[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue

The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia

Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas

What is quantum computing?

12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein

TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks

Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine

Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations

Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis

Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything'

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos!

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive


Business/Finance
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: 3133
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. Subscribe to *unUsual Suspects*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-22) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#23. To: Starwind (#13)

Some of us still read and prefer the certainty and clarity of a well composed legal argument.

Oh, you mean lawyers and accountants?


The Subversive Firearms Forums

Critter  posted on  2006-12-04   20:37:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Critter (#23)

Oh, you mean lawyers and accountants?

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).

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-04   20:41:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Starwind (#17)

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

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 ???

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   20:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: christine, Starwind (#9)

the IRS code is not the law.

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 !

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   21:20:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Starwind (#20)

unsubstantiated claims.

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 !

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   21:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Starwind (#0)

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.

I knew there was some reason I liked you.

Well-reasoned as always.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-04   21:49:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Starwind (#11)

(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".

(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.

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   22:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   22:55:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: christine (#2)

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.

So it would seem. This particular case does not even involve a jury.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   22:57:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Starwind (#7) (Edited)

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.

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?

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:08:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: christine (#9)

the IRS code is not the law.

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.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:14:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Neil McIver (#32)

Attorneys

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.

christine  posted on  2006-12-04   23:18:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Starwind (#11)

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.

There's definitely truth here. Courts will "understand" law in very strange ways.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:24:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Neil McIver (#32)

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.

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.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-04   23:31:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Starwind (#13)

No.

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.

but no I won't expend the time taking notes from a movie or video.

No need for that.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:32:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Starwind (#11)

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...

Just asking: Could you point me in some direction concerning this, ie, "proper setup?"

Thanks.

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

rack42  posted on  2006-12-04   23:35:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Neil McIver, Starwind (#35)

Courts will "understand" law in very strange ways.

mmmmhmmmm. the law is what that particular judge says it is....and don't dare question it, boy.

(i been in texas too long ;)

christine  posted on  2006-12-04   23:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: noone222 (#22)

Good rant, noone. How did you get the 521 form?

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:40:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Neil McIver, Starwindbag (#32)

There is a reason most tax-protestors represent themselves.

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.

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   23:44:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Neil McIver (#40)

How did you get the 521 form?

I printed it out off of the internet and filled it out. (I had already filed voluminous Notices etc., years before, but I wanted to be certain that I was out).

The form I filled out asked for my reasons to terminate SS. My reasons were (1) Deceptive Trade Practices, (2). Commercial Fraud, and (3). Mark of the Beast.

I submitted it to SS to be filed in my record ... but I didn't have a record anymore.

I did the Phil Marsh program and then some. Marsh was later attacked and they confiscated all of his computers etc., and I got a call from the U.S. Atty asking me to snitch Marsh off. The U.S. Atty told me how bad I'd been fucked by Marsh and that he'd get me some of my money back if I'd turn State's witness against Marsh.

I told that scumbag that even if Marsh was wrong, he was right as far as I was concerned, and it sounded to me like he was fishing. I hung up and never heard from him again.

Marsh ended up being convicted on one of 47 counts against him ... mail fraud. Nothing to do with taxes.

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-04   23:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Neil McIver, noone222 (#40) (Edited)

How did you get the 521 form?

I've got one here myself. I have yet to fill it out and send it in. Waiting for the opportune moment I suppose.

BTW, I will send a copy of it to anyone who wants one. Send a PM and I will send my mailing address. All I ask for is a stamped, self-addressed #10 envelope to save me postage.

I got this copy simply by walking into the SS office and asking for one. The kind fellow at the counter went and got it for me from the back room.

Later, I had thought I lost it and figured I would go and get another. It was a totally different story this time around. When I asked for a 521 form, the woman at the counter went to the same back room and got one. She made a stop on the walk back up front and got her stupidvisor to come with her.

When they got up to the counter, the woman asked my what I wanted with this form (all the while clutching it tightly to her bosom). I told her (with about 20 sheeple sitting out in the lobby listening) I wanted it so I could opt out of the system. She said (still clutching the form tightly), "Sir, do you know what this form is?" I told her I sure did and let me have it since I wanted to get out of the system and did not want benefits. She refused outright, "You can't have this." I told her, "I know what I want so give that to me now." She refused again. I said aloud at the point, "Well, I guess we all know you've got something to hide from people." I turned and walked out and not a word was uttered from anyone who witnessed the exchange.

If I did something like this today with these rent-a-cops for homeland security sitting in every one of these joints they would have me under the gun as a t'rrist, no doubt about it. And I would tell them go ahead and shoot. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees. ;0)

"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-12-05   0:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: BTP Holdings (#43)

That's funny ... the forms are on the internet in pdf form and you can print them out.

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   0:27:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Neil McIver (#30)

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'm puzzled to see you write "we", as if you are a party to the action against Kotmair and SAPF, and as if you yourself expect to be served????

As for the facts of the injunction, it's over, stick a fork in it. The order, injunction and opinion were all filed by Judge Nickerson 11/29/06 (I've read them - they're available on the court website https:// ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?130431 select History/ Documents... then select doc #s 68, 69 & 70 - you'll need a pacer account which anyone can register and receive, these are public records) with instructions to the clerk to transmit copies to all counsel of record. I'm sure Kotmair knew this on the 29th and has received the clerks transmitted copies as of today. I'm a bit skeptical that his website doesn't show any of the 37 filings that have been made since 5/16/06.

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.

I don't actually know what the facts are. I'd have to go pull the docs on that case as well (perhaps I might). But what Kotmair has posted and referred to as:

"If the court declared the Fellowship's operation legal in 1996, it must certainly be legal in 2005. If the IRS could not find any criminal activity in 1993 and 1994, while they had all of our computers and paper files, surely they would not find any today."

is disingenuous as the posted signature pages of two filings from that case don't show any such declaration or finding of legality. Just that the case is being dismissed with prejudice - that is not a finding on the merits. The case it seems was withdrawn by the government as the IRS (in a botched raid) botched the case. But the tax issues themselves were not litigated or adjudicated. And obviously, even if they were dispensing valid legal tax advice or operating legally as of 1995, that doesn't mean that they remained so in the last 10 years.

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.

Well Kotmair (and SAPF) failed to dispute the government's case and it seems was non-responsive and frivolous to the discovery filings, on which basis the judge granted summary judgment to the government. Avoiding summary judgement is lawyering 101 - there is no excuse (assuming Kotmair had a case to make).

Though I've not read all 70 documents, it appears Kotmair/SAPF failed to comply with the trial judges rulings on discovery and was uncooperative in general, and the case then reverted from the assigned trial judge back to district court to Nickerson for disposition, where again Kotmair seems to have lost every motion and appeal, I would assume, for continuing to be non-responsive (or frivolous) to discovery and motions.

I might be more sympathetic to Kotmair's side of the debacle if he were more forthcoming in presenting his refutation of the judges rulings, but he stopped posting filings with doc #33 on 5/16/06. The record was not sealed and they are public findings. While Kotmair is not obligated to post them, one has to wonder why he stopped posting them as his defense was disintegrating. In view of what I have read (and past observations of similar fiascos), I'm inclined to accept the judges viewpoint at face value.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Neil McIver (#32)

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?

Firstly, because, there are many other litigants waiting in line to get their day in court with legitimate complaints against insurance companies, wall- street robber barrons, check bouncers, dead-beat dads, etc, and you think they should cool their heels while some moron fritters away everyones' time, and taxpayers foot the bill for expanding/juggling the court system?.

Secondly, the purpose of courts is to adjudicate points or interpretations of *established* law between two or more parties. It is *not* a sandbox for contentious/litiguous people to invent new "law".

Nor do you get to "filibuster" or hold your breath and stamp your feet in a courtroom.

Time is of the essence. Justice delayed is justice denied.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:38:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Neil McIver (#37)

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.

This isn't like WTC collapses or 747's (or lack thereof) flying into the Pentagon where visual evidence is pivotal.

No, this is simple, straight forward legal argumentation, best proffered in writing with cites.

If the key points are there to be viewed, why haven't they been made in court? If they've been made in court, I've likley read them already and they've not been upheld.

You know perfectly well, I'm open to considering a new argument, I'm just not opne to wasting time "watching" someone talk about it. If an agrument can be made, then make it and shut me up.

I don't care to spend time viewing and re-viewing a video searching for some nugget of legal tax argument that I've not heard yet. I said I'd gladly read a written brief. Anyone who is serious about prevailing over the IRS writes and vets their argument. A written argument is not too much to expect in litigation - but then maybe that's why most (except Banister) keep getting their asses handed to them. Now if they could just get the judge to watch youtube instead.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:51:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: rack42 (#38)

Just asking: Could you point me in some direction concerning this, ie, "proper setup?"

You want to investigate irrevocable pure-equity holder trusts or charitable foundations. Circumstances dictate which to choose (and how many).

I don't know any website or lawfirm to recommend. The trust library at BYU is very useful. You'll need very competant accounting and legal advice as well as careful selection of trustees and trust/foundation managers. You are essentially giving your money away to someone else to manage for the benefit of your chosen beneficaries.

The key to the one-time tax benefit is that trust is funded via an exchange of "shares" for whatever asset it is given. The shares then have a recognized but unrealized value equal to the corpus, hence the transaction is at arms length and no taxable benefit was transferred. The shares entitle the holder to receive distributions from the trust's corpus, *if* the trustees so vote. But you can't be one of the trustees. The trustees shouldbe 50% blood related (who ostensibly look out for your interests) and 50% independent (or adverse) to maintain the trusts impartiality from you.

Charitable foundations are less complicated to fund, but you must give away 5% of its assets each year for the foundations charitable purpose to eliminate tax liability. Again, you can't be the charitable purpose, but you can be the paid manager who oversees the giving.

Setting up trusts or foundations is similar to setting up a C-corp, in that "articles" are drawn up that describe the trusts purpose and management. These articles provide for replacement of trustees, listings of beneficiaries, and the wishes of the founder. But unlike corporations, th etrust is essentially a contract under common law between the founder and the trustees to operate the trust and invest and distribute the trusts assests among the beneficiaries from time to time as the trustees deem appropriate. It is irrevocable and the founder has no control other than the provisions of the trust articles and selection of trustworthy and competant trustees.

With both, the transactions of the trust or foundation must not be intermingled with your own finances (must be kept separate at arms length, like a corporation) and any payments to you as manager or consultant will be scrutinized and must be reasonable. For example a trust can't pay you 50% of its assets as a "managment fee" - that will invite IRS scrutiny and invalidation.

The above is essentially the kind of trusts/foundations setup by the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc and Hewletts & Packards, Bill & Melinda Gates foundations. They do it as a means to lawfully reduce tax liabilities on their "extra" cash and provide support to their respective heirs, or "give back to the community" (lol). They don't do it to keep their money for themselves and avoid taxes.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   1:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: christine (#34)

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.

It is undeniable that a general fear of the IRS blankets the entire country. That's because it's the one entity above all others that has such unfettered access to our personal lives, even beyond no-fly lists and driver licenses.

Why it is that in a so-called free country, we are expected to share something so intimate as our own personal finances -- things we would never dream of sharing with even our own siblings -- with the US Government bohemoth is beyond me.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:22:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: DeaconBenjamin (#36)

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.

That's my understanding, though I'll admit to not having proof of that. I've heard it said before and never challenged. I'm open to correction.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: noone222 (#42)

I thought the 521 was for terminating SS "benefits", which might be (are?) referring to payouts, as in, if you want to stop getting SS checks, you filled it out and they stopped sending it to you.

It really calls for an OMB number check against the regs to see why the form was created.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:29:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Starwind (#45)

I'm puzzled to see you write "we", as if you are a party to the action against Kotmair and SAPF, and as if you yourself expect to be served????

I am a member of SAPF, as as a member, I believe I'm technically party to the suit even though I've not be served so much as a scribbled-upon napkin.

As for the facts of the injunction, it's over, stick a fork in it. The order, injunction and opinion were all filed by Judge Nickerson 11/29/06

I'm sure you're conveying what the web site says, but the fact remains that it's required that we be served and my latest info is we have not. I'm sure there will be an appeal and, if rumors are true as to its content, maybe some clarification on the order as well.

I'm a bit skeptical that his website doesn't show any of the 37 filings that have been made since 5/16/06.

I'll ask the webmaster about that, though the front page says it was last update on 9/12/06. Might be a case of them being posted but missing links on the page.

is disingenuous as the posted signature pages of two filings from that case don't show any such declaration or finding of legality. .... Just that the case is being dismissed with prejudice - that is not a finding on the merits.

There was a formal decision by a judge (Garbis) and SAPF won. The IRS appealed that decision but then moved to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, which was granted. So there was a judicial decision favoring SAPF. This is not a case of them getting off to a bad start and aborting prior to any ruling.

And yes, they really mishandled things, as the plan was for a grand jury to indict Kotmair in South Dakota or some state up that way. They summoned him up there on false pretenses of being a witness and then faced the GJ that just got an earful from the DOJ. He spent 45 minutes with them and walked out unindicted. Apparently the IRS didn't get the memo as they proceeded to raid SAPF the following AM.

Well Kotmair (and SAPF) failed to dispute the government's case and it seems was non-responsive and frivolous to the discovery filings, on which basis the judge granted summary judgment to the government. Avoiding summary judgement is lawyering 101 - there is no excuse (assuming Kotmair had a case to make).

Do you know this to be true? I have it that there were plenty of arguments made. The ball was not dropped by SAPF, Star. If you are basing your comments solely on what the judge wrote, then I'm afraid you're not getting the facts. This is a very deep case in which the IRS didn't even want to offer their witnesses for deposition. It was pulling teeth with them all the way.

I will admit I've not been involved with the details of the case, but I converse with those who have been on a very regular basis so I'm quite confident that your impressions on SAPF's handling of the case are very, very wrong.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:56:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Starwind (#46)

Firstly, because, there are many other litigants waiting in line to get their day in court with legitimate complaints against insurance companies, wall- street robber barrons, check bouncers, dead-beat dads, etc, and you think they should cool their heels while some moron fritters away everyones' time, and taxpayers foot the bill for expanding/juggling the court system?.

A jury trial is a right. It's not a privilege. A Right. You can't sacrifice someone's right out of expediency. And maybe if the government wasn't so busy carrying on it's illegal drug war they'd have more time to afford the rest their Right to a trial.

Nor do you get to "filibuster" or hold your breath and stamp your feet in a courtroom.

Nor should you. There can be adequate safeguards for that while still affording the accused their right to a trial. There is no shortage of court rules in existance now. A no-filbuster rule can be one of them, if needed. In fact, there's nothing stoping someone from filbustering under the present system, is there?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Better delayed that denied outright.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:01:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Starwind (#47)

If you are refusing to watch FtF, then that's your decision.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Starwind (#52)

This link to the SAPF site does indeed have documents as recent as 9/11/06.

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/doj/docket/docket.html

There are 67 PDF documents listed there. You can say a lot of things, but to say we were non-responsive in the suit is flat out wrong.

This link is on the same page that also shows the listing that stops at 5/12/06. It's labeled "Complete Docket" above the listing. I guess our webmaster got tired of updating the list.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: christine, Starwind (#9)

the IRS code is not the law.

Laws as passed by Congress are published as Statutes at Large.

The phrasing used by Congress is codified and becomes part of the United States Code. At this stage, it is a positive law as specifically contained in the Statutes at Large. It is Non-Positive law as it is contained in the United States Code. What is in the United States Code should be an accurate reflection of the positive law contained in the Statutes at Large. If there is any variance between the two, the text in the Statutes at Large is the controlling language.

The codified version of the law includes all amendments and revisions. Sometimes Congress acts to adopt the codified version and make it the positive law.

While Title 26 of the United States Code is "non-positive law," that designation does not effect the "legality" of the provision except that any variance with the text appearing in the Statutes at Large would be controlling.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514.

The imposition of the Income Tax appears at Title 26, United States Code, Section 1.

Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[snip]

The legislative history of this income tax law is provided below:

Link

Section 1 - Notes

SOURCE

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88-272, title I, Sec. 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89-809, title I, Sec. 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91-172, title VIII, Sec. 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95-30, title I, Sec. 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95-600, title I, Sec. 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97-34, title I, Secs. 101(a), 104(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97-448, title I, Sec. 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99-514, title I, Sec. 101(a), title III, Sec. 302(a), title XIV, Sec. 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Secs. 1001(a)(3), 1014(e)(1)-(3), (6), (7), title VI, Sec. 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Secs. 7811(j)(1), 7816(b), 7831(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101-508, title XI, Secs. 11101(a)-(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388-403 to 1388-406, 1388-408; Pub. L. 103-66, title XIII, Secs. 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202(a), 13206(d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104-188, title I, Sec. 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105-34, title III, Sec. 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105-206, title V, Sec. 5001(a)(1)-(4), title VI, Secs. 6005(d)(1), 6007(f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105-277, div. J, title IV, Sec. 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-907, 2681-908; Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(7) [title I, Sec. 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-604; Pub. L. 107-16, title I, Sec. 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, Secs. 301(c)(1), 302(a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108-27, title I, Secs. 102(a), (b)(1), 104(a), (b), 105(a), title III, Secs. 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302(a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763.)

AMENDMENT OF SECTION

For termination of amendment by sections 107 and 303 of Pub. L. 108-27, see Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

For termination of amendment by section 901 of Pub. L. 107-16, see Effective and Termination Dates of 2001 Amendment note below.

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The enactment of this clause, referred to in subsec. (h)(13)(A)(iii), means the date of enactment of Pub. L. 105-206, which was approved July 22, 1998.

AMENDMENTS

2003 - Subsec. (f)(8)(A). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 102(b)(1), 107, temporarily substituted "2002" for "2004". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (f)(8)(B). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 102(a), 107, temporarily inserted table item relating to years 2003 and 2004. See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(1)(B). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(a)(1), 303, temporarily substituted "5 percent (0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after 2007)" for "10 percent". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(1)(C). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(a)(2)(A), 303, temporarily substituted "15 percent" for "20 percent". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below. Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(A), (B), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (3) as (2) and struck out heading and text of former par. (2). Text read as follows:

"(A) Reduction in 10-percent rate. - In the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2000, the rate under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 8 percent with respect to so much of the amount to which the 10-percent rate would otherwise apply as does not exceed qualified 5-year gain, and 10 percent with respect to the remainder of such amount.

"(B) Reduction in 20-percent rate. - The rate under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 18 percent with respect to so much of the amount to which the 20-percent rate would otherwise apply as does not exceed the lesser of -

"(i) the excess of qualified 5-year gain over the amount of such gain taken into account under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; or

"(ii) the amount of qualified 5-year gain (determined by taking into account only property the holding period for which begins after December 31, 2000),

and 20 percent with respect to the remainder of such amount. For purposes of determining under the preceding sentence whether the holding period of property begins after December 31, 2000, the holding period of property acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option (or other right or obligation to acquire property) shall include the period such option (or other right or obligation) was held." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 302(e)(1), 303, temporarily amended heading and text of par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'adjusted net capital gain' means net capital gain reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of -

"(A) unrecaptured section 1250 gain; and

"(B) 28-percent rate gain." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(B), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (4) as (3). Former par. (3) temporarily redesignated (2). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below. Subsec. (h)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(B), 303, temporarily redesignated pars. (5) to (8) as (4) to (7), respectively. Former par. (4) temporarily redesignated (3). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(8). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (10) as (8). Former par. (8) temporarily redesignated (7). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(9). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(A), (C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (11) as (9) and struck out heading and text of former par. (9). Text read as follows: "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified 5-year gain' means the aggregate long-term capital gain from property held for more than 5 years. The determination under the preceding sentence shall be made without regard to collectibles gain, gain described in paragraph (7)(A)(i), and section 1202 gain." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(10). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (12) as (10). Former par. (10) temporarily redesignated (8). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(11). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 302(a), 303, temporarily added par. (11). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (11) as (9). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(12). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (12) as (10). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(1)(B)(i). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 104(a), 107, temporarily substituted "($12,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2008)" for "($12,000 in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008)". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(1)(C). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 104(b), 107, temporarily amended heading and text of subpar. (C) generally. Text read as follows: "In prescribing the tables under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar years after 2000 -

"(i) the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the initial bracket amount for any taxable year beginning before January 1, 2009,

"(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making adjustments to the initial bracket amount for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, shall be determined under subsection (f)(3) by substituting '2007' for '1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and

"(iii) such adjustment shall not apply to the amount referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).

If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(2). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 105(a), 107, temporarily amended table generally. Prior to amendment, table read as follows:

DEFINITIONS

Pub. L. 105-277, div. J, title IV, Sec. 4001(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-906, provided that: "For purposes of this title [amending this section, sections 51, 56, 67, 68, 86, 135, 137, 163, 172, 219, 221, 264, 351, 368, 408A, 469, 873, 954, 2001, 2031, 6015, 6103, 6159, 6311, 6404, 6693, 7421, 7443A, 7491, 9503, and 9510 of this title, and sections 401 and 407 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, enacting provisions set out as notes under this section, sections 51, 67, 68, 86, 172, 833, 6103, and 9503 of this title, and section 401 of Title 42, and amending provisions set out as notes under sections 6601 and 7508A of this title] -

"(1) 1986 code. - The term '1986 Code' means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

"(2) 1998 act. - The term '1998 Act' means the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206) [see Tables for classification].

"(3) 1997 act. - The term '1997 Act' means the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) [see Tables for classification]."

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 2, 3, 15, 23, 24, 25A, 32, 41, 42, 55, 59, 63, 68, 132, 135, 137, 146, 162, 163, 179, 213, 219, 220, 221, 223, 301, 306, 453A, 460, 468B, 511, 512, 513, 584, 641, 646, 685, 691, 702, 774, 854, 857, 871, 876, 877, 891, 904, 911, 936, 962, 1022, 1260, 1291, 1301, 1398, 1446, 2032A, 2503, 2631, 3402, 3406, 4001, 4261, 6014, 6015, 6039F, 6103, 6242, 6323, 6334, 6428, 6601, 6652, 6655, 6867, 7430, 7518, 7519 of this title; title 7 section 940d; title 46 App. section 1177.

Public Law 108-27 of 2003 is linked and quoted in part below:

Link [PDF]

Link [TEXT]

[DOCID: f:publ027.108]

[[Page 751]]

JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003

[[Page 117 STAT. 752]]

Public Law 108-27

108th Congress

An Act

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. <>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This <> Act may be cited as the ``Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003''.

(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[snip]

SEC. 102. ACCELERATION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

(a) In General.--The table contained in subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(8) (relating to applicable percentage) <> is amended by inserting before the item relating to 2005 the following new item:

"2003 and 2004............................. 200''.

(b) Conforming Amendments.--

(1) Section 1(f)(8)(A) is amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2002''.

(2) Section 302(c) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 <> is amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2002''.

(c) Effective Date.--The <> amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.

As reflected in the United States Code, 26 USC 1, subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(8):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=1

(B) Applicable percentage

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
For taxable years beginning..... The applicable
in calendar year - ............. percentage is -
2003 and 2004 .................. 200
2005 ........................... 180
2006 ........................... 187
2007 ........................... 193
2008 and thereafter ............ 200.

The codified version is non-positive law. However, this does not mean that the provision is not positive law. Public Law 108-27 of 2003 IS positive law. All of the other listed Public Laws from which the codified version is derived are equally POSITIVE LAW.

The codified law is a more readable version of the text passed by Congress, with amendments incorporated into the text rather than existing as separate documents. The only time the content of the U.S. Code is not reflective of positive law is when it fails to accurately reflect the text authorized by the original positive law published in the Statutes at Large.

The Tax Law and the Amendments thereto were passed by Congress and enacted as positive law.

The courts have said this:

"Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable." United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 940 [9th Cir. 1986].

"Congress's failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan's rights by enforcing it." Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985).

"The petitioner's argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time." Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).

The claim that "Title 26 was not enacted into 'positive law,' has been rejected as 'frivolous,' 'baseless,' 'specious,' and 'preposterous.' See United States v. Hooper, No. 93-35565, 1995 WL 792039, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 1995) ('frivolous'); United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D.C.Conn.1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.) (table), 'specious'); accord, Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind.1984) ('preposterous'); Sloan v. United States, 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1076 (N.D.Ind.1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir.1987) (table) (litigants advancing 'frivolous' arguments such as assertions that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law subjected to sanctions under Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P.); Hackett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 85-1558, 1986 WL 16862, at *1 (6th Cir. April 21, 1986) (appeal of dismissal of petition challenging tax deficiency assessment describing 'positive law' argument as 'frivolous')." United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996).

"In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that 'Title 26 U.S.C. (including section 6321) has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law.' ... Congress' failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. section 204(a). 'Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law'. Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984)

('holding that the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability, or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title'), aff'd. without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind. 1984) (asserting that 'even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that does not mean that the laws under the title are null and void'). Plaintiff's positive law argument is without merit." Bilger v. United States, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-468, No. CIV F 00-6486 OWW JLO (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 1/9/2001).

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-05   5:22:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Neil McIver (#51)

It really calls for an OMB number check against the regs to see why the form was created.

OMB NO. 0960-0015

My intent was to publish / give Notice of my refusal to participate in any way with the Feds at any level or with any legal fiction, damn the consequences.

Mine is not simply a matter of financial concern. I'm of the opinion that the number is the Mark of the Beast or its precursor. I determined that I could not participate in the system as it has been altered mid-stream to facilitate an evil agenda that would have prevented its passage in the initial stages, but has been slipped in over time. I won't support the murder of innocent people to facilitate elitists economic goals or to stay out of jail.

At some point in the not to distant future it won't matter what attempts have been made to be up front with Uncle Sambo because the goons will have no respect for any law. Some might say we are at that point already.

The real problem is that the weakness and apathetic ignorance of the masses is what forbids change.

"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

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   7:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Neil McIver (#52)

I'm sure you're conveying what the web site says, but the fact remains that it's required that we be served and my latest info is we have not.

Just to be clear, I'm not reading some paraphrased summary, I'm reading the judge's filed order, opinion, and injunction. The exact same documents as were distributed to the parties.

And your understanding of a need to be served in this instance is incorrect. This is a trial matter. When the suit started, attornies of notice and record were identified with addresses for the specific purpose of designating to whom and where documents are to be sent. There is no need for a process server to track down and "serve" parties to a suit with court documents filed pursuant to that suit. This is not like process serving. The attorney of record for Kotmair/ SAPF is George E Harp Attorney at Law LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (I've withheld his address from this post, but it is a matter of public record), and he most likely received a 1-2 day courier delivery of the judge's rulings.

A jury trial is a right. It's not a privilege. A Right. You can't sacrifice someone's right out of expediency. And maybe if the government wasn't so busy carrying on it's illegal drug war they'd have more time to afford the rest their Right to a trial.

Not quite. The Seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in federal civil cases at common law or monetary damages, but not for injunctions. Read more at Juries In-depth: Right to a jury trial.

There are 67 PDF documents listed there. You can say a lot of things, but to say we were non-responsive in the suit is flat out wrong.

That docket is a list of filings, within which the substantive filings (which complied with court procedure) were mostly made by the government. The Kotmair filings were often (not always) frivolous in their argument and non-responsive in their content and/or violation of rules. The judge overruled Kotmair's objections and denied his motions generally, and the US occasionally. The bottom line is Kotmair represented himself poorly and it shows in his pleadings. The case never got out of discovery phase because Kotmair did not supply what he was asked to supply - that is the sense in which he was non- responsive, and further invented novel and frivolous interpretations of established law, and consequently failed to dispute the government's showing of no genuine issue of material fact on which to deny the injunction, and so on that basis the judge awarded summary judgement to the government.

And I doubt there will be an appeal because Kotmair failed to enter into the court record any basis on which an appellate court could find the trial court erred. ie, because Kotmair was mainly non-responsive and frivolous, there is very little of substance for an appellate court to reconsider.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   13:08:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: nolu_chan (#56)

The claim that "Title 26 was not enacted into 'positive law,' has been rejected as 'frivolous,' 'baseless,' 'specious,' and 'preposterous.'

Clearly, the claim that Title 26 has not been enacted into "positive law" is true. The claim is, therefore, neither frivolous, baseless, specious or preposterous. Whoever composed the annotations should be more accurate in summations.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   13:09:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Starwind (#7)

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

I think we can pretty much discount the first motivation.

Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-12-05   13:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Starwind (#7)

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.

Knives are harder to trace than bullets though. Don't agree to a gunfight.

Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-12-05   13:13:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Starwind (#58)

The attorney of record for Kotmair/ SAPF is George E Harp Attorney at Law LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (I've withheld his address from this post, but it is a matter of public record), and he most likely received a 1-2 day courier delivery of the judge's rulings.

Yes. Perhaps by now he has received it, but the latest word I have is he has not received it. Neither he nor SAPF. When I said we'd not been served, I meant neither SAPF nor Harp.

Not quite. The Seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in federal civil cases at common law or monetary damages, but not for injunctions. Read more at Juries In-depth: Right to a jury trial.

I believe you were arguing against allowing people the defense of their choice because the halls of our courts our quite crowded. My point is that crowded halls are no excuse for depriving people of due process. I'll amend my statement from "jury trial" to "due process". If you feel that due process should rightly be curtailed such that people are not permitted a defense not approved by the bench, simply because the courts are crowded, fine. But that's clearly wrong on a moral, if not legal, basis.

And I doubt there will be an appeal ...

I'm sure the effort will be made. Maybe the appeal will be tossed, but the appeal will be made.

Since you apparently hold no validity in the arguments of the "tax honesty" movement, so called, I'm curious as to what it was about Banister that you consider applaudable.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   13:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Neil McIver (#62) (Edited)

If you feel that due process should rightly be curtailed such that people are not permitted a defense not approved by the bench, simply because the courts are crowded, fine.

Due process is not any process.

"Due" as in to what one is entitled. There is no right to frivolous process, non-responsive process, or just plain stupid process. One is entitled to due process in accordance with laws, regulations, statutes, and court procedures.

And my argument was that the rest of the litigants awaiting their day in court, waiting for their right to due process, should not be unduely delayed or if already at trial have their expenses and damages unduely increased because of someone elses imagined right to any process.

The same rules that apply to insurance companies seeking to avoid paying off a dying accident victim are the same rules that apply to Kotmair or the government. That's what due process looks like. Trial attornies know these rules, they know how due process works and where its boundaries are. This is the stuff of law schools and internships. These rules weren't just invented to thwart Kotmair. He represented himself and he alone is responsible for knowing and abiding by trial procedures.

I'm curious as to what it was about Banister that you consider applaudable.
Sure, a bit on that later.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   13:48:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (64 - 200) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]