See other Business/Finance Articles
Title: Westminster man told to stop running tax scheme
Source:
Baltimore Sun
URL Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo ... story?coll=bal-local-headlines
Published: Dec 4, 2006
Author: AP
Post Date: 2006-12-04 18:32:27 by Starwind
Ping List: *unUsual Suspects* Subscribe to *unUsual Suspects*
Keywords: Kotmair, Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
Views: 3052
Comments: 200
A Westminster man has been barred by a federal judge from running a scheme in which he promised to help members avoid paying federal taxes, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today. The "Save-A-Patriot Fellowship" run by John Baptist Kotmair Jr. falsely advised that clients didn't have to pay taxes and could legally withdraw from the Social Security system, U.S. District Judge William Nickerson said in his ruling. Despite legal action by the U.S. Justice Department, Kotmair's organization continued to file frivolous protest letters with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of more than 800 clients and showed "no inclination ... to cease their activities," Nickerson noted. Nickerson's order, issued last week, permanently bars Kotmair and his organization from representing or assisting anyone in corresponding with the IRS, or preparing court filings relating to income taxes. Kotmair and his organization must also notify all individuals involved in the scheme of the injunction and provide the Justice Department with the names of the customers, their e-mail addresses and telephone and Social Security numbers. The injunction also must be posted prominently on the organization's Web sites for a year, and fraudulent promotional materials must be removed from the sites.
Poster Comment: Kotmair's defense and taxation arguments were inane to put it charitably. His website (where he's to post the injunction) is at http://save-a-patriot.org/ Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes just muddy the water for legitimate tax-protest arguments. Kotmair, Schiff, Schultz, Rose all will become boilerplate examples of tax schemes which will be used unfairly to broad-brush and defeat otherwise legitimate arguments, rasing the cost and complexity to properly take on the IRS. I cite Joe Banister as an example of how to do it right, intelligently, and the above tax schemes just make it difficult if not impossible for people like Banister to prevail honestly on the merits.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, noone222, innieway, wake up, HOUNDDAWG, bluegrass (#0)
(Edited)
Many of these "stupid tax protestors" are correct in their assertions. They have researched extensively and know the law. That matters not to the government. They can't let this information become known, let them win, and, of course, are going to make examples of them to scare anyone who may be considering not filing. In the courtroom, the judge's totally ignore the law and, worse, insure that the jury never knows it either. Their job is to protect the corrupt system. See Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism to see it in practice. Joe Banister and several other former IRS Agents and many in the Tax Honesty Movement are featured in the film.
Can one legally bail out of the Social Security program?
#2. To: Starwind (#0)
(Edited)
Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes
#3. To: Starwind (#0)
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#4. To: christine, Starwind (#2)
You can watch the whole thing now on google. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=Freedom+To+Fascism
See Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism
The Subversive Firearms Forums
#5. To: christine (#2)
Wow, check this out woman: America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version All Your Freedoms LLC Over half a million viewings since Oct 20. :)
6547 ratings
All time views: 547,253
1 hr 49 min 28 sec - Oct 20, 2006
http://www.freedomtofascism.com
The Subversive Firearms Forums
#6. To: Starwind (#0) (Edited)
I'd venture to guess that most of these people under estimate the negative impact of having "any" contractual agreement, whether implicit or explicit with "any" legal fiction whether corporate or governmental ... as I notice that most if not all still accept credit cards when transacting business, pay by check, maintain a SSN etc., Most of those mentioned above are also very vocal and provide instruction to others publicly. The most vocal become immediate targets, and like Christine stated ... the courts don't give a shit about the law ... because the Law has no application to slaves that lack "standing" !
Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes just muddy the water for legitimate tax-protest arguments.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#7. To: christine (#2)
The ones I've listed do not. They haven't a clue. They think they do, but they seemingly can not (or will not) read what the law or code says, or understand court procedures, or how tax accounting is done and how accountants are limited and what lawful means are available to reduce tax liabilities. The "stuff" posted on most tax-protestor websites is some of the most assinine "legal" tripe I've read in years. Judges can be forced to address the law, but defendants have *no* leverage if their own arguments are incorrect or unsubstantiated on the law. Yes, the system is unfair and the government will indeed pull every trick possible. Yes, the government is trying to supress much of the so-called "information" proclaimed by tax-protestors, but not because the government is afraid of it, no. The government is trying to supress it because most of it is just plain wrong and many naive people are being hurt by it as well as tax revenues potentially taking a big hit if some of these illegal schemes were adopted en- mass, and the resulting prosecutions would further clog up the courts, to no good outcome. There is a reason most tax-protestors represent themselves. They don't listen to their lawyers or accountants and end up postitioning themselves behind a legal eightball which has no legitimate defense, and most competent lawyers won't touch the tax-protestors "arguments" with a ten-foot pole. It is said don't go into a gunfight armed with a pocket knife. The mistakes happen long before that. If all one understands is pocket knives, one would do well to listen to the advice of professional gunfighters.
Many of these "stupid tax protestors" are correct in their assertions. They have researched extensively and know the law.
That matters not to the government. They can't let this information become known, let them win, and, of course, are going to make examples of them to scare anyone who may be considering not filing. In the courtroom, the judge's totally ignore the law.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#8. To: Starwind (#0) (Edited)
Actually, Banister's arguments related to the 16th Amendment not being ratified and 5th Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination are weak, if not already struck down in prior cases. He had a good attorney and a jury that was convinced the IRS was lying. Many of these cases are lost because the defendant's are flat broke after the IRS impounds their property and bank accounts. To be honest, cases like Banister's actually muddy the waters ... there is NO LAW that makes one liable for or subject to the tax is the proper argument; however contractual adhesions do make people liable for and subject to the taxes. Edited Note: I think the number of applications to the Postal Service would increase exponentially to the number of IRS Agents shot dead attempting to extort funds.
I cite Joe Banister as an example of how to do it right, intelligently, and the above tax schemes just make it difficult if not impossible for people like Banister to prevail honestly on the merits.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#9. To: Starwind (#7)
the IRS code is not the law. watch Freedom To Fascism. it addresses everything i said above much better. listen in particular to the testimony of the several former IRS agents and the one female juror of the case featured in the film. btw, you wanna see stupid? look at the former IRS commissioner, whose name escapes me at the moment, Russo interviews.
#10. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#3)
Its a grey area. Organizations can setup alternate retirement plans in which one can enroll instead of social security, but the contribution to the alternate plan is still mandatory for all practical purposes, and one is still "in" the social security system, just not contributing to it for the duration of that particular employment (having the optional retirement plan). Some arguments have been proposed (and rejected as I recall) for individuals essentially seeking to "self-insure" on a similar basis as an alternate retirement plan, but because the plans must be federally approved, the requirements mandate more than just one individual squirreling away his own savings. The fool-proof way is to relinquish US citizenship and residency and move to some other country (tax haven), and start over. But upon doing that, there are no easy, approved ways to transfer untaxed earnings or assets out of the US to said tax haven. One must "start over" for all practical purposes. In short there are no legal ways I know of to be a US citizen with US-based assets and income and not pay taxes, and if an individual, not pay some kind of "retirement" setaside (pay-roll tax). But just because I don't know of one, doesn't mean it might not exist. Hence the reason I investigate what I learn about, and my opinion that what I've seen to date is illegal, some of it wildly illegal.
Can one legally bail out of the Social Security program?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#11. To: christine (#9)
It is a body of regulations and procedures intended by congress to have the weight of law and be construed as law when courts deem it necessary to review. Same as SEC regulations are "law" for how companies do their bookkeeping and stock transactions. I won't argue with you that it is an arcane labrynth in which accountability for enactment and empowerment of the IRS (via the Treasury) is difficult to trace. But that doesn't change the reality of what the tax code is and that it has the weight of law. If it were as simple as tax-protestors delude themselves, companies, accountants, and tax lawyers would be using it like they use every other "loophole". The only way I know to lawfully reduce tax liabilities is through common law establishment of trusts and foundations, but they have to be setup and correctly operated similar to a corporation's transactions being at "arms length" from its CEO and shareholders' personal finances. But the benefits to the individual (grantor) are one-time and the distributions to beneficiaries are taxable, as is any investment income the trust or foundation might subsequently have. I've seen numerous tax-protestors who claim to be able to prove the law isn't the law, and every single one of them is grossly ignorant of how courts understand the law. Reading a law dictionary and arguing specious definitions of legal terms of art, or arguing non-existant precedents, and ignoring opposing motions and court orders is the pocket knife in the gun fight.
the IRS code is not the law.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#12. To: Starwind (#11)
Have you watched Freedom To Fascism? If not, will you?
#13. To: Dempsy (#12)
No. No. But I will read and study any written legal argument that it purports to make, provided it cites the statutes and laws it deems unapplicable and makes the legal arguments one would use in court and the accounting principals to be used in any filings.... ie, a legal brief of any length I would gladly read, but no I won't expend the time taking notes from a movie or video. If it is as legitimate and portentious as a lawful invalidation of the tax code, it's authors need to simply state it in plain writing, as do most scholars when they document some finding (in law, science, archeology, etc...). Some of us still read and prefer the certainty and clarity of a well composed legal argument.
Have you watched Freedom To Fascism?
If not, will you?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#14. To: Starwind (#11)
Here's the link to Bannister's site where he's posted all the information - especially interesting is one juror's summation of why he was acquitted of all charges - apologizes for not being able to link directly to that page.
-Thomas Paine
#15. To: Starwind (#13)
Have you watched Freedom To Fascism? No. If not, will you? No. Exhibit A, your honor. A closed mind.
#16. To: Starwind (#11)
you make some good points, but here is where you and i differ. you seem to think that an individual will get a fair shake, whereas, i don't believe for one moment that this is an issue where those "protesting" will ever be allowed a level playing field. the courts are not Article III courts. they are not for we the people. it's the job of the judges to protect the system and not our rights.
#17. To: Dempsy (#15)
No. Exhibit B your honor. Deliberate and willful ignoring what was written in a self-serving intellectually dishonest argument. Classic tax-protestor argumentation - get out the round-end scissors and snip away any inconvenient words.
But I will read and study any written legal argument that it purports to make, provided it cites the statutes and laws it deems unapplicable and makes the legal arguments one would use in court and the accounting principals to be used in any filings.... ie, a legal brief of any length I would gladly read, but no I won't expend the time taking notes from a movie or video. If it is as legitimate and portentious as a lawful invalidation of the tax code, it's authors need to simply state it in plain writing, as do most scholars when they document some finding (in law, science, archeology, etc...). Exhibit A, your honor. A closed mind.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#18. To: lodwick (#14) (Edited)
I've periodically been to Banister's site, and I followed his case. He was aquitted not because the law was invalid but because he never violated the law. He didn't do what he was accused of doing. He never gave advice to not pay taxes or file improperly. He was unjustly accused because of his association with Larken Rose (IIRC). Correction: not Rose, but Walter Thompson. His case was not about tax law, but about what Banister actually *never* said. I don't know that anything new has happened but I'll look again.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#19. To: Starwind (#13)
IIRC, you dismissed Mearsheimer and Walt's scholarly work because it didn't comport with your religious beliefs, so really, what would you know?
as do most scholars when they document some finding
#20. To: Dempsy (#19)
Exhibit C, your honor. Faulty memory, and unsubstantiated claims. Move for summary judgement.
IIRC, you dismissed Mearsheimer and Walt's scholarly work because it didn't comport with your religious beliefs, so really, what would you know?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#21. To: Starwind (#18)
Look for the part where any goob document is supposed to have some sort of filing(?) number on it, and none of the IRS documents have this number - that was the key to this case.
I don't that anything new has happened but I'll look again.
-Thomas Paine
#22. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#3)
1st ... can one be expected to subject their children to a lifetime of feudal serfdom in an allegedly free country ? I say no, but that's exactly what we do when we sign them up at the hospital. The IRS readily admits that they cannot collect the income tax from people without SSN's ... and one must ask why ? It's because you haven't accepted the "promised" benefits of SSN (retirement/medical) nor have you volunteered into their "INSURANCE" program. You asked if one could "bail out" of SS. I have, and I have a SS-521 form that is Stamped by the SS Administration, Dated, and signed by the SS Administrator that states I have no record with the SS Administration even though I had received a SSN as a child. I formally expatriated from the Federal Government, and made numerous Constructive Notices to all federal agancies concerned with my withdrawal from SS. I rescinded, canceled, terminated and removed all signatures on all documentation that bound me contractually with any legal fiction such as government entities, banks, and other corporations. These entities were all properly noticed as well. I placed Notices in Newspapers for the appropriate amount of time required for legal notice, on top of the written Constructive Notices sent to all State and Federal Agencies. I made it very certain and obvious that I wouldn't associate with murdering scum for the conveniences provided by them. I also forfeited the many years of funds that I had "contributed". [They use this term (Contributions) so you know it's voluntary. I do no business other than that which is private. And even though I have this documentation I don't trust the government. I loathe the U.S. government, and have done just fine without them for almost 20 years now. I did it for Biblical reasons, not the money. And even though I'm not a holy roller, there isn't anything more prohibited by scripture in my opinion than worshipping the State through its MARK. Many people find it too difficult to cut the umbilical cord and for good reasons too. I just got to the point where I couldn't take anymore of their fraud, and made every attempt to state my position openly. I think I have been protected by the true authority of this universe because I have operated in good faith for the right reasons. If it's just about the money ... you'll have a hard time sticking with it.
Can one legally bail out of the Social Security program?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#23. To: Starwind (#13)
Oh, you mean lawyers and accountants?
Some of us still read and prefer the certainty and clarity of a well composed legal argument.
The Subversive Firearms Forums
#24. To: Critter (#23)
Well, them and we litigants who pay them for their advice. I like to understand on what legal basis I'm betting my ass(ets).
Oh, you mean lawyers and accountants?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#25. To: Starwind (#17)
I noticed your tagline and thought you should be more aware of the number one tax protester to ever walk the earth ! (Of course they crucified him ... and they're still at it 2000 years later. What did Jesus tell Peter at the house after they had passed through the gate at Capernum. [You'll recall he had Peter go get a coin out of a fishes mouth to pay the "tribute" collector, so as not to piss him off. But when Peter and Jesus arrived at the house, Jesus prevented Peter at the door, and asked him "Peter, from whom do the kings of nations collect tribute, the "children" or the "STRANGER" ... to which Peter replied, ahh yes Lord the stranger.] Taxes are in fact a penalty applied to those receiving a government "PRIVILEGE" , and the reason for Jesus admonition to Peter was to remind him that the birthright of the children wasn't taxable while the privilege of citizenship to the stranger subjected them to taxation. When people get a SSN they are "swearing under oath" that they are FEDERAL CITIZENS ... A Viet Cong or Iraqi Expatriat is a FEDERAL CITIZEN, not someone born in America. It's a fucking fraud from A-Z ... Check out Luke 22:25 where Jesus states that you shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor ... exactly what SS does to you ... it makes the govt. your benefactor ... so who you gonna believe, Jesus or Uncle Sambo ???
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#26. To: christine, Starwind (#9)
Title 26 has never been passed into positive law ... you are correct. It is nothing more than prima facia law. I'm mystified when someone has a tagline that implies faith in Christ's truth but when it comes down to the nut cuttin that person shit cans Christ and resorts to lawyers and weasel worded statutory fraud. Hypocrisy !
the IRS code is not the law.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#27. To: Starwind (#20)
Speaking of unsubstantiated claims ... Provide the Law that makes anyone liable for or subject to this thing called the income tax. then if you can answer the above ... Name the 3 things taxes are imposed upon and how the tax is to be collected ... legally. [Hint: Direct taxes are apportioned and indirect taxes must be uniform]. C'mon let's play !
unsubstantiated claims.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#28. To: Starwind (#0)
I cite Joe Banister as an example of how to do it right, intelligently, and the above tax schemes just make it difficult if not impossible for people like Banister to prevail honestly on the merits. I knew there was some reason I liked you. Well-reasoned as always.
Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes just muddy the water for legitimate tax-protest arguments. Kotmair, Schiff, Schultz, Rose all will become boilerplate examples of tax schemes which will be used unfairly to broad-brush and defeat otherwise legitimate arguments, rasing the cost and complexity to properly take on the IRS.
The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".
#29. To: Starwind (#11)
(2). The only way I know to lawfully reduce tax liabilities is through common law establishment of trusts and foundations, but they have to be setup and correctly operated similar to a corporation's transactions being at "arms length" from its CEO and shareholders' personal finances. But the benefits to the individual (grantor) are one-time and the distributions to beneficiaries are taxable, as is any investment income the trust or foundation might subsequently have. (3). I've seen numerous tax-protestors who claim to be able to prove the law isn't the law, and every single one of them is grossly ignorant of how courts understand the law. (4). Reading a law dictionary and arguing specious definitions of legal terms of art, or arguing non-existant precedents, and ignoring opposing motions and court orders is the pocket knife in the gun fight. (5). (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) (1). Corporations are liable for the tax as they are creations of the State and operate under authorization of their creator, accountants and lawyers are lying thieves that profit from their complicity. The labyrinth is the "code", a weasel worded secret code only meant to be understood by the clapping seals employed for that purpose by the government. Truly the American way. (2). Common Law Trusts that invite a lawyer into their presence become statutory trusts and are worthless. Common Law Trusts have a "Creator" not a "Grantor" ... Grantor's are statutory entities. (3). The Law is for the people to understand that's why there are laws regulating statutory construction and ambiguous statutes are ruled unconstitutional. (b). Show me the law that you say tax protestors claim doesn't exist ... (4). When the courts are unable to address the legal definitions as stated in their own laws we have tyranny of the judiciary, not ignorant protestors that only wish the law to be defined and not re-interpreted case by case. When Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ... Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to him, and Jesus was disputing that notion, much like today, when the government would have us believe that every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed.
(1). I won't argue with you that it is an arcane labrynth in which accountability for enactment and empowerment of the IRS (via the Treasury) is difficult to trace. But that doesn't change the reality of what the tax code is and that it has the weight of law. If it were as simple as tax-protestors delude themselves, companies, accountants, and tax lawyers would be using it like they use every other "loophole".
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
#30. To: Starwind, All (#0)
First and foremost, to the best of my knowledge, as of this writing, neither John Kotmair nor SAPF's attorney have been served notice of any order. Until we are served, there's not much we can say about it. I think it's quite interesting that the DOJ might have made such an annoucement prior to SAPF being served. I can state that neither John Kotmair nor SAPF has ever "advised" people of what they can and cannot do with regard to taxes. It is perfectly legal to tell others what the law says so long as any listeners make their own decisions as to how the law applies to them and what it requires them to do. It's long known that congress has made dispensing such advice about what the law requires specific people to do a licensable privilege, just as they've made many other things into privileges. The caution against giving advice has been prominent for the entire time I've been with SAPF, and it is simply not done. If the legal action referred to is the civil suit instigated by the DOJ, I fail to see why SAPF should not have continued activities it's conducted since 1984 prior to a resolution in the suit. Starwind, I'm surprised to hear you claim this. You are aware, aren't you, that John Kotmair/SAPF defeated the IRS in their criminal case in 1993-96? The IRS raided the fellowship headquarters in full military/swat-team style and took everything that wasn't nailed down. They were subsequently ordered to bring it all back, which they did. Because they lost that case -- with prejudice, and that at their own motion -- they could not take any criminal action against the fellowship. That is why this time it was a civil case. I will say that I agree that false arguments do muddy waters for those arguing legitimately, and that has been lamented with regard to others in the past. But please share what legitimate tax-protest argument it is you subscribe to. For the record, there is a framed sign hanging in the lobby of SAPF's office which informs the reader that SAPF's interest is not in protesting any tax, but only insists on proper application of the current tax law. Becaues it does not protest any tax, lawful or otherwise and it is not a tax-protest organization and does not advance any tax protest arguments. Yes, Joe Banister won his case but I'm not even sure how his position in taxes is that much different from SAPF's. He does emphasize the fact that the 16th wasn't properly radified which SAPF doesn't care about but beyond that??? The courts pretty much claimed the matter was out of their jurisdiction.
The "Save-A-Patriot Fellowship" run by John Baptist Kotmair Jr. falsely advised that clients didn't have to pay taxes and could legally withdraw from the Social Security system, U.S. District Judge William Nickerson said in his ruling.
Despite legal action by the U.S. Justice Department, Kotmair's organization continued to file frivolous protest letters with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of more than 800 clients and showed "no inclination ... to cease their activities," Nickerson noted.
Poster Comment:
Kotmair's defense and taxation arguments were inane to put it charitably. His website (where he's to post the injunction) is at http://save-a-patriot.org/
Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes just muddy the water for legitimate tax-protest arguments. Kotmair, Schiff, Schultz, Rose all will become boilerplate examples of tax schemes which will be used unfairly to broad-brush and defeat otherwise legitimate arguments, rasing the cost and complexity to properly take on the IRS.
I cite Joe Banister as an example of how to do it right, intelligently, and the above tax schemes just make it difficult if not impossible for people like Banister to prevail honestly on the merits.
#31. To: christine (#2)
So it would seem. This particular case does not even involve a jury.
In the courtroom, the judge's totally ignore the law and, worse, insure that the jury never knows it either. Their job is to protect the corrupt system.
#32. To: Starwind (#7) (Edited)
That's got nothing to do with whether the argument is sound or not. It has to do with how the court will receive it. Attorneys are beholden to the courts. Judges can revoke their license to represent clients if they get out of line, so yes, you're correct that many won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Can you name any other reason why they wouldn't touch it? So what if it's a kooky argument. If I'm an attorney and my client wants to argue that the sky is green, why would/should I run away from doing what he's paying me to do? Answer: Judges will get mad at me if I do. Now how legitimate is that? Sure they won't touch it with a 10-foot pole, which is a strong enough case itself that the judicial system is busted. Isn't it?
There is a reason most tax-protestors represent themselves. They don't listen to their lawyers or accountants and end up postitioning themselves behind a legal eightball which has no legitimate defense, and most competent lawyers won't touch the tax-protestors "arguments" with a ten-foot pole.
#33. To: christine (#9)
Well, it's not been enacted into "positive law" but that's not very significant. At least in my book. It is a compilation of segments of public laws that reference taxation. Enacting into Positive law would mean piking up the IRS code and running it through congress as a bill. Only about about half of the 50 titles that make up the US Code have been enacted into positive law. If one wanted to, one could object to the IRS Code, at which they would be tasked with referencing all the public laws that make up the code. That would be like referencing all the nations papers for the sports sections of each instead of just picking up a single 2006 sports almanac at the local bookstore.
the IRS code is not the law.
#34. To: Neil McIver (#32)
not to mention they themselves are likely to be targeted/audited by the IRS. the IRS strikes fear into the heart of every man. only the most courageous, those like John Kotmair and all those featured in Freedom To Fascism, dare to fight them.
Attorneys
#35. To: Starwind (#11)
There's definitely truth here. Courts will "understand" law in very strange ways.
I've seen numerous tax-protestors who claim to be able to prove the law isn't the law, and every single one of them is grossly ignorant of how courts understand the law.
#36. To: Neil McIver (#32)
I am not aware of judges having the power to revoke the license of an attorney appearing before them. Judges can certainly file complaints with the ethics tribunal.
Judges can revoke their license to represent clients if they get out of line, so yes, you're correct that many won't touch them with a 10 foot pole.
#37. To: Starwind (#13)
I gotta agree this is disingenuous, Star. It costs you nothing as it's on the net and might explain why it's not a matter of shouting "Eureka" and announcing your find to the world. Galileo learned the earth wasn't the center of the universe, declared it and was ostricized for it and waited 300 years until well after our first moon landing for an apology from the church. It's a similar thing with the nature of the income tax. Please watch FtF and you'll find it revealing. No need for that.
No.
but no I won't expend the time taking notes from a movie or video.
#38. To: Starwind (#11)
Just asking: Could you point me in some direction concerning this, ie, "proper setup?" Thanks.
The only way I know to lawfully reduce tax liabilities is through common law establishment of trusts and foundations, but they have to be setup and correctly...
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. — George W. Bush, June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT
#39. To: Neil McIver, Starwind (#35)
mmmmhmmmm. the law is what that particular judge says it is....and don't dare question it, boy. (i been in texas too long ;)
Courts will "understand" law in very strange ways.
#40. To: noone222 (#22)
Good rant, noone. How did you get the 521 form?
#41. To: Neil McIver, Starwindbag (#32)
Most people that enter upon the tax issue and investiagte it don't trust lawyers and are willing to defend themselves rather than be sold out by a crooked pettifogger. Some of these people are more informed than the lawyers and accountants that have been trained to grease the wheels of justice, regardless of the law. Usually, the lawyer's and accountant's concern is their license to steal from the public, and the Judge's ass they must kiss to keep it. While I don't agree with Schiff, I do admire his intestinal fortitude and relentless pursuit of truth ... which is the last thing that can be extracted from our courts.
There is a reason most tax-protestors represent themselves.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 200) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest