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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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 Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance

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: 3101
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  

I lean towards trying to call a Constitutional Convention.

FORGET IT!

The PTB has been pushing for that for many years. If it were to happen there would be no limitations on what the convention could do.

You know what happened the last time we had one of those. In 1789, the convention was called ostensibly to reform the Articles of Confederation. In the sweltering heat of summer the building in Philadelphia was sealed up so as to keep the proceedings a secret, lest word leak out that the Articles were to be scrapped and a new government formed.

If we were to have a convention, you could kiss the constitution GOOD-BYE forever. As long as it remains, we have the chance to redeem the country. Once it is gone, however, it will be a different story.

Anyone who would suggest such folly is a TRAITOR in my book and deserve a traitor's fate.

BTW, The problem is and always has been the banksters combined with the mischief of Congress. Get rid of the banksters and the mischief of Congress will cease. Until that time, they are all hogs feeding at the trough on Wall Street.

"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  2006-12-16   17:09:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Anyone who would suggest such folly is a TRAITOR in my book and deserve a traitor's fate.

lol - puts me in cahoots with those other constitutional convention traitors like Washington, Hamilton, Franklin... surely you remember them, those scurrilous constitution-framer types.

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-16   17:45:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

lol - puts me in cahoots with those other constitutional convention traitors like Washington, Hamilton, Franklin... surely you remember them, those scurrilous constitution-framer types.

That is a specious reply.

If we had men of half the caliber of them here today, we would not be in the shape we are in now.

Even Hamilton, the bankers man, was more a man of character and morals than any of these who aspire to lead this nation in any capacity today.

Still, I like the anti-federalist positions on many things. They have proved quite prophetic.

"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  2006-12-16   17:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

While I sympathize with your desire for simplicity and clarity, taxation as applied to everyone is a complex subject and some degree of experience is required to comprehend it.

Sympathy is appreciated but doesn't solve any problems. The U.S. Tax System provides deductions that bankers benefit from, at the expense of those unable to afford the purchase of a home. And guys like Ross Perot can grease the palms of politicians to get a 10 Million Dollar Tax waiver while the local waitress at the greasy spoon can't afford shoes for her kids. This nonsense offends my sensibilities. People that rely upon the tax system to earn a living should get a real job.

The only difference between battlefields and courtrooms is the ammunition.

The difference in my opinion is that on a battlefield everyone expects injustice to prevail, and in modern courtrooms that is a surety.

We are a nation of laws, of the rule of law, ....

What country do you live in ????????????? [Ever hear of the Patriot Act ?]

"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  2006-12-16   18:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Whenever public service became a slop-trough of money for a lifetime, instead of a duty of service to the country for a couple of years - our country was doomed.

Lod  posted on  2006-12-16   18:07:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Tax Uniformity: All taxpayers are subject to the same laws. No distinctions anymore among corporate vs indivdiual vs organization.

This approach automatically considers its objects of taxation to be subject to government authority. The government can lawfully subject its own creations to its authority (corporations), but has no legitimate right when attempting to use majority rules to subject mankind to its authority.

Simply put, a majority has no legitimate right to impose its rule upon the minority. We are indoctrinated to think otherwise through the use of polls that the media purports authorize certain activity or at least attempt to provide that mindset. It's the two foxes and a chicken deciding what's for dinner.

The Federal Constitution provides the authority for all federal government to exist at all, failure to abide by it constitutes a breach and eliminates that authority to exist by legitimate means, which are generally usurped through police state or military state enforcement policies, in other words "martial law". And for all practical purposes that's what we have in the United States.

Our system claims to be based upon the consent of the governed. Today this requires us to agree to be governed by immoral, self-serving, murderers. Of course the governed by consent claim is window dressing that hides the fraud that more accurately should be described as an executive branch dictatorship. Once the strict boundaries set by the Constitution are violated in the least we enter upon the slippery slope of despotism.

Federal usurpation at the expense of States rights, denies people any opportunity to live in an environment more attuned to their belief system, forcing a universal federal policy upon everyone without their consent. Corporate finances combined with political corruption have brought us to our current state of affairs and the policy you're advocating would leave it unchanged.

I don't believe we can ever go back to the intended limited federal authority envisioned by the framers until we understand that people in the normal course of daily life separated from commerce are untaxable. People have a right to the fruit of their labors that aren't dependent upon government grants of privilege for obtaining them.

Private people living private lives have a right to their privacy until they make themselves subjects of government authority through some voluntary action, otherwise nothing can be considered private or consensual.

We have become, as a society, accustomed to government interference in increments over time, to a point that the system existing today in no manner resembles the original creation, or its intent. This has allowed a welfare/socialist state that has ONLY SUBJECTS beholden to their benefactor, Uncle Sambo.

An example of the lunacy that has become law is the recent U.S. Mint "POLICY" making it illegal to melt down coinage. This policy has determined that what you may have thought was your money because you earned it and were taxed on it, really belongs to the government (or its creditors). Furthermore, some would have us believe that every dollar in circulation is taxable. I am of the opinion this is not so nor was it ever the intent.

The U.S. Treasury is beholden to a cabal of private bankers, that have determined every dollar is theirs and we are enslaved to them because we use it. These private bankers/corporations run our government (contrary to popular belief), for their own "gain" absent any concern for peoples' privacy or rights.

Another example of diminishing rights is that of gun sales. If you decide to purchase a weapon from a federally licensed gun dealer you might have to register it, if you buy from a private party you don't have to register it. What gives ? Or, should you choose to manufacture alcohol for private consumption, you pay no tax nor do you have to be licensed ... there is a such thing as privacy ... but we are allowing it to be stolen a little bit at a time.

"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  2006-12-17   6:46:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This approach automatically considers its objects of taxation to be subject to government authority. ... I don't believe we can ever go back to the intended limited federal authority envisioned by the framers until we understand that people in the normal course of daily life separated from commerce are untaxable.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress that authority over "objects of taxation", as intended by the framers. I don't see how you'll argue (successfully) that an individual selling his labor to a company in exchange for a wage is not commerce, or an individual expending his labor to produce a good/service which he then sells is not commerce. But in both cases the worker is tax- disadvantaged in numerous ways the business is not.

What congress has done is apply taxation non-uniformly. Businesses can deduct expenses that the individual can't. Business can declare a basis in its cost of inputs but the worker can't declare a basis against his wage - all of it is considered gain. My intent is simply to allow the worker the same latitude in taxation as is allowed the business, or if congress were to disallow a "loophole" for business, it would be disallowed for the worker as well. If a "flat tax" were implemented, it would apply to all individuals, companies, organizations, trusts, foundations, etc equally.

No gain, no tax, no distinctions.

If you think the proposal extends the "privileges" accorded a business to the "rights" of an indidvidual and thereby converts individual rights into privileges, please clarify how you see that happening, or propose a different amendment that satisfies you.

Corporate finances combined with political corruption have brought us to our current state of affairs and the policy you're advocating would leave it unchanged.

Hardly. Term limits helps prevent the entrenchment of political corruption, The Fed would be prohibited from inflating, the Treasury prohibited from borrowing (more than could be paid off in 4 years from revenues) and giving away money/ military assitance to other countries eliminated. Phasing out social security and medicare phases out the class warfare.

If Corporations pay the same percentage of tax on their profits as the individual pays on his profits, then does that make the corporation less corrupt or the individual more corrupt? Does it matter if politicians can't borrow, inflate, give away, or stay in office forever?

Drain the feeding trough and they'll not come.

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-17   10:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress that authority over "objects of taxation", as intended by the framers. I don't see how you'll argue (successfully) that an individual selling his labor to a company in exchange for a wage is not commerce,

My argument would be that when I "trade" my labor and time with any other entity not already subject to governmental privilege no taxable activity has taken place, there has been an equal exchange of value / not "gain". My ability to labor and time are finite and belong to me unless I forfeit them for some benefit or even an expected benefit such as Socialist Security.

Corporations owe their very existence to government, where I don't. Corporations, some people and companies often have made an alliance with government for some perceived benefit that also requires them to operate within federal guidelines.

God creates man so man is subject to God. Man creates Constitutions which creates government, so government is subject to the Constitution, while men are not. Government is created to "protect" unalienable rights not squash them, tax them, or infringe upon them. They are intended to be "restrained" by the Constitution, not allowed unfettered intervention into men's lives.

On the other hand, when a person subscribes to the Socialist Security System, that person waives his unalienable right to feed himself by the fruits of his own labor and joins the Socialist Democracy that agrees to maintain his privileges (such as unemployment and others) as long as he maintains subservience to the dictates of government. So, when a person with a Social Security Agreement works for a Corporation or company that also has an arrangement with government what actually takes place is the government is allowing their slave to work for the Corporation or company, and wants their lease payment.

In a previous post I asked what you thought of the 14th Amendment mandate that citizens not question the debt. Soon after the 14th Amendment was passed into law by a congress filled with unelected southern congress people they passed this abomination into what we are expected to accept as law.

According to the wording of the 14th Amendment it appears that we're supposed to just shut up and pay whatever debt is amassed by the perps in D.C. ... which my common sense tells me is anathema to everything the original framers of the document had in mind when they determined war rather than submission to the King's statutes. The 14th Amendment violates the intention of everything prior to its implementation.

Here's the bottom line in my little world. The government and corporations are both legal fictions that certainly have an ability to deal with each other based upon their mutual fictional status. We can become legal fictions ourselves by volunteering into the Socialist Security Franchise wherein we are created fictionally as JOHN DOE (all caps spelling just like corps) and John Doe becomes the agent for the fiction.

My grandfather died in 1958 and he was 58 years young. He was the Chief of the Indianapolis Fire Department, a legal fiction of governmental creation. The Social Security Act was in full force during his employment with the City of Indianapolis (another legal fiction). He never had a Social Security Insurance Account or number.

The contrived depression era brought socialism into vogue for the purpose of enslaving the entire nation, and has pretty well subdued the population. You could attend a meeting of staunch Republicans and ask them if any are Socialists. None would admit it while all of them are actually "CARD CARRYING SOCIALISTS". I can't help it if most of America is too stupid to think for themselves and opt to consume every ounce of bullshit they're fed by perverted bureaucraps.

Some day when you aren't too busy arguing in favor of the criminal organization operating in the name of the State or United States, take a look at everything that Identifies you. Your driver license, your socialist security card, your billing statements from corporate legal fictions, credit cards etc., and you'll notice that they ALL refuse to spell your name correctly, as your parents ascribed it to you and as you were taught in school, with a Capital first letter and lower case letters following. They ALWAYS spell it in all capital letters because like a corporation that spelling indicates your "fictionalized legal person status" and you happen to be that legal fiction's "agent".

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she can't find her way into a courtroom"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-17   12:31:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

SAPF Update: Judge issues Stay in Enforcement of Injunction

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-19   18:15:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Another round of spaming, I see.

Frivolous legal gibberish is considered serious posting. Quoting statutes, court decisions and Supreme Court justices is considered spamming.

Question: What is your personal view based of income taxes? (based on your understanding of them, of course).

[Starwind #109] Let me preface my remarks by stating for the record my revulsion at the malignant cancer the tax code has become and the way it (in subserviance to the government's indebtness and fiscal irresponsibility) has metastisized through the law and twisted the constitution beyond recognition by the framers. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. But to prevail against it, one must recognize its strengths as well as weaknesses. It is imperative to understand what the law is as written and enforced.

Do you consider it a good, proper and moral means of raising revenue?

I ask because it seems both myself and Starwind have volunteered our personal views on the subject, but I don't recall you doing so. I must say that based on your postings, you favor them passionately. In fact, you come off like an IRS agent. If not an actual employee, at least someone who has some vested reason to promote its practices.

I am, however, opposed to those who state meritless legal arguments as fact, knowing those arguments have been relegated to the ashheap of frivolous arguments by all courts that have considered them. Someone might take such nonsense seriously and act upon it. As you are well aware, those who act upon such nonsense run the risk of financial ruin and time in prison. As you are well aware, not only will such frivolous arguments not succeed in court, it is unlikely that a lawyer will even attempt to make such arguments in court or that the court will entertain such frivolous arguments. Lawyers dumb enough to attempt such frivolous arguments face sanctions from the court.

I am rather partial to what Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote, "it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-21   23:38:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Regarding your comment #144, you've completely lost site of the discussion. The topic was the practice of people being charged with violating a penalty statute. You did later post and citation of someone being charged with "violating" section 7203, along with the text of that section (presumably accurately). Anyone can see that it merely describes the penalties to be imposed upon someone who does not file. It is clearly not possible to violate this statute, as 7203 does not place any requirement or duty upon anyone except for the judge who is in a position to sentence someone.

There are criminal statutes and penal statutes. There is the penal code or penal laws. There is no penalty statute. You may make up your own terms of art, however, they only apply in your own mind.

In the real world, Black's Law Dictionary defines "Criminal Statute. An act of the Legislature as an organized body relating to crime or its punsihment."

Section 7203 is under the heading of "CRIMES." Those who willfully fail to file or pay, as required by the IRC, commit a crime. Please feel free to test your frivolous argument out on a judge and let me know how it goes.

Section 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any
person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with
respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement
according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Every person required to make a return or statement shall include
therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

Section 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be
made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross
income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that
a return shall not be required of an individual - [exceptions listed]

Section 6072. Time for filing income tax returns

(a) General rule
In the case of returns under section 6012, 6013, 6017, or 6031
(relating to income tax under subtitle A), returns made on the
basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day
of April following the close of the calendar year and returns made
on the basis of a fiscal year shall be filed on or before the 15th
day of the fourth month following the close of the fiscal year,
except as otherwise provided in the following subsections of this
section.

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE F - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
SUBCHAPTER A - CRIMES
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax

Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and
pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to
collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in
addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000,
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the
costs of prosecution.

Section 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or
tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under
authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any
information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax,
make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at
the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in
addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more
than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of
prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there
is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply
to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition
to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In
the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I,
the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting
"felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year".

It is uncontrovertible FACT that Edward L. Kotmair was convicted precisely for violation of IRC 7203. Kotmair appealed, but the conviction and sentence were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as shown below. It does not appear that Kotmair even attempted to sell your incredible whopper to the court. How can you possibly argue, with a straight face, that it is impossible to violate IRC 7203 when you know full well that Kotmair, among many others, was fined and imprisoned precisely for conviction on that statute?

http://www.paylesstax.com/tax_scams/recent_tax_fraud_cases.html

Failure to File Carpentry Business Owner Sentenced

RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.

Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, KOTMAIRoperated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.

During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.

According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.

----------

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-4139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EDWARD LOUIS KOTMAIR,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-123-BO)

Submitted: March 30, 2001

Decided: April 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory J. Ramage, LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY RAMAGE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole,
United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

1

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Edward Louis Kotmair was charged with willful failure to file tax
returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, in violation of 26
U.S.C.A. § 7203 (West Supp. 2000). Kotmair stipulated that he did
not file tax returns for those years and that he had income in excess
of the exemption amount. The only issue at trial was whether Kotmair's
failure to file was willful. Following his convictions and sentence,
Kotmair appeals. We affirm.

Kotmair first argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to call
his father as a defense witness and that the district court erred in
denying his motion for a new trial on this basis. Because Kotmair
failed to present argument supporting his challenge to the court's
denial of his motion for a new trial, it is waived on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a)(6); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).

As for Kotmair's challenge to counsel's failure to call his father as
a witness, because the record on appeal does not conclusively demonstrate
ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not now address this
issue. See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096 (2000). Rather, Kotmair may raise
this claim in the district court in a 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West Supp.
2000) motion, if he so chooses.

Kotmair next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his convictions. Kotmair stipulated that he did not file tax returns for
1990, 1991, and 1992, and that his income exceeded the exemption
amounts. The only issue before the jury was whether Kotmair's failure
to file was willful. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201-
02 (1991). The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942),

2

showed that Kotmair had large amounts of income for the years in
question, he failed to keep business records, he conducted business
largely on a cash basis, he attempted to hide income and assets by
requiring payments in amounts less than $10,000, he belonged to a
tax protest organization, namely Save a Patriot Fellowship, he was
notified by the IRS of his duty to file a return, and his father--founder
of Save a Patriot--went to jail for his failure to file. This evidence
was sufficient for the jury to infer that Kotmair's failure to file was
willful. See Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499-500 (1943)
(finding that inference of willfulness may arise from attempts to conceal
income or assets, failure to keep books or records, and conducting
business largely on cash basis); United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d
10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986) (inference of willfulness from tax protest activities);
United States v. Shivers, 788 F.2d 1046, 1048 (5th Cir. 1986)
(inference of willfulness from disregard of notices informing of duty
to file); United States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 731 (4th Cir. 1967)
(allowing inference of willfulness from pattern of failure to file). We
find that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
any rational juror could have found Kotmair guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80; United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that in resolving
sufficiency of evidence, appeals court does not weigh evidence or
review credibility of witnesses).

Kotmair next argues that the district court clearly erred in determining
that the amount of tax loss exceeded $350,000. He asserts that
applying the tax loss computation rules in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2T1.2(a) (1992), for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, yields
a tax loss of $166,889.21. In computing the tax loss, however, Kotmair
failed to include all relevant conduct. The tax loss computation
should include losses suffered by the federal and state governments
in the years of conviction as well as other years in which the defendant's
failure to file was "part of the same course of conduct or common
scheme or plan," unless clearly unrelated. USSG § 2T1.2,
comment. (n.3); see United States v. Bove, 155 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir.
1998); United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 663-65 (5th Cir. 1997).
We find that the district court properly considered losses from years
other than the years of conviction and losses to the states in computing
the tax loss attributable to Kotmair, and therefore did not clearly
err in adopting the recommendation in the presentence report that the

3

total tax loss exceeded $350,000. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874
F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).

The final issue Kotmair raises is whether the district court clearly
erred in enhancing Kotmair's offense level by two for the use of
sophisticated means to impede the discovery of the nature or extent
of his offense. "Sophisticated means" includes" conduct that is more
complex or demonstrates greater intricacy or planning than a routine
tax evasion case." USSG § 2T1.2, comment. (n.2). The district court
applied the enhancement after noting that Kotmair engaged in structuring
and laundering of his income to prevent the creation of currency
transaction reports. Because Kotmair failed to offer any
evidence to refute the findings in the presentence report, there was no
clear error by the district court in adopting these findings. See United
States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990).

In conclusion, we affirm Kotmair's convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-21   23:44:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Re: Comparisons with murder: Murder is almost always a state crime, not a fed crime. Feds only have jurisdiction on murder cases that occur within federal jurisdictional areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of any of the union states.

Also, your knowledge of the law is once again wanting. Federal jurisdiction is not limited as you state.

See, for example, Criminal Law, Second Edition, by Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., West Publishing Co., 1986, pp. 123-4, paragraph 2.8(c):

(c) Federal Power as to Conduct Within the States. The federal government has the power to create statutory crimes as to conduct within the United States, without regard to federal territoriality, where the United States Constitution expressly grants Congress the power, or, far more common, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to do what is "necessary and proper" to carry out the various expressly conferred powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, to establish post offices, to tax, to prosecute war, and so forth. The scope of federal substantive criminal law of this variety has been growing steadily since the nation was founded, so that at the present time there is a substantial amount of such federal criminal law.

For crimes such as that of Timothy McVeigh, he was subjected to Federal prosecution and could have been subjected to State prosecution in addition to the Federal prosecution. Had he escaped execution on the Federal charge, the state of Oklahoma was standing by to prosecute on state charges. Prosecution by different sovereigns does not constitute double jeopardy.

Now you can make up whatever nonsense you want in comparing the intuitive nature in our knowing that murder is wrong with some mystical fiction that a particular tax is owed even absent any statute so stating, but it won't change the fact that A) 7203 ONLY prescribes the punishment for someone who is convicted of willful failure et al and B) it is impossible for any person outside of a judge to "violate" this section. Quote some case law on the subject if you wish. I'd be curious on how a judge can say that isn't so while still sounding intelligent. If you want to concede that that's just what happens, fine. I'll accept that as it's apparently true.

Your recitation of IRC 7203 is an absurdity. The code specifically states, "who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor." It establishes and defines the crime, classifies it as a misdemeanor, and prescribes the penalty therefor.

Willful failure to file a return is a crime. It is punishable as established by statute.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge for Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh had no problem keeping a straight face while sentencing Edward Kotmair to prison for violation of 26 USC 7203. Circuit Judges Niemeyer, Traxler and Gregory apparently were able to keep a straight face while affirming the conviction.

As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote, "it is incomprehensible to me how ... any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

You stated at Neil McIver #103 that, "It is not possible to violate a law that prescribes a penalty." The murder statute prescribes a penalty. It is possible to violate the murder statute. It is not a comparison. It is a specific example demonstrating that your argument lacks merit.

Now this is a blatant misconstruing of my statement. My clear meaning, in context was that it is not possible to violate a law that itself only prescribes a penalty. You cannot violate a murder law that, itself, only prescribes a penalty to be imposed for committing murder either.

I did not misconstrue your statement at all. I construed it precisely. Furthermore, IRC 7203 is NOT a statute that ONLY prescribes a penalty. It describes specific behavior that it establishes as being criminal in nature and it prescribes a penalty to be awarded to those who get caught.

Section 1461 establishes liability for the income tax. Such liability must be fulfilled. Of course this applies to payments made to foreigners and the person liable is the withholding agent who made the payment to them. Given that, your sentence above shows you don't understand my suppositions.

Again, Supreme Court Justice Blackmun seems applicable, "it is incomprehensible to me how ... any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

SAPF "officials"??? Where did that designation come from? If you're referring to John and Edward Kotmair, and Schiff, then I'll mention that John was convicted based on activities from the early 70's, before SAPF was created. Edward, to my knowledge, is not active in the fellowship, and Irwin, if he ever was a member, and I don't know that he was, advocated arguments not shared by SAPF.

What's with the "officials"?

I believe the person who can lawfully convert $41,000 of SAPF funds to his personal use is not just another member of the group. Perhaps his title is just Head SAP. Pompatus of Conversion?

Re Cheek case, the SC (according to your citation) declared that an honest belief that one had no duty to file was sufficient to negate the element of willfulness "no matter how unreasonable a court might deem such a belief". It's right in there above one of the portions of code you bolded, but which, it seems, didn't suit you to highlight for a reason I could speculate on.

Let's me quote it one more time:

In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, , the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income.

The court went on to clarify:

Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him, and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. 9 Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. Those cases construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in "our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law" and "`[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.'" United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360 -361 (1973) (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 496 (1943)).

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. 10 They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions.

The court further clearly established that the individual cannot claim the law does not apply to him, based on his unique reading of the law, and successfully claim that his action was not willful.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-21   23:50:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I must say it seems almost your mission to stuff as much of this case sites in my face as you possibly can. In case there's any question on sincerity, you should keep in mind that the vast majority of those who become members of SAPF do so out of principle, not greed. Anyone coming to SAPF with the idea that they'll get in on this fight of applying the law as written to get rich is sadly mistaken. That's where the "Patriot" comes from in "Save-A-Patriot". I'm sure it's hard for some to comprehend that people would do things just because it's right even if it means being much worse off, but there are some of us still around. I recall reading one of the IRS arguments against SAPF that no one would fight the IRS if there wasn't some monetary reward. I guess the idea that people might just have principles is just such a foreign concept among IRS agents and employees.

Misconstruing the tax laws to assert some bogus claim to a right to ignore the law is not demonstrating principles... it is demonstrating felony dumb, or at least misdemeanor dumb.

What you are selling, the courts not only are not buying, they are levying heavy fines, up to $25,000.00 for frivolous arguments, wasting the time of the court, and demonstrating an unwillingness to respect the tax laws of the United States. Below are a few examples of how your tax-protester arguments are handled in court.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

Sanctions Imposed Against Taxpayer’s Counsel:

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285 (2002) B the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income stating that "[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous." The court imposed sanctions against the taxpayer in the amount of $15,000, as well as sanctions against the taxpayer's attorney in the amount of $10,500, for making such groundless arguments.

The Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 545-46 (2000) B concluding that the Nis chose "to pursue a strategy of noncooperation and delay, undertaken behind a smokescreen of frivolous tax-protester arguments," the court imposed a $25,000 penalty against them, and also imposed sanctions of more than $10,600 against their attorney for arguing frivolous positions in bad faith.

Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-169, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 24, 42 B the court found that sanctions were appropriate against both the taxpayer and the taxpayer's attorney for making groundless arguments. The court stated that "[a]n attorney cannot advance frivolous arguments to this Court with impunity, even if those arguments were initially developed by the client." In a supplemental opinion, the court imposed sanctions against the taxpayer in the amount of $24,000 and against the taxpayer’s attorney in the amount of $13,050. Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-149, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1357.

=============================

Sanctions Imposed Against Taxpayers

Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) B the court rejected Wilcox's argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens, stating that "paying taxes is not voluntary" and imposing a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) B the court stated that "[taxpayers'] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance" and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 "for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments."

Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) B the court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless ... and maintained primarily for delay."

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that "[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)" is not subject to incometaxation. The court stated that such claims have been "consistently and thoroughly rejected" by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 B the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that “wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ‘time reimbursement transactions’, a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable.” The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising “only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric.”

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295 (2002) B the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income stating that "[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous." The Court imposed sanctions against the taxpayer in the amount of $15,000, as well as sanctions against the taxpayer's attorney in the amount of $10,500, for making such groundless arguments.

Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) B the court rejected the taxpayers' argument that his income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. ' 1.861-8(f), stating that the "source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States." The court further required the taxpayers to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because "they ... wasted limited judicial and administrative resources."

Bland-Barclay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-20, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1119, 1121 (2002) B the court rejected taxpayers' claim that they were exempt from the federal income tax laws due to their status as "citizens of the Maryland Republic," characterized such arguments as "baseless and wholly without merit," and required taxpayers to pay a $1,500 penalty for making frivolous arguments.

Gass v. United States, 2001-1 U.S.T.C. (CCH) & 50,220 (10th Cir. 2001) - the court imposed an $8,000 penalty for contending that taxes on income from real property are unconstitutional. The court had earlier penalized the taxpayers $2,000 for advancing the same arguments in another case.

McAfee v. United States, 2001-1 U.S.T.C. (CCH) & 50,433 (N.D. Ga. 2001) - after losing the argument that his wages were not income and receiving a $500 penalty, the taxpayer returned to court to try to stop the government from collecting that penalty by garnishing his wages. The court stated that "bringing this ill-considered, nonsensical litigation before this court for yet a second time is nothing but contumacious foolishness which wastes the time and energy of the court system," and imposed a $1,000 penalty.

Trowbridge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-164, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1450 - the court imposed sanctions against former husband and wife, $25,000 for Mr. Trowbridge and $15,000 for Ms. Martin, where the taxpayers failed to raise a single plausible argument.

Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1328, 1331 - the court imposed a $15,000 penalty against the taxpayer because he disregarded warnings from the court that his position was without merit. Furthermore, the taxpayer had been previously sanctioned by the court in another proceeding for raising frivolous arguments.

Nunn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-250, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 403, 410 - the court, on its own motion, imposed sanctions against the taxpayers in the amount of $7,500 after warning taxpayers repeatedly that their frivolous arguments could subject them to a penalty stating "[w]here pro se litigants are warned that their claims are frivolous ... and where they are aware of the ample legal authority holding squarely against them, a penalty is appropriate."

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1886, 1888 - the court imposed a $12,500 penalty against the taxpayer for arguing the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities. The court found the taxpayer's "position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless."

Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-147, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1820, 1824 - the court imposed sanctions against the Wards in the amount of $25,000 stating that "[t]heir insistence on making frivolous protester type arguments indicates an unwillingness to respect the tax laws of the United States."

Gill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-146, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1816, 1819 - the court imposed a $7,500 penalty against the taxpayer stating the taxpayer's "insistence on making frivolous protester type arguments indicates an unwillingness to respect the tax laws of the United States."

Monaghan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-16, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1102, 1104 - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous arguments and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500, stating that "[h]e has caused this Court to waste its limited resources on his erroneous views of the tax law which he should have known are completely without merit."

Hart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-306, 82 T.C.M. (CCH) 934 - the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $15,000 against the taxpayer, because his delaying actions caused the Service and the court to needlessly spend time preparing for the trial and writing the opinion.

Sigerseth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-148, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1792, 1794 - pointing out that this case involving the use of trusts to avoid taxes was "a waste of limited judicial and administrative resources that could have been devoted to resolving bona fide claims of other taxpayers," the court imposed a $15,000 penalty.

MatrixInfoSys Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-133, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1726, 1729 - in claiming that his income belonged to his trust, the court stated that the taxpayer had made "shopworn arguments characteristic of the tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts," and imposed a $12,500 penalty.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 - after having warned the taxpayer that continuing with his frivolous arguments - that he was not a taxpayer, that his income was not taxable, and that only foreign income was taxable - would likely result in a penalty, the court imposed the maximum $25,000 penalty.

Haines v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-126, 79 T.C.M. (CCH) 1844, 1846 - stating, "[p]etitioner knew or should have known that his position was groundless and frivolous, yet he persisted in maintaining this proceeding primarily to impede the proper workings of our judicial system and to delay the payment of his Federal income tax liabilities," the court imposed a $25,000 penalty.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-21   23:52:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[christime #151] nolu, have you watched Russo's Freedom To Fascism? if not, why not? if you have, i'd very much like to get your opinion about the several former IRS agents, including Banister, who learned the truth and who have challenged the almighty IRS to "show me the law." to date, there has been no answer. any enforcement of their statutes/codes is because they have the power to do so, not because it's lawful or legal. judges go along with the program because they themselves are scared to death of the IRS. see noone's #148.

I apologize for the delay. I have had little spare time lately.

I had not watched Freedom to Fascism as it was not mentioned to me until you asked. I noticed that it was mentioned near the top of the thread. I looked to see what it was, saw it had near 2 hour run time, and waited for the Cliff's Notes version which has yet to appear.

Since you asked, I have managed to find the time to give it a look.

In response to your direct question, I am not particularly impressed with the material on video any more than I am with the material in writing.

That there is a tax imposed is clearly stated within the code.

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: 01/19/04
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:

[table deleted]

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:

[table deleted]

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a
married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:

[table deleted]

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single
return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:

[table deleted]

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,

taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with
the following table:

[table deleted]

Link

Section 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this
subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
deduction).

* * *

Link

Section 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the
collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such
statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and
regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe.

Link

Section 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of
tax is required under this title or regulations, the person
required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice
and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue
officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at
the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without
regard to any extension of time for filing the return). ...

Regarding the video in general, I found several items that undercut its credibility.

Link

Video, From Freedom to Fascism, narration at 1m:26s

The first thing they did to accomplish their takeover was to convince Secretary of State Philander Knox to lie to the American people and tell them that the 16th Amendment had been legally ratified by the states when it was not.

"If you ... examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, 2003

This is NOT from a court decision

It is from a HEARING on a MOTION that had nothing to do with Income Tax. It has some serious editing/context problems.

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES C. FOX
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

* * *

"THE EVIDENCE IS ALL VERY CLEAR. UNTIL THE CONGRESS CAN MEET AND ISSUE A DECLARATION OF WAR TO THE PRESIDENT, PLAINTIFFS STAND BY THEIR COMPLAINT. "

* * *

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK YOU RAISE SERIOUS ISSUES OF THE WAR POWERS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

MR. LEPORE: AND AS I SAID EARLIER, I RELY ON THOSE ARGUMENTS AND OUR ARGUMENTS IN THE BRIEF. IT'S A SHARED POWER. EACH PARTY IS DOING ITS DUTY HERE, AND THE PRESIDENT IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE HIS DETERMINATION.

THE COURT: I WILL SAY I THINK, YOU KNOW, COLONEL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE A LONG COURSE OF HISTORY IN FACT DOES CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, AND I CAN THINK OF ONE INSTANCE. I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT ON THIS. I THINK IF YOU WERE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO FIND AND REVIEW THE RATIFICATION OF THE 16TH AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS THE INTERNAL REVENUE, INCOME TAX, I THINK IF YOU WENT BACK AND EXAMINED THAT CAREFULLY, YOU WOULD FIND THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES NEVER RATIFIED THAT AMENDMENT.

MR. SULLIVAN: TRUE STATEMENT.

THE COURT: AND NONETHELESS. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND I DON'T THINK ANY COURT WOULD EVER --

MR. SULLIVAN: I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A VERY LONG DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT THAT SUBJECT.

THE COURT: -- WOULD SET IT ASIDE. WELL. I'VE SEEN THAT -- I'VE SEEN SOMEWHERE A TREATISE ON THAT, AND I THINK IT WAS -- I THINK I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT ACTUALLY THE RATIFICATION NEVER REALLY PROPERLY OCCURRED.

MR. SULLIVAN: CORRECT, SIR.

THE COURT: YET NONETHELESS, I'M SURE NO COURT'S GOING TO SAY THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT PERMITTING INCOME TAX IS VOID FOR ANY REASON, ALTHOUGHT I WOULDN'T MIND FILING FOR A REBATE MYSELF.

And now to look at an actual court decision which directly considered the argument about the purported ineffective ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, something Russo chose not to do. The case is U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

United States v. Thomas
788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 04/17/1986)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 85-2120
April 17, 1986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KENNETH L. THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 84 CR 222--Thomas R. McMillen, Judge.

Sahron E. Jones, AUSA (Anton Valukas-USA) 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for Plaintiff.
Andrew B. Spiegel, 77 W. Washington Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for Defendant.

Author: Easterbrook

Before CUDAHAY and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

From 1966 through 1976 Kenneth L. Thomas filed tax returns. Then he stopped, claiming that he had no tax liability. He filed a form informing his employer that he had 23 withholding allowances, which dramatically reduced the tax his employer withheld. He ceased filing returns.

An indictment filed March 19, 1984, charged Thomas with wilfully failing to file tax returns for the tax years 1979, 1980, and 1981, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. A superseding indictment filed October 1, 1984, retained these three charges and added four more: failing to file tax returns for 1982 and 1983, and wilfully filing false certificates asking his employer to cease all withholding on the ground that he is "exempt" from taxation, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7205. The 1983 return was due after the filing of the first indictment. The trial began on January 15, 1985, and the jury convicted Thomas on all counts. The district court sentenced Thomas to a total of four years' imprisonment and fined him $22,000. As the time sequence suggests, the principal problem is one of compliance with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. Before considering this problem, we clear out the underbrush.

I

1. Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. If was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L. Ed. 294, 12 S. Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L. Ed. 505, 42 S. Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 10-12 & n.6, we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

That very same year, the bankers committed their second and by far most diabolical fraud ever perpetrated on the American people by bribing senators to pass the Federal Reserve Act without the required Constitutional amendment.

Video, From Freedom to Fascism, narration at 23m:35s

I went to see a group of tax experts.

• State Rep. Phil Hart, (R-Idaho)
• Larken Rose
• Irwin Schiff

Larken Rose is in prison with a release date of 01-02-2007
Irwin Schiff is in prison with a release date of 10-07-2016
Larken's wife Tessa is set to begin serving her own sentence shortly after Larken gets out of prison.

Link

Hart's tax evasion sets bad example; He may live by a different set

Spokesman Review, The (Spokane), Jun 10, 2005

Phil Hart never hid his aversion to the federal income tax when he campaigned for the Idaho Legislature last year from northern Kootenai County.

But he didn't do anything to bring it to voters' attention either.

Now, after Hart has served a quiet first session, his constituents have learned that he owes nearly $90,000 in back income taxes, penalties and interest as a result of a seven-year quixotic joust against the income tax with the Internal Revenue Service. And Erica Curless of The Spokesman-Review has reported that the trust for the Athol home in which Hart lives owes $7,236 in property taxes for 2003 and 2004.

The debts are troubling because they indicate that Hart may live by a different set of rules than his constituents. Wage earners in this country are expected to pay part of their incomes to support the basic functions of government, from military protection to road building, from homeland security to unemployment and disability benefits. In Idaho, many share Hart's concern for increasing property tax, but they pay their share to support local governments and schools. An office holder who shirks his duty to pay his share of taxes sets a bad example, no matter how worthy he believes his cause to be.

Wisely, Hart has reached an agreement with the IRS to pay back income taxes after his failed crusade against the 16th Amendment, which gives the federal government the authority to tax income. In other words, the structural engineer accepted his medicine for withholding payments and is moving on. As a freshman legislator, he hasn't embarrassed his district by using his Statehouse bully pulpit to lobby against or condemn the federal tax.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-22   3:18:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ....

This over used statement implies that there exists both taxable and non- taxable incomes ... and omits mentioning all other types of exchange that operate outside of the scope and purview of the laws ie., IRS/U.S. Treasury / U.S. Congress.

Your position considers every dollar to be taxable. This, if true, would leave us in a much worsened condition than was employed by King George and resulted in Revolution.

We are witnessing the passage of a plethora of unconstitutional law these days. The Bill of Rights dismantled daily. Our culture, our families and our country are being destroyed by prima facie legal artifice accepted by the ignorant among us, whose numbers are dwindling as more people become aware of the fraud and corruption in D.C. that has escaped its chains and slithered beyond its 10 square mile jurisdiction.

You can quote the sophisticated ledgerdemain voiced in rulings by criminals of the most dangerous sort (Judges dependent upon the State for their earnings and fearful of the iRS) that may or may not have any bearing on a natural man, and most often only apply to "certain" parties to a particular case and their "status" to be involved in the litigation. Let's not forget the Dred Scott opinion that blacks are less than human by 40%.

Lastly, let us not ignore the cases that are "depublished" at the whim of the system that purge relevant arguments and erase them from judicial memory when they are disfavorable to the State. Another factoid to be considered is that the State / Feds select those cases that are heard at the Supreme Court level and choose the ones that serve their social engineering purposes.

As an example, I found a case before it was depublished that related to the issuance of a bench warrant by a Judge . The Bench Warrant was challenged because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. The court ruled in favor of the defendant and against the State in the lower court, finding merit in the argument that Bench Warrants violate separation of powers.

Every prosecutor across the State of California filed an amicus brief supporting the State on Appeal. (The Name on the case was "Staph"). In the final ruling on appeal the Judge stated: "We are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc".

You're a smart person ... what do you think the Judge was saying ? I asked 10 lawyers that couldn't tell me off hand what was being claimed by the Judge. I know what the Judge was admitting and will be happy to explain after you've had a moment to ponder this judicial abortion.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   6:19:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This over used statement implies that there exists both taxable and non- taxable incomes ... and omits mentioning all other types of exchange that operate outside of the scope and purview of the laws ie., IRS/U.S. Treasury / U.S. Congress.

What "type of exchange" occurs within the United States and operates outside the scope and purview of the U.S. Congress?

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that "[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)" is not subject to incometaxation. The court stated that such claims have been "consistently and thoroughly rejected" by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1886, 1888 - the court imposed a $12,500 penalty against the taxpayer for arguing the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities. The court found the taxpayer's "position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless."

Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-147, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1820, 1824 - the court imposed sanctions against the Wards in the amount of $25,000 stating that "[t]heir insistence on making frivolous protester type arguments indicates an unwillingness to respect the tax laws of the United States."

Your position considers every dollar to be taxable. This, if true, would leave us in a much worsened condition than was employed by King George and resulted in Revolution.

As for the implications of that, congratulations, you have correctly identified what it does. Of course it leaves a much worsened condition than existed under King George.

Let's not forget the Dred Scott opinion that blacks are less than human by 40%

The CONSTITUTION, as it existed at the time of the Dred Scott decision, contained the statement about "three fifths of all other persons." The Constitution also prohibited any attempt to tax slavery out of existence. The Constitution also contained a provision that any escaped slave had to "be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

As for your assertion that Blacks were held less than human by 40%, this is also inaccurate. The Constitution refers to them as "persons."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY

Article 1, Section 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, Section. 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article 5. ... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Every prosecutor across the State of California filed an amicus brief supporting the State on Appeal. (The Name on the case was "Staph"). In the final ruling on appeal the Judge stated: "We are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc".

fiscus. English law. The king's treasury, as the repository of forfeited property. The treasure of a noble, or of any private person. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Your rumor of a case provides insufficient information for any intelligent discussion.

The Bench Warrant was challenged because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. The court ruled in favor of the defendant and against the State in the lower court, finding merit in the argument that Bench Warrants violate separation of powers.

Bench Warrants continue to this day.

Bench Warrant. Process issued by the court itself, or "from the bench," for the attachment or arrest of a person; either in case of contempt, or where an indictment has been found, or to bring in a witness who fails to obey a subpoena. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-22   19:19:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone222 #42]

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.

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9610287.html

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v MARSH
9610287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 96-10287
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No.
v.
CR-93-00592-VRW
PHILLIP MARSH,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 96-10288
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No.
v.
CR-93-00592-VRW
MARLENE MARSH,
Defendant-Appellant.

* * *

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

March 9, 1998--San Francisco, California

Filed May 27, 1998
Before: John T. Noonan and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit
Judges, and Dean D. Pregerson*, District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Noonan

* * *

OPINION

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

Phillip Marsh and his five co-defendants appeal their con-
victions of conspiring to defraud the United States by imped-
ing the collection of federal income taxes and their
convictions of related crimes. They also appeal their sen-
tences, which, as to Phillip Marsh total a term of imprison-
ment of 17 1/2 years, as to his wife Marlene a term of 14
years, and as to the other defendants lesser but still substantial
periods of prison.

* * *

The second trial was two months shorter than the first. On
December 13, 1995 the jury found all six defendants guilty of
violating 18 U.S.C. S 371 by conspiring to defraud the United
States in the collection of income taxes. Phillip and Marlene
Marsh and Jill Spencer were convicted of two counts of viola-
tion of 26 U.S.C. S 7212(a) by corruptly endeavoring to
obstruct the administration of the income tax laws by filing
the liens. Both the Marshes and both the Spencers were con-
victed of violating 26 U.S.C. S 7201 by tax evasion and vio-
lating 26 U.S.C. S 7203 by failing to file tax returns. Both
Marshes were acquitted of ten counts of mail fraud and con-
victed of ten counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
S 1341. Both Spencers were similarly acquitted, Darrell of
five, Jill of nine counts, and similarly convicted of nine mail
fraud counts; and Coltrane was convicted of six mail fraud
counts. The court denied Rule 29 motions, including motions
by the Marshes and Jill Spencer to dismiss the obstruction
charges on the ground of lack of venue.

On June 26, 1996 the court pronounced sentence. Phillip
Marsh was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for conspiracy
to defraud the United States; 5 years imprisonment for each
of his ten mail fraud convictions; 5 years imprisonment on
each of two convictions of tax evasion; 3 years imprisonment
for each his two endeavors to impede the administration of the
tax laws; and 1 year imprisonment for each conviction of will-
ful failure to file tax returns. The sentences for conspiracy, tax
evasion and 9 of the 10 mail fraud counts were to be served
concurrently with each other. The 3 year sentences for the
endeavor to impede were to be were to be served consecu-
tively to the other counts and to each other. The 1 year sen-
tences for the two failures to file counts served consecutively
to each other and the other counts. The sentence on the two
tax evasion counts and two failure to file counts totals 7 years.
The 5 year sentence for the tenth mail fraud charge was to be
served consecutively to the extent necessary to produce a total
sentence of 17 1/2 years.

Marlene Marsh was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for
conspiracy to defraud the United States; 5 years each for the
10 mail fraud counts, 5 years each for the two tax evasion
counts, 3 years on each of the 2 counts of endeavor to impede,
1 year on each of the 2 convictions of willful failure to file.
The 3 year sentences for endeavor to impede were to be
served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the
other sentences, the 1 year sentences for failure to file were
to be served consecutively to each other and to the other sen-
tences, and the 5 years for the two tax evasion counts and 10
mail counts were to be served concurrently to each other and
consecutively to the other sentences to the extent necessary to
produce a total sentence of 14 years. The sentence on the two
tax evasion counts and two failure to file counts totals 7 years.

* * *

The defendants appeal.

ANALYSIS

* * *

[14] Waivers. Two issues now raised by the defendants
were waived at trial. On the face of the indictments the venue
of the tax counts was wrong: the Marshes and Spencers had
been residents of the Eastern District of California, but they
were being tried in the Northern District. The defendants said
not a word about the venue until they were convicted. They
now contend that the government might have proved some act
in the Northern District that would have related to the tax
courts and justified the venue; they could not know till the
trial was over. The defendants waited too long. They cannot
sandbag the government after the verdict is in. United States
v. Powell, 498 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1974).

Phillip Marsh earnestly urges that the exclusion of the evi-
dence of his psychological state was error in the light of our
en banc decision in United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031
(9th Cir. 1997), which he characterizes as establishing a new
constitutional rule that should be applied retroactively.
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987). Morales did not
announce new constitutional doctrine but applied the Federal
Rules of Evidence. Marsh cannot benefit from the case retro-
actively. He waived his right to introduce the psychiatrist's
testimony by not seeking to introduce it in the second trial.

We find no plain error.

Other issues raised by the defendants need not be consid-
ered in view of our ruling on the principal counts.

* * *

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-22   19:23:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You cling to fraud like bubble gum to a shoe !

You can't find the case because like so many it was too embarrassing to leave published.

We are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc = we are unable to uphold the Constitution because the State Treasury is exhausted.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   19:35:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

We are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc = we are unable to uphold the Constitution because the State Treasury is exhausted.

That case would have had to be post-bankruptcy, after 1933.

"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  2006-12-22   19:55:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As for the implications of that, congratulations, you have correctly identified what it does. Of course it leaves a much worsened condition than existed under King George.

Your gleeful acceptance of tyranny saddens me.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   20:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think it was a late 80's or early 90's case. Like you, I have it here somewhere ... but it might take some digging to find it.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   20:03:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think it was a late 80's or early 90's case. Like you, I have it here somewhere ... but it might take some digging to find it.

If you have the names of the parties and the state, or if it was a U.S. case, it should not be so difficult to find at a real law library, but we need to have the complete citation, including numbers. It may be in the reporters even though it might have been depublished. We might be able to find it on LexisNexis at the college. Look if you have time. Subject matter of the case would be helpful.

"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  2006-12-22   20:10:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My error regarding Marsh. I was misinformed about the outcome of their case. I don't know their particular case well enough to comment upon why they were convicted on more charges than I was aware of.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   20:13:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I was at the main San Diego Law Library and had prior knowledge of the case. I asked the Law Librarian why it wasn't in the book. He told me it had been depublished, but he still had the old law book upstairs waiting to be picked up. I asked him to get it for me so I could copy the case. He did.

The State of California Appealed from the lower court, and the other Party was named "Staph".

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   20:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The State of California Appealed from the lower court, and the other Party was named "Staph".

That would make it a 9th Circuit case. Let me know if you find your copy. If you give me the complete case cite, I can have a friend look for it on LexisNexis. Maybe it will come up.

"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  2006-12-22   20:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You cling to fraud like bubble gum to a shoe !

You can't find the case because like so many it was too embarrassing to leave published.

Right. You can purport to quote from something that you cannot produce because you claim it no longer exists.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-22   22:33:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your gleeful acceptance of tyranny saddens me.

Your denying reality changes nothing.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-22   22:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your denying reality changes nothing.

Our realities are different ... you will tolerate fraud, I won't.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-22   23:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone222 #176] Our culture, our families and our country are being destroyed by prima facie legal artifice accepted by the ignorant among us, whose numbers are dwindling as more people become aware of the fraud and corruption in D.C. that has escaped its chains and slithered beyond its 10 square mile jurisdiction.

U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8:

Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....

Also in Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution provides that,

The Congress shall have Power To Regulate commerce ... among the several States ...

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States ...

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States...

Under Article 3, Section 2,

The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Interestingly, if you examine the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, you will observe that it extends specifically to citizens and not merely to persons. For many years it did not extend to corporations. It would seem unlikely that any corporation was either born a U.S. citizen or became naturalized. And yet, corporations are now regularly seen going to court.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-23   0:16:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone222 #176] The court ruled in favor of the defendant and against the State in the lower court, finding merit in the argument that Bench Warrants violate separation of powers.

Had a court ruled against the State and found that Bench Warrants were unconstitutional or unlawful, as a general proposition, it is unlikely that the California Penal Code would continue to provide for bench warrants as it certainly does.

California Penal Code in re Bench Warrant

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/1191-1210.5.html

California Codes
California Penal Code
PENAL CODE SECTION 1191-1210.5

* * *

1195. If the defendant has been released on bail, or has deposited
money or property instead thereof, and does not appear for judgment
when his personal appearance is necessary, the court, in addition to
the forfeiture of the undertaking of bail, or of the money or
property deposited, must, on application of the prosecuting attorney,
direct the issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of the
defendant.

If the defendant, who is on bail, does appear for judgment and
judgment is pronounced upon him or probation is granted to him, then
the bail shall be exonerated or, if money or property has been
deposited instead of bail, it must be returned to the defendant or to
the person or persons found by the court to have deposited said
money or property on behalf of said defendant.

1196. (a) The clerk, or the judge or justice, if there is no clerk,
must at any time after the order issue a bench warrant into one or
more counties.

(b) The clerk, or the judge or justice, shall require the
appropriate agency to enter each bench warrant issued on a private
surety-bonded felony case into the national warrant system (National
Crime Information Center (NCIC)).If the appropriate agency fails to
enter the bench warrant into the national warrant system (NCIC),
and the court finds that this failure prevented the surety or bond
agent from surrendering the fugitive into custody, prevented the
fugitive from being arrested or taken into custody, or resulted in
the fugitive's subsequent release from custody, the court having
jurisdiction over the bail shall, upon petition, set aside the
forfeiture of the bond and declare all liability on the bail bond to
be exonerated.

1197. The bench warrant must be substantially in the following
form:

County of ____

The people of the State of California to any peace officer in this
State:______ (name of defendant) having been on the ____ day of
____, 19_, duly convicted in the ____ court of ____ (naming the
court) of the crime of ____ (designating it generally), you are
therefore commanded forthwith to arrest the above named defendant and
bring him before that court for judgment.

Given under my hand with the seal of said court affixed, this ____
day of ____, 19_.

By order of said court. ____________________ (SEAL)
Clerk (or Judge, or Justice)

1198. The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same
manner as a warrant of arrest.

1199. Whether the bench warrant is served in the county in which it was issued or in another county, the officer must arrest the defendant and bring him before the court, or deliver him to any peace officer of the county from which the warrant issued, who must bring him before said court according to the command thereof.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-23   0:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Our realities are different ... you will tolerate fraud, I won't.

Making believe reality does not exist changes nothing.

Blathering about the income tax being unlawful does not make it so.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-23   0:21:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The warrant was for contempt of court issued without executive branch requirements calling for a sworn affidavit.

The judicial sophistry used in the appellate ruling was what was being illustrated ... ["we are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc"]

Had a court ruled against the State and found that Bench Warrants were unconstitutional or unlawful, as a general proposition, it is unlikely that the California Penal Code would continue to provide for bench warrants as it certainly does.

We can agree on this point ... and that's why the ruling was overturned. Expediency is the object of the courts, at the expense of justice.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   5:45:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone 222 #193] The warrant was for contempt of court issued without executive branch requirements calling for a sworn affidavit.

The Executive Branch neither issues bench warrants nor does it legislate requirements applicable to the Judicial Branch. The warrant could have been issued without an affidavit required, under some circumstances, by a judicial requirement imposed by the Legislative Branch. I do not see any "separation of powers" issue.

The bench warrant is a form of arrest warrant issued by a judge. There is no apparent general requirement that a judge issue an affidavit to himself in order to issue a bench warrant.

http://www.paulpuri.com/2005/02/warrants-explained.html

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Warrants Explained

Many of my clients want to know what a warrant is, and do not understand what is going in when a warrant is served on them. There essentially two types of warrants: (1) search warrants and (2) arrest warrants.

Search Warrant

A search warrant allows law enforcement to perform a physical search, usually of your home or car, and to "seize" evidence. A search warrant must be requested by law enforcement of a magistrate judge. Law enforcement must present a written affidavit specifying the basis for the search, and what and where will be searched. The affidavit must allege evidence that, on its face, establishes probable cause to believe evidence will be found. With some exceptions, search warrants must be executed by law enforcement during the day. If evidence is found during the search, an arrest may follow. There are numerous exceptions to the search warrant requirement, meaning, law enforcement can search persons, homes and automobiles without a warrant, if the conditions fit one of the exceptions.

Arrest Warrant

An arrest warrant is a document allowing law enforcement to "seize" or arrest a person. Arrest warrants are more varied in type. I have encounted the following types of arrest warrants: (1) warrants issued by magistrate judge, (2) warrants issued by the office of the District Attorney [DA Warrants], and (3) bench warrants issued by the superior court or federal district judge. Each of these types of warrants are based on a finding a probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a particular person committed it. In the case of warrants issued by a magistrate judge or a DA warrant, there is often a statement of probable cause given in an affidavit or police report. In the case of a bench warrant, the superior court judge issues an arrest warrant because the defendant failed to appear in court on time. The judge is making factual finding that a court order has been violated, and the defendant should be arrested and brought before the court to answer to contempt charges.

posted by Attorney Paul Puri at 12:08 PM

http://jec.unm.edu/resources/benchbooks/magistrate/3-3.htm

3.3 Bench Warrant

A. General

1. A bench warrant is initiated by the judge and is issued only for violation of an order or requirement of the Court. Criminal Form 9-212A (Bench Warrant).

2. At the time the bench warrant is issued, the judge indicates on the bench warrant the reason or reasons it is being issued. If the judge has personal knowledge of the failure, the judge makes a notation to that effect in the file and issues the bench warrant. If the judge does not have personal knowledge of the failure, the judge does not issue the bench warrant until the person with knowledge submits an affidavit for bench warrant. Criminal Form 9-211 (Affidavit for Bench Warrant).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m057.htm

MAGISTRATE JUDGES - Judicial officers who assist U.S. district judges in getting cases ready for trial, who may decide some criminal and civil trials when both parties agree to have the case heard by a magistrate judge instead of a judge.

Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The judges of each district appoint one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so that the judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

Magistrate judges disposed of 500,897 matters in 1992. In 1994 there were 369 full-time and 110 part-time magistrate judges.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-23   7:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(1). Making believe reality does not exist changes nothing.

(2). Blathering about the income tax being unlawful does not make it so.

(1). Pretending that a system fraught with corruption, confusion and confiscation that has refused to address simple straight forward requests from those it intends to "tax", such as what makes one liable for or subject to the so-called income tax, a system that has veered drastically from its original intent and intended targets, has brought us to where we are today. A runaway federal bureaucracy, legislated by pious perverts and social deviants, supported by a criminal judiciary, all padding their own pockets and that of their associates at the expense of common decency but more pertinently to the destruction of common liberty, while demanding the debt not be questioned by those expected to finance it. This may satisfy your expectation of reality but leaves me wanting.

(2). A tax on income (property) could be lawful if apportioned. [I know this debate rages relative to the 16th Amendment, but the 16th Amendment was ruled as not conferring any new power of taxation ... blah blah], or should the tax be imposed upon the event that produces the income (and we determine the specific definition of the word income without combining it with compound words such as net income, taxable income, or gross income, because we need to know first what income itself is defined as, not whether it was net, taxable or gross because all money that "comes in" isn't necessarily "income"), and if the tax is imposed upon an event we need to define what events are taxable, because every event is not taxable. Should an event (source) be taxable then the amount of revenue produced by that taxable event should be used to measure the amount of tax obligation due, and assess it "uniformly" throughout the system.

The design of the tax system as originally constructed was ingenious because it left freemen free to "choose" whether they would be taxed either by choosing to partake in taxable events or purchase taxable items [and be taxed indirectly but uniformly] or pay a poll tax of some sort [that was direct but apportioned].

What you refer to as blathering I would call discussion. Like it or not we must endure it in the best interests of the people of this country, otherwise those you are supporting, those that are violating the public's trust, are going to completely bankrupt America.

Our recent ancestors screwed the pooch through naivete and blind trust. We have awakened to find ourselves swamped in legalese that protects an unjust system that is counter productive to a free society. There are many factors that could be argued independently but the fundamental problem has its roots in the Central Banking authority held in private hands being abused horribly to the benefit of bankers and government.

We know there exists a private side (non-taxable) and a public side (taxable) to our lives. We have a natural "right" to conduct private lives and private business without entering the public side. When we enter the public spectrum we are subject to public policy, but until then we are not. That's why the currency states on its face that it's legal tender (not money per se) for (substitute) all debt public and private.

Maybe you're perfectly correct in your approach to realism as you see it. I grew up in a rough neighborhood full of bullies that would beat others up for their lunch money on a daily basis if not physically prevented from doing so. Our government and their agents have become the bully, only they're a little more sophisticated, and they use the lunch money they steal to hire goons, purchase guns, deal drugs, build weapons of mass homicide, start wars and kill people at will. [This is how I perceive reality, and I choose not to be robbed for the purposes aforementioned.] I guess you might call me a conscientious objector.

My personal beliefs go beyond the simplicity of going along to get along, not making waves, or rocking the boat. However, these are personal beliefs and unnecessary to the conversation at hand. But in the end we only spend a short amount of time on this beautiful planet and I'm convinced we can improve our stewardship of it by regaining our moral compass, eliminating political rhetoric by reviving statesmanship that truly serves the betterment of our fellow man, and by dealing in honesty regarding all things. This may be unrealistic, but this is my life, the only one I get and I will be true to myself, otherwise life has very little meaning and all of the hocum about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) is pablum fed to infants purposed to brainwash rather than instill conviction of principles that appear unnecesary to your reality and have become a thing of the past. I'm not able to enjoy a reality free from principle and long held maxims that can be sacrificed for the sake of convenience or expediency simply because corruption seems to rule the day.

"If I'm free just leave me alone, if I'm not free lock me up, either way quit lying to me"

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   7:57:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Also in Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution provides that,

The Congress shall have Power To Regulate commerce ... among the several States ... To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States ...

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States...

Taxes ... specifically the one named "income taxes" were the subject of concern ... these other subjects named above are off point, D.C. laws are subject to the plenary authority of congress, others are not.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   8:53:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone222 #195] A tax on income (property) could be lawful if apportioned.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
-- U.S. Const, Amd 16

[noone222 #195] I know this debate rages relative to the 16th Amendment, but the 16th Amendment was ruled as not conferring any new power of taxation ...

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the "sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves."

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) - the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) - the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7th Cir. 1984) - the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court’s frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys’ fees to the government “because [the taxpayers’] legal position was patently frivolous.” The appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing “frivolous arguments in bad faith.”

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980) - the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states. Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006) - the court imposed sanctions totaling $25,000 against the taxpayer for advancing arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by the courts, including arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment. In affirming the Tax Court’s holding, the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s request for further sanctions of $6,000 against the taxpayer for maintaining frivolous arguments on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit imposed an additional $6,000 sanctions on its own, for total additional sanctions of $12,000.

[noone222 #195] What you refer to as blathering I would call discussion. Like it or not we must endure it in the best interests of the people of this country, otherwise those you are supporting, those that are violating the public's trust, are going to completely bankrupt America.

Prior to prohibition, the sale of booze was lawful. During prohibition it was unlawful. Now it is lawful again. Recognizing that neither supports prohibition nor the sale of booze.

[noone222 #195] I guess you might call me a conscientious objector.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-24   2:52:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[noone 222 #196] Taxes ... specifically the one named "income taxes" were the subject of concern ... these other subjects named above are off point, D.C. laws are subject to the plenary authority of congress, others are not.

noone #176 referred to "D.C. that has escaped its chains and slithered beyond its 10 square mile jurisdiction."

The authority of Congress to lay taxes extends throughout the country. "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States....

In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the "sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves."

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549-50 (9th Cir. 1989) - the court, observing that Becraft's claim that federal laws apply only to United States territories and the District of Columbia "has no semblance of merit," and noting that this attorney had previously litigated cases in the federal appeals courts that had "no reasonable possibility of success," imposed monetary damages and expressed the hope "that this assessment will deter Becraft from asking this and other federal courts to expend more time and resources on patently frivolous legal positions."

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-24   2:57:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prior to prohibition, the sale of booze was lawful. During prohibition it was unlawful. Now it is lawful again. Recognizing that neither supports prohibition nor the sale of booze.

[noone222 #195] I guess you might call me a conscientious objector.

I guess you might call me a retired veteran. USN (Ret).

Odd isn't it, that the 21st Amendment "repeals" the 18th ... and no such language is used in the 16th as it would affect the 1st at section 8 clause 1 or section 9 clause 4.

Recognizing that neither supports prohibition nor the sale of booze.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, the 21st did prohibit the sale of alcohol. However it didn't outlaw the manufacture for private use of alcohol, because that is beyond the purview of the CON-gress.

I did my time, 4 years as a matter of fact, one of those being a year in Vietnam. [Headline: Young, impressionable kids join military to serve what they thought was their country, but they were terribly mistaken.]

I have absolutely no ties to the U.S. Govt., "none" !

After WW II a show trial was held at Nuremburg. A number of Nazis were hung for following "the law" and orders directed to them according tolaw. This was a show trial, and a few putz's were hung and a number of them went to prison for their deeds, but declassified documents and a number of books demonstrate that most of the nazi scum were placed in the U.S. and Britain, given new identities and used in any number of government projects.

Many of those imprisoned at Nuremburg had their sentences commuted by J.J. McCloy, (an American Nazi like the Bush family) who was the European Commissioner over the Nuremburg trial. J.J. McCloy also met at Clint Murchison's house the night before the nazis killed Kennedy here in America, and later sat on the Warren Commission that swept the assassination under the rug. I loathe the U.S. Govt., and everything it stands for, I am shamed by the greed and lust for power that drives the scumbags, murders and deviants controlling the country, and I am embarrased at the American people's ignorance that allows these miscreants to remain in authority because I don't think they would continue to prop up a fascistic executive dictatorship if they were cognizant of it.

It seems to me that it's usually someone receiving a government check that maintains blind and unyielding support for the bullies in D.C. (District of Child molesters). And I know that many of them are unaware of the massive fraud, murder, genocide and general mayhem operated by what they perceive as a good government ... but those days are coming to an end. People are waking up thanks to 9-11, an inside government op perpetrated by the nazi deviants currently in power to instill fear and pass draconian legislation that strikes at the heart of the very liberty many of us ignorantly thought we defended.

I am very hopeful that the cabal of criminal collusion in D.C. [District of Cock-Roaches] will be brought up on charges, convicted and publicly hung for their subversion against the people of America.

In closing, I have not taken a light hearted approach to my position. I have spent thousands of hours researching the law, history, and the Scriptures. Unlike many of my fellow men/women I am unable to turn my head and ignore my conscience, wave a plastic flag and praise the satanist bastard you call your President. There is a semi-silent spiritual war in progress that has been on going for thousands of years. We all have the opportunity to determine our own fate, and enlist in the service of the Almighty Creator of the Universe or the legion of satan. The Creator makes no bones about the fact that there may be some persecution attached to service in his outfit, while satan offers some temporary conveniences that seemingly persuades otherwise good people to support his agenda. It's hard to blame Americans personally for their allegiance since it's drilled into their head from birth, and would appear to be a most natural condition if the government were benevolent and hadn't become vile.

I can't see inside your mind, nor do I understand your life experiences to determine why you take the position you have chosen, all I can know is what's inside of my mind and the path I've chosen.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-24   5:25:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the "sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves."

Rather than offer my personal determinations that obviate the aforementioned claim ... I find it sufficient to note that the infallible Supreme Court gods have lost my confidence for a myriad of causes, some that might even be actionable.

I have determined that the services rendered by the U.S. Govt. Inc., at the point of a gun, violate my conscience and my liberty of choice so I have discontinued them, refused them, repudiated them, terminated them, canceled them, rescinded them and somewhat regretfully fled the plantation.

I have pledged my allegiance to the King of the Universe, who doesn't permit dual loyalties or dual citizenship.

Gal 5:1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

My Scriptures instruct me not to be unequally yoked with evil ... the U.S. Govt. is evil to its rotten core.

"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"

noone222 12-17-06

noone222  posted on  2006-12-24   5:50:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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