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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Russia's Dark Future

A Missile Shield for America - A Trillion Dollar Fantasy?

Kentucky School Board Chairman Resigns After Calling for People to ‘Shoot Republicans’

These Are 2025's 'Most Livable' Cities

Nicotine and Fish

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity

Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case

California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year

CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case.

Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK

Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study

Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter

With great power comes no accountability.

Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%.

Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites

Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes !

Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration

Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA

Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium'

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit?

Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL

Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes

6 Factors That Describe China's Current State

Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing

Little Bitty

Vertiv Drops After Amazon Unveils In-House Liquid Cooling System, Marking Pivot To Liquid

17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago


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: 3569
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

#2. To: Starwind (#0) (Edited)

Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes

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.

christine  posted on  2006-12-04   18:53:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: christine (#2)

Many of these "stupid tax protestors" are correct in their assertions. They have researched extensively and know the law.

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.

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.

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.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-04   19:10:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

christine  posted on  2006-12-04   19:21:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: christine (#9)

the IRS code is not the law.

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.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-04   19:52:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Starwind (#11)

Have you watched Freedom To Fascism?

If not, will you?

Dempsy  posted on  2006-12-04   19:53:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Dempsy (#12)

Have you watched Freedom To Fascism?

No.

If not, will you?

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.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-04   20:07:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   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.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-04   23:32:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   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.

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


Replies to Comment # 47.

#54. To: Starwind (#47)

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

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05 02:04:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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