THEY KNOW THAT HE IS NOW ON PAROLEE AND THAT HE IS A "PAROLEE!!!!" HE EVEN CLAIMS THAT HE WORKED AT ONE TIME WITH MERRILL LYNCH(YEAH RIGHT! IF HE DID, HE WAS IN THE MAIL ROOM! :-P
TODD MARRIED JOLYNN IS LAS CRUCES NEW MEXICO. BUT TODD NEVER EXPLAINED THAT "YOUNG ASIAN WOMAN ANSWERING HIS PRIVATE PHONE NUMBER IN 2012. AND WHY HE "REFUSED" TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO SHE WAS AND DID SHE WORK FOR HIM AT AMERICASTRADELINES.COM
I PREDICT THAT TODD AND JOLYNN WILL HAVE A TUMULTUOUS NEXT 3 MONTHS. THEY WILL BECOME GREATLY STRESSED OUT AS THEY BECOME SEVERLY CONCERNED THAT THEY MAY BECOME PRISONERS OR PRISONERS WITH A HEFTY MONETARY FINE PAYABLE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.
WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT TODD WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF HIS PAROLE AND "TACK-ON" SOME MORE TIME BEING LOCKED UP. GONE UP IN SMOKE, TODD'S MISDEMEANOR WOULD BECOME A CLASS 4 FELONY.
AND AFTER HE SERVES HIS TIME, HE WILL END UP WITH MORE PROBATION WITH "RESTRICTIONS" LIKE HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERNET EVER AGAIN.
JOLYNN AND TODD WILL BECOME "PERSONA NON-GRATA" OBSTRACIZED BY THEIR NOW "FORMER FRIENDS", WHO WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE JAILBIRDS, THESE WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS, THESE FORMER BERNIE MADOFFS WANNA BE'S.
LOOK, BROOKY AND JOANN STOCKTON(DAD & MOM) NO LONGER LIKE TODD. HIS IS 1OF 2 SONS AND HIS SISTER. WELL THEY ALL ARE MOST LIKELY EXTREMELY PISSED OFF WITH TODD , FOR INTIMDATING AND THREATENING DAD AND MOM. AND JOLYNN PEOPLE ARE UPSET WITH HER CHOICE FOR A HUSBAND AND FOR MAKING SOME UNBRILLANT DECISIONS IN HER LIFE.
I DO KNOW THAT THE TAX COLLECTORS OF NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO HAVE LOOKED INTO THE STOCKTON'S TAX PAYMENT HISTORY AND STILL LOOKING AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT HOW THE STOCKTONS PAY THEIR TAXES WITH INTENSE SCRUTINY, THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEFORE.
TODD, BTW YOU'RE A BIG BULLY AND YOUR BULLYING DAYS ARE ABOUT TO COME TO AN END, JUST AS SOON AS THEY LOCK YOU UP FOR DEFRAUDING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND VIOLATING YOUR PAROLE(SEE BANKRUPTCY FRAUD).
Todd Stockton's Docket number is case #D182012CR000497 .He is currently on PAROLE & undergoing financial SCRUTINY,to determine whether his claim of financial hardship is valid and to prove if the $25/month payment plan he set up with the probation
is accurate. If Todd is caught LYING to the probation department. He will be in violation of probation and he would be no longer be on probation,subsequently the deferred judgement would be activated. His misdemeanor would no longer be in effect and he would be summoned to court for trial by bench ie "here comes da judge!". He should not be surprised when the judge finds him GUILTY & finds him a CLASS 4 FELON. Then orders Todd to jail for 2 yrs and also ordered to pay full RESTITUTION OF $7,500 PLUS FEES. And as I learned recently Todd or should I say PASTOR TODD STOCKTON is being sued by a Coloradan in a fraudulent real estate transaction that he committed. So should he not refund(that is his M O) that Coloradan. That civil case would be TRANSFERRED TO CRIMINAL COURT. Added to the existing case on Todd Stockton & increasing the DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE THEFTS committed by Pastor Todd Stockton. Subsequently increasing the Jail Time that he must do!!
If any of the readers are Cops or affiliated with or friends of the judicial system or law enforcement. Please read Todd's newly updated WIKIPEDIA. Especially his references to his involvement with the DOJ,FBI,LAS CRUCES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT( do they know that he is now on Parole?). Todd says that he is still working for the DOJ AND FBI. Do they know that he is NOW on parole? Someone should tell them that(hint,hint)
Lying about his Dad,once more.
TODD STOCKTON REAL NAME IS TODD JEREMY STOCKTON;SON OF BROOKY STOCKTON-WHO REFUSED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY THAT WOULD HAVE CLEARED TODD OF GRAND LARCENY AT TRIAL IN CASTLE ROCK COLORADO ON JUNE 19 2014. AS BROOKY SO PERFECTLY EXPLAINED IN HIS RIPOFF REPORT DOT COM(SEARCH UNDER BROOKY STOCKTON). TODD SOUGHT REVENGE BY DEFAMING HIS FATHER.
ON JUNE 19 2014 IN PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY(TRIAL WAS TO BE BY-THE-BENCH,NOT A JURY TRIAL), TODD STOCKTON ACCEPTED THE DA'S DEAL & THE CLASS 4 FELONY WAS REDUCED TO MISDEANOR. HE WAS ORDERED TO SERVE 2 YEARS PROBATION, DO 2 DAYS COMMUNITY SERVICE & PAY RESTITUTION( 50% OF THE $7500 STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM AS WELL AS COURT COST), TODD USED THE SERVICES OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER.
THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS TODD HAS OR SHOULD SAY THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS PASTOR TODD STOCKTON HAD WAS CALLED AMERICASTRADELINES.COM; A CREDIT ENHANCEMENT SERVICE THAT BROKERED AUTHORIZED USER CREDIT HISTORIES IN ORDER TO BOOST THE RENTER'S FICO SCORES. TODD TOLD HIS CUSTOMER'S THAT JOHN ELWAY(THAT IS RIGHT THEE JOHN ELWAY!) OF THE DENVER BRONCOS WAS A CLOSE FRIEND AND ALLOW TODD TO USE ONE OF HIS BANKCREDIT CARDS WITH A 100+K CREDIT LIMIT AND A 2% DEBT-TO-LIMIT RATIO. TODD WAS CHARGING 4K FOR A 6 MONTH RENTAL OF THIS ACCOUNT. TODD'S WEBSITE WAS HOSTED BY GODADDY AND THE SITE IS STILL OWNED BY TODD(IT EXPIRES IN APRIL 2015).
ANOTHER PERSON WAS SCAMMED BY PASTOR TODD STOCKTON, A LADY NAMED JULIE AND SHE INTENDS TO PURSUE TODD IN COURT, IN AN UPCOMING TRIAL WHILE TODD IS ON PROBATION(HE IS NOW A PAROLEE)
APPARENTLY BROOKY STOCKTON WOULD NOT COMPROMISE HIS ETHICS TO SAVE HIS CRIMINALLY BEHAVING SON FROM BEING ADJUDGED BY THE JUDGE. WHICH IS WHY TODD STOCKTON TOOK THE PROSECUTOR'S DEAL IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING FOUND GUILTY OF THE CLASS 4 FELONY IN THE GRAND LARCENY TRIAL.
BROOKY STOCKTON IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR HIS HIGH MORAL CODE & TODD STOCKTON HAS VIOLATED ONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS KNOWN AS "HONOR YOUR FATHER & MOTHER". AS BROOKY STATES IN HIS RIPOFF REPORT COMPLAINT, THAT HIS OWN SON HAS INTIMATED,NAME CALLED, WITNESS TAMPERED. AND OTHERWISE THREATENED BOTH BROOKY & HIS WIFE(TODD'S MOTHER).
TODD STOCKTON HAS JUST THIS MONTH(AUGUST) WROTE HIS OWN WIKIPEDIA, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO RESTORE HIS BAD REPUTATION. IT'S CONTENTS ARE IN QUESTION(FACTUAL OR MIX WITH SOME FABRICATIONS).
I LEARNED ALL OF THE ABOVE AND TODD'S WIFE JO L STOCKTON AKA JOLYNN STOCKTON AKA JO STOCKTON IS HIS ACCOMPLICE. SHE SIGNED THE PRIVATE MAILBOX CONTRACTS WHICH WERE USED IN THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS. THESE 2 MAILBOXES WITH UPS STORES; 1 ON S BROADWAY AND THE OTHER ON S UNIVERSITY BLVD IN HIGHLANDS RANCH COLORADO.
BROOKY STOCKTON HAS SEVERAL CHARACTER REFERENCE TESTIMONY ON HIS RIPOFF REPORT COMPLAINT,THAT ATTEST TO HIS HIGH MORAL CODE. AND THESE TESTIMONIES ALSO SAY THAT TODD IS NO-GOOD.
I LIVE IN COLORADO AND VERY UPSET THAT A COLORADAN, A PASTOR, HAS ACTED LIKE THIS.
I HAVE READ HIS FAKE NAMED TESTIMONIES THAT HE HAS PLACED ONLINE WITH VARIOUS ENTITIES. HE SWORE, NAME CALLED AND GAVE DEROGATIVE REMARKS ABOUT BUSINESSES, PEOPLE, SERVICES, AMUSEMENT PARKS, CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOLS, LAWYERS AND SO ON. AND HE DID ALL OF THESE THINGS WITH SEVERAL CONSUMER COMPLAINTS BOARDS.
I HAVE READ WERE THE VICTIM OF AMERICASTRADELINES.COM(RIPOFF REPORT.COM) WISHED THAT TODD WOULD NOT PAY THE RESTITUTION SO THAT TODD COULD BE ARRESTED AND BEGIN SERVING HIS 24 MONTH JAIL SENTENCE( IT'S A 2 YEAR DEFERRED SENTENCE AT THIS TIME WHICH CAN BE RESCINDED IF TODD FAILS TO FULFILL HIS CONTRACT WITH THE COURT)
BROOKY STOCKTON IS TO BE PRAISED FOR NOT GIVING INTO TODD HARASSMENT, AND GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY TO THE CASTLE ROCK CRIMINAL COURT.
Gregory Howard Smith is now wanted by the State of Colorado. He has a warrant out for his arrest and a 10,000 bond for putting the Stockton family at risk, harassing them, threatening death and writing hundreds of pages of false information on the internet about the Stockton family.
JO ANN STOCKTON and BROOKY STOCKTON, Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT and MARGARET B. ALCOCK, Hearing Officer
for Taxation and Revenue Department, Appellees.
Docket No. 26,041
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMCA-071, 141 N.M. 860, 161 P.3d 905 April 20, 2007, Filed
APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO TAXATION & REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Margaret B. Alcock, Hearing Officer
Released for publication June 19, 2007
COUNSEL
Jo Ann Stockton, Brooky Stockton, Cedar Crest, NM, Pro se Appellants
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Elizabeth K. Korsmo, Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees
JUDGES
LYNN PICKARD, Judge. WE CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge, CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge AUTHOR: LYNN PICKARD
OPINION
PICKARD, Judge.
{1} Pro se Appellants, Jo Ann and Brooky Stockton (Taxpayers), appeal from an administrative decision and order denying their protest of a tax lien filed by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (Department). Taxpayers raise several technical challenges to the manner in which the Department obtained and utilized Ms. Stockton's federal income tax information. Taxpayers also challenge the authority of the Department's hearing officer with respect to oath-of-office and surety-bond requirements. Concluding that Taxpayers' arguments are without merit, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
{2} This appeal arises from a state tax liability assessed by the Department in the amount of $565.95. In the 1999 tax year, Ms. Stockton reported zero taxable income to the Internal
© 2012 by the State of New Mexico. All rights reserved.
1

Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS subsequently adjusted her income to $17,153.00 -- an amount
representing wages paid to Ms. Stockton as reported by NCES of New Mexico, Inc.
{3}
In 2003, the IRS provided the Department with Ms. Stockton's tax information for the
1999 tax year. The information was provided via federal form 4549, which is titled "Income Tax
Examination Changes," and is commonly known as a Revenue Agent's Report (RAR). The form
indicated that Ms. Stockton had initially reported zero taxable income to the IRS and that the
IRS had subsequently adjusted her income based on information obtained from her employer.
The form also indicated that the IRS had assessed a tax liability against Ms. Stockton.
{4}
Based on the information provided by the IRS, the Department determined that Ms.
Stockton did not file a 1999 New Mexico personal income tax return reporting the taxable
income indicated on the RAR. As such, the Department informed Ms. Stockton that it was
assessing her for $330.00 of New Mexico personal income tax, plus $33.00 in penalties and
$202.95 in interest accrued to the date of assessment.
{5}
On June 16, 2004, Ms. Stockton mailed a written protest of the assessment. In her
protest, Ms. Stockton claimed that she was entitled to an abatement of the assessed tax liability
because she was unable to determine whether the amount assessed was accurate, since the
Department had not provided her with a copy of the RAR. After receiving a copy of the RAR,
Ms. Stockton supplemented her protest, arguing that the RAR was invalid because it was not
signed and because the information contained in the RAR was hearsay.
{6}
On January 20, 2005, the Department issued a notice of claim of tax lien against
Taxpayers (the lien against Mr. Stockton was later released). Taxpayers subsequently filed a
petition and a number of additional documents seeking to abate or dismiss the claim of lien. In
their multiple filings, Taxpayers argued that the lien was unlawful, that various Department
employees had failed to obtain faithful performance bonds and were therefore misrepresenting
themselves as public employees, that the Department had violated federal law in obtaining Ms.
Stockton's federal tax information, and that Ms. Stockton was not subject to federal income tax
liability. Taxpayers did not argue below, and do not argue on appeal, that Ms. Stockton did not
earn wages in New Mexico in the amount claimed by the Department during the year at issue.
{7}
Following a hearing, the administrative hearing officer issued a detailed decision and
order addressing each of Taxpayers' arguments and denying Taxpayers' protest. This appeal
followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{8}
An appellate court may only reverse a decision by a hearing officer of the Department if
the decision is "(1) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; (2) not supported by
substantial evidence in the record; or (3) otherwise not in accordance with the law." NMSA
1978, § 7-1-25(C) (1989); see Holt v. N.M. Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 4,
133 N.M. 11, 59 P.3d 491; Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue
Dep't, 119 N.M. 316, 317-18, 889 P.2d 1238, 1239-40 (Ct. App. 1994). In reviewing the hearing
officer's decision, we will presume that "[a]ny assessment of taxes or demand for payment made
by the department is . . . correct," and we will place the burden on the taxpayer to overcome this
presumption. NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17(C) (1992); Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 4. Therefore, in the
present case, Taxpayers bear the burden of demonstrating that the hearing officer's decision is
incorrect. See Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 4.
DISCUSSION
{9}
Taxpayers' arguments are typical of the many taxpayer protester arguments summarily
rejected by courts throughout the country. See generally Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane
Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar -- Whatever His Demands, 32 Gonz. L.
Rev. 291 (1996-97) (discussing common tax protester arguments). In fact, our Supreme Court
recently issued an opinion in a case similar to the case at bar with the hope that the opinion
would prevent future "unnecessary expenditure[s] of public resources" relating to frivolous
taxpayer protests. See Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 3. Ignoring the analysis and reasoning in Holt,
Taxpayers in the present case assert equally frivolous arguments.
{10} On appeal, Taxpayers raise four "deficiencies" in response to the Department's
assessment of a state tax liability and filing of a tax lien: (1) that the hearing officer's decision is
void because the officer discharged her duties without taking an oath to uphold the constitutions
of the United States and New Mexico and without obtaining a faithful performance bond; (2) that
the hearing officer misapplied federal tax laws in determining Ms. Stockton's income tax
liability; (3) that the hearing officer failed to submit a written request to the IRS for Ms.
Stockton's tax information; and (4) that the hearing officer erred in relying on the RAR, because
the RAR is hearsay, as it lacks an original signature, does not contain any attestation under oath,
and does not actually state that Ms. Stockton owes any taxes to the federal government.
{11} Although we believe that the hearing officer's decision more than adequately
addresses each of Taxpayers' arguments and that Taxpayers' brief fails to address the
"overwhelming authority discussed in the hearing officer's decision," we nonetheless address
each of Taxpayers' arguments in turn. See Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 4.
A. The hearing officer's failure to take an oath or obtain a
faithful performance bond does not affect Taxpayers' tax liability.
{12} Taxpayers argue that the hearing officer's denial of their protest is "null and void"
because the hearing officer discharged her duties without taking an oath of office or obtaining a
faithful performance bond. According to Taxpayers, the New Mexico Constitution requires
hearing officers to swear an oath to uphold the United States and New Mexico constitutions.
Additionally, Taxpayers argue that NMSA 1978, §§ 10-2-1 to -12 (1876, as amended through
1967), which they call the "Bond Act," requires Department employees to obtain "faithful
performance bond[s]." Although we decline to address Taxpayers' arguments because Taxpayers
have failed to provide authority for their contentions, we conclude that even if the hearing officer
had been required to take an oath and provide a bond, her failure to have done so would not
absolve Taxpayers of the tax liability.
{13} Article XX, section 1, of the New Mexico Constitution states the following:
Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties,
take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the
United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and
impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.
A plain reading of the above section indicates that only those individuals who are actually
elected or appointed to a public office are required to take an oath to uphold the state and federal
constitutions. In the present case, although Taxpayers argue that the hearing officer was elected
or appointed to office, they cite to no authority in support of this proposition. See Wilburn v.
Stewart, 110 N.M. 268, 272, 794 P.2d 1197, 1201 (1990) ("Issues raised in appellate briefs that
are unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed . . . on appeal."). Nor have Taxpayers
refuted the hearing officer's finding that she is employed under the State Personnel Act, NMSA
1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (1961, as amended through 1999), as opposed to being elected or
appointed to office. Accordingly, we decline to review this issue.
{14} Taxpayers next rely on article XXII, section 19, of the New Mexico Constitution
in support of their assertion that hearing officers are required to take an oath of office. That
section, titled "First state officers," states the following:
Within thirty days after the issuance by the president of the United States of his
proclamation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, all officers elected at
such election, except members of the legislature, shall take the oath of office and give
bond as required by this constitution or by the laws of the territory of New Mexico in
case of like officers in the territory, county or district, and shall thereupon enter upon the
duties of their respective offices; but the legislature may by law require such officers to
give other or additional bonds as a condition of their continuance in office.
Id. However, as correctly observed by the Department, this section applies only to the first state
officers elected after New Mexico became a state. Moreover, the section only applies to elected
officers and, as previously discussed, hearing officers are not elected to office. Thus, we
conclude that Taxpayers' reliance on this section is misplaced.
{15} Taxpayers next argue that Sections 10-2-1 to -12, which they call the "Bond Act,"
require Department employees to obtain "faithful performance bond[s]" and that the failure of
the hearing officer to obtain such a bond renders her actions null and void. We disagree.
{16} Contrary to Taxpayers' assertions in their brief in chief, the section of our statutes
that they call the "Bond Act" does not require an official to "take and file an official oath, hold a
commission or other written authority, and give an official bond." (Emphasis omitted.) Rather,
the language quoted by Taxpayers comes from an attorney general opinion, which is cited in the
annotation to Section 10-2-1. See 56 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. 6396 (1956). Additionally, we
observe that the statutory sections cited by Taxpayers do not actually impose a duty upon the
hearing officer to obtain a bond, but rather describe various limitations and requirements of
bondholders in general. See generally §§ 10-2-1 to -12. Actual bond requirements for various
public officers are described in other sections of our statutes. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 8-4-2
(1903) (requiring the assistant secretary of state to obtain a bond in the amount of $ 5,000);
NMSA 1978, § 9-7-6(B)(11) (2001) (requiring the secretary of health and division directors to
obtain bonds). While it is apparent that the Secretary of Taxation and Revenue, as well as
division directors and any additional Department employees of the secretary's choosing, must
obtain bonds, Taxpayers do not cite to any statutory authority requiring hearing officers at the
Department to obtain bonds. See NMSA 1978, § 9-11-6(B)(11), (12) (1995). Accordingly, we
decline to review this issue. See Wilburn, 110 N.M. at 272, 794 P.2d at 1201 (declining to
review issues that are raised on appeal but are not supported by cited authority). Taxpayers also
make several arguments about the priority and irrevocability of the "Bond Act." Because we are
declining to address Taxpayers' argument about the applicability of the "Bond Act," we similarly
decline to address these additional arguments.
{17} Even if we had reached Taxpayers' arguments and held that the hearing officer
was required to swear an oath of office and/or obtain a bond, we are not convinced that her
failure to do so would result in Taxpayers' escaping liability for their tax obligations. Cf. 84
C.J.S. Taxation § 467 (2001) ("As a general rule, notwithstanding an irregularity in an assessor's
title to office arising from the assessor's election or in the matter of appointment, the duties
performed by a de facto assessor, as far as the public and third persons are concerned, are valid
and the assessment which the de facto assessor makes is valid and legal." (footnotes omitted)).
Moreover, another general rule is that "[o]ne duly appointed . . . to an office but who is in law
disqualified to act, such as one who has failed to take the required oath or to execute a bond
within the time prescribed, is at least a de facto officer in that his or her acts are valid as to the
public." 67 C.J.S. Officers § 343 (2002) (footnotes omitted). This proposition is well supported
by the cases cited therein, in particular the cases of Huff v. Sauer, 68 N.W.2d 252, 254-55 (Minn.
1955) (upholding police commissioners' termination of patrol officer although commissioners
did not take oath), and State v. Porter, 158 S.E.2d 626, 627, 629 (N.C. 1968) (upholding warrant
issued by justice of the peace although the judge did not file a bond until after issuance of the
warrant), as well as the policy reasons outlined in the cases. See, e.g., id. at 629 ("Endless
confusion and expense would ensue if the members of society were required to determine at their
peril the rightful authority of each person occupying a public office before they invoked or
yielded to his official action." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Taxpayers' first
asserted "deficiency" thus fails as a matter of law.
B. Thehearingofficercorrectlydeterminedthat
Ms. Stockton was liable for state income tax on
wages earned by her employment in New Mexico.
{18} Taxpayers' second asserted "deficiency" is that there is no federal statute
imposing a tax on income on residents of the United States or on income earned in the United
States and that the hearing officer erred in concluding to the contrary. According to Taxpayers,
income taxes are excise taxes that are only imposed on nonresident aliens and corporations.
Taxpayers therefore contend that Ms. Stockton's employment wages are not "income" for the
purposes of income taxes. We disagree.
{19} Taxpayers' assertion that only nonresident aliens and foreign corporations are
subject to a tax on income results from a strained misreading of the Internal Revenue Code (the
Code) and is wholly without merit. See Lubman v. Hall (In re Hall), 174 B.R. 210, 213-14
(Bankr. E.D. Va. 1994). The Code imposes a tax on the income of every individual who is a
citizen or resident of the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 1 (2000); see also Loofbourrow v. Comm'r
of Internal Revenue Serv., 208 F. Supp. 2d 698, 709 (S.D. Tex. 2002). The Code also defines
"taxable income" as "gross income[,] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter." 26 U.S.C.
§ 63 (2000). According to the Code, "gross income" is "all income from whatever source
derived." 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) (2000). Gross income includes an individual's employment wages.
See Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶ 12. "The United States Supreme Court, as well as every circuit of
the United States Court of Appeals, has recognized that employment wages are taxable income."
Id. ¶ 14 (citing cases). We therefore reject Taxpayers' numerous arguments regarding their belief
that the federal income tax is somehow limited to income earned in foreign countries.
{20} Taxpayers, relying on Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), and Doyle
v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918), argue that our Supreme Court's holding in
Holt is incorrect because income taxes are excise taxes or taxes upon corporate privileges.
However, we observe that the Court in Holt distinguished both cases relied on by Taxpayers.
See Holt, 2002-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 16-17. Moreover, other jurisdictions have similarly held that the
holdings in Eisner and Doyle have no bearing on whether a taxpayer's employment wages are
subject to the income tax. See United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 263 (M.D. Pa. 1996);
Roco v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 121 T.C. 160, 165 (2003); Snyder v. Ind. Dep't of State
Revenue, 723 N.E.2d 487, 489-91 (Ind. T.C. 2000); Miller v. Comm'r of Revenue, No. 2918,
1980 WL 1238, at * 6 (Minn. T.C. Dec. 23, 1980); Bynum v. Dep't of Revenue, No. TC-MD
020934C, 2003 WL 21674324, at * 3 (Or. T.C. July 8, 2003); Ruland v. Dep't of Revenue, No.
020171E, 2002 WL 32107265, at * 2 (Or. T.C. Nov. 29, 2002). We therefore conclude that
Taxpayers' reliance on both cases is misplaced.
{21} Taxpayers next argue that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 to 3520 (2000), prevents the Department from assessing a tax liability against
them. The relevant PRA section provides that "no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information . . . if . . . the collection of information does not display a valid control number." 44 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(1). Taxpayers argue that because the
applicable tax forms in the present case lack a valid control number, the Department erred in assessing a tax liability against Ms. Stockton. This argument, however, has been considered and
rejected by a number of courts as a frivolous taxpayer protest argument. See James v. United
States, 970 F.2d 750, 753-54 n.6 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that the lack of an OMB number on
IRS notices and forms does not violate the PRA); see also Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d
379, 384 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam);
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990); Springer v. United States, 447 F. Supp.
2d 1235, 1238-39 (N.D. Okla. 2006). According to these cases, "[t]he PRA was not designed to
`repeal the statutory criminal penalty for failing to file an income tax return because tax
regulations and instructions lack OMB numbers.'" Springer, 447 F. Supp. 2d at 1238 (quoting
United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991)); see also United States v. Hicks,
947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Congress enacted the PRA to keep agencies, including the
IRS, from deluging the public with needless paperwork. It did not do so to create a loophole in
the tax code."). This is because "`the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not
by regulation,' and `such explicit statutory requirements are not subject to the PRA.'" Springer,
447 F. Supp. 2d at 1238 (quoting Dawes, 951 F.2d at 1191-92). Thus, to the extent that
Taxpayers attempt to argue that the PRA somehow prevents the Department from assessing a tax
liability against Ms. Stockton, we conclude that such arguments are without merit.
C. The hearing officer was not required to
submit a written request to the IRS.
{22} Taxpayers next contend that the hearing officer obtained federal tax information
about Ms. Stockton without filing a written request, as mandated by 26 U.S.C. § 6103(d)(1)
(2000). This section provides that state agencies may obtain federal taxpayer returns and return
information
only upon written request by the head of such agency, body, or commission, and only to
the representatives of such agency, body, or commission designated in such written
request as the individuals who are to inspect or to receive the returns or return
information on behalf of such agency, body, or commission.
Taxpayers argue that the Department's failure to file a written request for information prevents
the Department from assessing a tax liability against Ms. Stockton. We conclude that the
Department did not violate 26 U.S.C. § 6103(d)(1), and that even if it was violated, Taxpayers
are not entitled to an abatement of Ms. Stockton's assessed tax liability or a dismissal of the
Department's tax lien.
{23} In the present case, the Department acknowledges that a written request was not
made to the IRS, but argues that the Department and the IRS have entered into a general
agreement regarding the exchange of returns and return information. This general agreement,
which is part of the record on appeal, was signed by the Department's cabinet secretary and by
the IRS commissioner. The agreement provides that "[t]his agreement constitutes the requisite
authorization pursuant to section 6103(d)(1) of the Code for IRS to disclose to, and permit
inspection by, an Agency Representative of Federal returns and Federal return information[.]"
Additionally, the agreement allows for the IRS and the Department to enter into an implementing
agreement "prescribing the nature, quantity and mechanics for the continuous exchange of tax
information, including criteria and tolerance for selection of tax returns and return
information[.]" The hearing officer concluded that this agreement complied with the
requirements of § 6103(d)(1). We agree.
{24} Taxpayers continue to argue, as they did before the hearing officer, that a general
authorization for exchange is not the same thing as a written request. However, as recognized by
the hearing officer, this argument has also been considered and rejected by a number of courts.
See Smith v. United States, 964 F.2d 630, 634 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that a general
authorization for exchange of information complied with the written request requirements of §'
6103(d)); Long v. United States, 972 F.2d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a general
agreement between Colorado and the IRS satisfied the requirements of § 6103(d)); McQueen v.
United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 473, 487-88 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (holding that a general agreement
between Texas and the IRS satisfied the requirements of § 6103(d)); Taylor v. I.R.S., 186 B.R.
441, 452-53 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1995) (holding that a general agreement between Iowa and the
IRS satisfied the requirements of ' 6103(d)); Stone v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 76 T.C.M.
(CCH) 371 (1998) (concluding that a general agreement between Montana and the IRS satisfied
the requirements of § 6103(d)). On appeal, Taxpayers do not present any contrary authority and
instead argue that the above cases are incorrect because they are contrary to the intent of
Congress. Although at least one court has questioned whether allowing disclosures of
information pursuant to a general agreement but without a written request is contrary to
congressional intent, that same court also observed that
Congress has made no objection to the "standing" request by closing the loophole
identified by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals with an amendment to § 6103 in the
years since it was identified and the appearance of the identified provisions in the
Agreements on Coordination between the IRS and the states.
Taylor, 186 B.R. at 452. Thus, in the absence of any actual showing of contrary congressional
intent, we conclude that the disclosure of Ms. Stockton's federal tax information complied with §
6103(d)(1).
{25} Finally, we note that even if Taxpayers' tax information was obtained in violation
of § 6103(d)(1), Ms. Stockton is not absolved of her tax liability. See Nowicki v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 262 F.3d 1162, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Rather, the Code provides that
Taxpayers may file suit against the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 (2000). See Nowicki, 262 F.3d
at 1163. Violations of § 6103(d)(1) may also result in criminal penalties. See 26 U.S.C. § 7213
(2000); Nowicki, 262 F.3d at 1163. We therefore conclude that Taxpayers' third asserted
"deficiency" is without merit.
D. The hearing officer did not err in relying on the RAR.
{26} Lastly, Taxpayers argue that the RAR relied on by the hearing officer in assessing
Ms. Stockton's tax liability is "mere hearsay." According to Taxpayers, 26 U.S.C. § 6065 (2000)
requires that the RAR contain an attestation under oath and an original signature. Additionally,
Taxpayers claim that because the RAR does not contain any complete sentences stating that Ms.
Stockton actually owed taxes to the federal government, the hearing officer erred in relying on it.
Once again, we conclude that Taxpayer's arguments are without merit.
{27} According to § 6065,
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or
other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or
regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the
penalties of perjury.
As recognized by the hearing officer, however, this section only applies to documents filed by
taxpayers -- it does not apply to the IRS. See Gudenau v. United States, No. 05-00733, 2006 WL
2639472, at * 7 (D. Haw. Sept. 11, 2006) ("Section 6065 addresses tax returns and other
documents filed by the taxpayer; it does not apply to the IRS." (emphasis omitted)); Nordbrock
v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 2d 959, 973 (D. Ariz. 2000) ("Section 6065 applies to returns and
other written declarations filed by taxpayers. The statute does not require that a lien or other
notice issued by the IRS be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of
perjury."); Thompson v. I.R.S., 23 F. Supp. 2d 923, 925 (N.D. Ind. 1998) ("[T]he verification
provision of § 6065 was enacted to permit taxpayers to submit a verified return rather than a
notarized return, and does not apply to notices issued by IRS agents."); Morelli v. Alexander, 920
F. Supp. 556, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("Section 6065 was enacted to permit the taxpayer to submit
a verified return rather than a notarized return and does not apply to notices issued by IRS
agents." (citation omitted)); In re White, 168 B.R. 825, 833 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994) (Section
6065 "is intended to require taxpayers, not the Service, to make returns under penalties of
perjury."); Davis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 115 T.C. 35, 42 (2000) ("[S]ection 6065 does
not apply to notices issued by the Commissioner; its requirements are directed at documents that
are originated by the taxpayer."). Although Taxpayers continue to argue that § 6065 covers not
only taxpayers, but federal employees as well, Taxpayers do not cite to any authority contrary to
the cases relied upon by the hearing officer. See Wilburn, 110 N.M. at 272, 794 P.2d at 1201.
{28} Likewise, we disagree with Taxpayers' assertion that because the RAR lacked an
valid control number, it is invalid. As observed by the Department, an RAR is not a request for
information and therefore is not covered by § 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
See 44 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(1) (2000). Moreover, as we previously noted, "[t]he PRA was not
meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch." Hicks, 947 F.2d at 1359. Thus,
even if the PRA requires that RARs have control numbers, Ms. Stockton would not be able to
use that fact to escape her tax liability.
{29} Finally, Taxpayers argue that because the RAR itself lacks "a complete sentence"
stating that Ms. Stockton owes taxes to the federal government, the hearing officer erred in
relying on it. We observe, however, that the duty to pay taxes is statutory, and the fact that the
RAR does not state that Ms. Stockton owes taxes in "a complete sentence" does not absolve Ms.
Stockton of her obligation to pay taxes. Additionally, we note that the RAR indicates a
"[b]alance [d]ue," that is, taxes owed by Ms. Stockton to the federal government for her failure
to report income earned in 1999. We conclude that the hearing officer did not err in relying on
the RAR to make her decision.
CONCLUSION
{30} We affirm the hearing officer's denial of Taxpayers' protest.
{31} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LYNN PICKARD, Judge
WE CONCUR:
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
——————————
Brooky Stockton is not a company. He is a person, whom is on Social security and gregory howard smith tries to extort with the threat of putting information on the internet if he doesn't get paid.
Please take down the whole posting of Brooky Stockton. I am not a company and will not be extorted by Gregory Howard Smith
Is this Mr. Gregory Howard Smiths posting? Scamorg.com Please be aware that their is a court order against Mr. Gregory Howard Smith to post on your website. Mr. Gregory Smith has a warrant out for his arrest because of his failure to quit posting libelous statements about the Plaintiffs, Todd and JoLynn Stockton, and family, online. The judge issues the warrant on October 8, 2014 and 4 separate orders concerning Gregory Howard Smith. The D.A. here is aware that Gregory Smith has continued posting and is waiting for Greg to call him. The Sheriffs Department of L.A. County has the judges orders and is looking for Smith.
I am Todd Stockton and have hired a lawyer to defend all the libelous statements Gregory Howard Smith has made.
We have court orders for Complaints Board, Yelp, Google, this website, Merareview and others to take down Smiths rants and block his iP addresses. If the Boards are not compliant, they are disobeying a federal judges orders and are subject to fines and damages, which I will be pursuing.
In addition, Mr. Smiths bond goes up $2,000 for every posting after October 8, 2014.
In addition, the judge made Mr. Gregory Howard Smiths warrant transferrable to Colorado...meaning the LA courts will extradite Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith is a bully, a felon, a convicted felon, a black man who picks fights with everyone and I will not tolerate it. As I have told the courts, the sheriff, the FBI and the Attorney General, Mr. Smith is armed (Russian Spetznas Certified) and dangerous. We know all about Mr. Smith, his Son, His brother, his assets and have written the military concerning his record.
By the way, I am not a convicted parolee, a convicted felon, a convicted misdemeanor or likewise. Just yesterday, we received a large, large judgment against Mr. Gregory Howard Smith. Because of the crimes against me and my family, we are going to the military to obtain his wages of 25%
Gregs inaccurate postings of Julie are inaccurate and our lawyer has taken care of this.
Greg Smiths lies about Bankruptcy court are just lies. I personally talked to Mr. Hill.
Gregory Howard Smith is an angry, man who uses the internet to extort people.
I pray for Gregory Smith everyday. Scripture says, " Pray for those who persecute you." I will continue to do just that.
For Mr. Gregory Howard Smiths sake, I wish he would submit to the court and quit harassing and stalking and contacting us. His last several rants are just adding to the total of his bond, and making his time in jail much longer than necessary.
I wish no ill will against Mr. Gregory Howard Smith, only justice and mercy!
Todd Stockton
The reason I am mad at my father is two-fold. One, he has never been to see any of my girls swim in all five years of their swimming in high school. He goes to see his grandsons play football and does not have enough courtesy to see my girls swim. What an asshole of a grandfather. Secondly, he puts our girls down with his masognistic language and lets one of my sisters call my virgin daughters whores. Shame on a grandfather for both those things. Last, I did not plead guilty to a felony nor misdemeanor. Get your facts straight!
STOCKTON, A FORMER PASTOR OF TWO NEW MEXICO CHURCHES, CHALLENGES THE IRS AND WON'T LOSE...OR SO HE SAYS. HE HAS BEEN FIGHTING THE IRS FOR 17 YEARS AND SAYS ""GOD DOES NOT REQUIRE AMERICANS TO PAY TAXES.""
EITHER BROOKY STOCKTON IS SMARTER THAN THE IRS OR HE IS A CRIMINAL.
BOTH CHURCHES THAT STOCKTON PASTORED, FIRED HIM. CALL FORESTMEADOW BAPTIST CHURCH TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT STOCKTON'S ANTI-TAX STANCE.
TODD J STOCKTON/TODD STOCKTON PLEAD GUILTY TO GRAND LARCENY IN COLORADO CRIMINAL COURT!
TODD STOCKTON REAL NAME IS TODD JEREMY STOCKTON;SON OF BROOKY STOCKTON-WHO REFUSED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY THAT WOULD HAVE CLEARED TODD OF GRAND LARCENY AT TRIAL IN CASTLE ROCK COLORADO ON JUNE 19 2014. AS BROOKY SO PERFECTLY EXPLAINED IN HIS RIPOFF REPORT DOT COM(SEARCH UNDER BROOKY STOCKTON). TODD SOUGHT REVENGE BY DEFAMING HIS FATHER.
ON JUNE 19 2014 IN PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY(TRIAL WAS TO BE BY-THE-BENCH,NOT A JURY TRIAL), TODD STOCKTON ACCEPTED THE DA'S DEAL & THE CLASS 4 FELONY WAS REDUCED TO MISDEANOR. HE WAS ORDERED TO SERVE 2 YEARS PROBATION, DO 2 DAYS COMMUNITY SERVICE & PAY RESTITUTION( 50% OF THE $7500 STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM AS WELL AS COURT COST), TODD USED THE SERVICES OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER.
THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS TODD HAS OR SHOULD SAY THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS PASTOR TODD STOCKTON HAD WAS CALLED AMERICASTRADELINES.COM; A CREDIT ENHANCEMENT SERVICE THAT BROKERED AUTHORIZED USER CREDIT HISTORIES IN ORDER TO BOOST THE RENTER'S FICO SCORES. TODD TOLD HIS CUSTOMER'S THAT JOHN ELWAY(THAT IS RIGHT THEE JOHN ELWAY!) OF THE DENVER BRONCOS WAS A CLOSE FRIEND AND ALLOW TODD TO USE ONE OF HIS BANKCREDIT CARDS WITH A 100+K CREDIT LIMIT AND A 2% DEBT-TO-LIMIT RATIO. TODD WAS CHARGING 4K FOR A 6 MONTH RENTAL OF THIS ACCOUNT. TODD'S WEBSITE WAS HOSTED BY GODADDY AND THE SITE IS STILL OWNED BY TODD(IT EXPIRES IN APRIL 2015).
ANOTHER PERSON WAS SCAMMED BY PASTOR TODD STOCKTON, A LADY NAMED JULIE AND SHE INTENDS TO PURSUE TODD IN COURT, IN AN UPCOMING TRIAL WHILE TODD IS ON PROBATION(HE IS NOW A PAROLEE)
APPARENTLY BROOKY STOCKTON WOULD NOT COMPROMISE HIS ETHICS TO SAVE HIS CRIMINALLY BEHAVING SON FROM BEING ADJUDGED BY THE JUDGE. WHICH IS WHY TODD STOCKTON TOOK THE PROSECUTOR'S DEAL IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING FOUND GUILTY OF THE CLASS 4 FELONY IN THE GRAND LARCENY TRIAL.
BROOKY STOCKTON IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR HIS HIGH MORAL CODE & TODD STOCKTON HAS VIOLATED ONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS KNOWN AS "HONOR YOUR FATHER & MOTHER". AS BROOKY STATES IN HIS RIPOFF REPORT COMPLAINT, THAT HIS OWN SON HAS INTIMATED,NAME CALLED, WITNESS TAMPERED. AND OTHERWISE THREATENED BOTH BROOKY & HIS WIFE(TODD'S MOTHER).
TODD STOCKTON HAS JUST THIS MONTH(AUGUST) WROTE HIS OWN WIKIPEDIA, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO RESTORE HIS BAD REPUTATION. IT'S CONTENTS ARE IN QUESTION(FACTUAL OR MIX WITH SOME FABRICATIONS).
I LEARNED ALL OF THE ABOVE AND TODD'S WIFE JO L STOCKTON AKA JOLYNN STOCKTON AKA JO STOCKTON IS HIS ACCOMPLICE. SHE SIGNED THE PRIVATE MAILBOX CONTRACTS WHICH WERE USED IN THE FAKE ONLINE BUSINESS. THESE 2 MAILBOXES WITH UPS STORES; 1 ON S BROADWAY AND THE OTHER ON S UNIVERSITY BLVD IN HIGHLANDS RANCH COLORADO.
BROOKY STOCKTON HAS SEVERAL CHARACTER REFERENCE TESTIMONY ON HIS RIPOFF REPORT COMPLAINT,THAT ATTEST TO HIS HIGH MORAL CODE. AND THESE TESTIMONIES ALSO SAY THAT TODD IS NO-GOOD.
I LIVE IN COLORADO AND VERY UPSET THAT A COLORADAN, A PASTOR, HAS ACTED LIKE THIS.
I HAVE READ HIS FAKE NAMED TESTIMONIES THAT HE HAS PLACED ONLINE WITH VARIOUS ENTITIES. HE SWORE, NAME CALLED AND GAVE DEROGATIVE REMARKS ABOUT BUSINESSES, PEOPLE, SERVICES, AMUSEMENT PARKS, CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOLS, LAWYERS AND SO ON. AND HE DID ALL OF THESE THINGS WITH SEVERAL CONSUMER COMPLAINTS BOARDS.
I HAVE READ WERE THE VICTIM OF AMERICASTRADELINES.COM(RIPOFF REPORT.COM) WISHED THAT TODD WOULD NOT PAY THE RESTITUTION SO THAT TODD COULD BE ARRESTED AND BEGIN SERVING HIS 24 MONTH JAIL SENTENCE( IT'S A 2 YEAR DEFERRED SENTENCE AT THIS TIME WHICH CAN BE RESCINDED IF TODD FAILS TO FULFILL HIS CONTRACT WITH THE COURT)
BROOKY STOCKTON IS TO BE PRAISED FOR NOT GIVING INTO TODD HARASSMENT, AND GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY TO THE CASTLE ROCK CRIMINAL COURT.