****COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST SAPF***
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
Therefore, there is no injunction order in effect against the Fellowship at the present time. The Fellowship will keep its members apprised of any new developments, and members will be more fully informed in the next Liberty Tree.
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Kotmair filed on Dec 13th: Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and for a New Trial and filed on the 14th a Motion to Stay, and on the 15th a motion with the 4th Appellate #06-2314, but the contents of that motion has not yet been published.
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
As far as it goes, the announcement is correct. What it did not disclose (from Judge Nickerson's order to stay):
Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully consider the motion for new trial as it is not yet ripe, the Court can say with some certainty that it will be denied. Defendants raise the same arguments in that motion that were raised and fully considered in the cross motions for summary judgment. The motion for modification of the injunction order is also not yet ripe, and the government has yet to respond. This motion, however, might prove to have some merit, particularly as it relates to assisting Defendants in discerning what is protected political speech and what is prohibited false commercial speech.1
1That said, the Court notes that much of Defendants' "confusion" results from their own intentional ignorance and obfuscation. As noted in the memorandum resolving the cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants continue to tout their chimerical theories despite the consistent rejection of those theories by all courts to have considered them. Nov. 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion at 12 ("just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid," quoting SAPF's Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 28 n.67).
While Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the ultimate merits of their claims, they may be entitled to some minor modifications or clarifications of this Court's injunction.
Do you not find it troubling that Kotmair is not more forthcoming with the facts on these rulings?
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Except they haven't actually updated anything as of this post - nothing since Sept 11th.
I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but the real scam is the legal
system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched,
constitutional argument.
but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument
Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
SAPF's webmaster is a volunteer who works for free so we can't be picky with the updates to the site, but as of this writing it has motions posted dating up to 12/19.
Ok, so why not just say they'll be updated when possible instead of asserting they've been done?
I frankly didn't think the stay would be issued so I'm happy for the good guys today.
I expected the stay to be approved for exactly the reasons given. To weigh the merits of clarifying/amending the injunction language.
There is nothing new in Kotmair's argument. There is no new reason for a new trial, there is only need for time for the government to submit their view of Kotmair's motion to modify the injunction (and new trial) and so the stay was expected. Kotmair will not likely prevail getting Nickerson recused. Kotmair had "his day in court" and chose to obstruct discovery and left himself open to summary judgement.
During trial Nickerson granted some of Kotmair's motions against the government (and rejected some of the governments more harsh motions), but the trial is over and on the court record there is (probably) little to which an appeals court would object. Nickerson does not have to start from scratch with every one of Kotmair's motions, just because Kotmair thinks so. That is not the way courts work.
That is the point of Nickerson citing Kotmair's foolish expectation that "just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid", because in fact when most or all courts do follow a course of conduct, that does make it valid. That is what courts are supposed to do. Establish a valid course of conduct and follow it. Courts do not reopen and retry every argument just because the defendant/plaintiff think it's new or wrong. Evidence that it is new or wrong must be submitted (or evidence that courts have been inconsistent), but Kotmair obstructed discovery and short-circuited his trial, and so if he had such evidence he failed to introduce it.
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that.
But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into.
For a claim to be valid, the member must have to the best of their ability resisted the IRS/taxing agency at every step and all actions must be initiated by the IRS or taxing agency.
Claims can not be submitted until after the member is charged or indicted and after they have spent their own money on their defense.
Benefit of $10,000 per criminal trial and $5,000 per criminal appeal to a maximum of $15,000.
Asserts to have "developed legal defenses for the protection of liberty and property" and "actions being proven successful" in that "concerted efforts can neutralize false evidence appearing real".
Fellowship members pledge to reimburse other members for loss of property in "illegal" IRS seizures or confiscations.
Every member assessed $10/claim no matter how large the membership, with assessed moneys being paidout to claimant, even if claimant receives a "profit" in excess of the seized/confiscated loss.
$99/year annual "participation" fee
Benefit under civil coverage is determined by "size of membership", minimally at $10/member up to a maximum $150,000 per civil claim (claim can not be submitted until after confiscation/seizure of real property, exclusive of paper assets (frozen or seized) held by banks, brokers, insurance co's, etc.)
Benefit under criminal coverage is apportioned to membership at $10/ member up to maximum $25,000/year per criminal claim (claim can not be submitted until after incarceration)
When assessed, members have 35 days to forward their assessed portion directly to the claimant member. Claimant member forwards envelopes from complying members to SAPF so that non-complying members can be terminated. No identification other than SAPF member ID number is used. Assessed members are to submit payments without using their own name or address, (but ostensibly they've been given the address of the claimant to whom the assessments are to be paid).
So, essentially, SAPF claims to have developed "successful legal defenses", which in fact the courts have held against SAPF, Kotmair and his son, are not valid and are not legally successful.
Regardless, SAPF members enter into an "agreement" whereby they pay $99/year every year to Kotmair/SAPF for the ability to "claim" a loss after an "illegal" IRS seizure or confiscation of real or personal property (specifically excludes paper assets or bank accounts), but they can only submit that claim after confiscation or incarceration (i.e. after the legal defense didn't work). Interesting catch-22 here is if the IRS seizure is "legal" (i.e. upheld by the courts) then the claim (resulting from following SAPF legal defenses and resisting the IRS at every step) would be disallowed.
Regardless, members are not legally bound to pay their share of the claimant's assessments (even though SAPF/Kotmair has in advance already received everyone's $99 annual fees under the agreement), and claimant has absolutely no assurance of his loss being covered, while he sits in jail or his home is held.
Taking a hypothetical estimate of SAPF's membership at 800+ clients, if every client paid in their assessed $10 that gives the claimant $8,000 which obviously won't make a dent in the losses of a siezed house (ignoring seized or frozen bank accounts and other paper assets) and won't make a dent in the legal defense costs which mount exponentially after indictment, seizure and/or incarceration, the only point at which SAPF claims may be filed.
Now the agreement prologue gives examples using 50,000 and 100,000 clients in SAPF's membership, whereby the benefit is estimated at $500K and implied to be $1M (respectively) to compensate for a loss due to confiscation/seizure of a house valued at say $300,000, for a $200K-700K profit (which you can bet the IRS will tax) depending on the size of membership. Another example actually portrays a hypothetical member claiming a $9,000 loss, receiving a $20,000 payout (from a hypothetical 2,000 members) for a "profit" of $11,000. But these examples ignore the agreement provisions which put a maximum of $150,000 per civil claim and $25,000/year per criminal claim, and further, that proof of value of seized property be submitted and verified.
What do you suppose is the point of excess-of-loss payout examples that the agreement language actually precludes?
But sticking with the 800+ membership, if the IRS further brings suit against just 10 more SAPF members, the assessment for claims on every member is now $100/year above and beyond the required annual "participation" renewal fee, and their SAPF membership costs will have doubled, all without any appreciable benefit in the claim awards. Each member's cost will have gone up 100% if the IRS sues 1.25% of SAPF members. What happens if the IRS sues 10% of the membership? 25% of the membership? And yet the $99 x 800 = $79,200 annual "participation fees" are collected by SAPF/Kotmair.
So SAPF members pay $99/year to Kotmair/SAPF in exchange for which they receive discredited and failed legal defense material, after using which their homes and cars are seized and after they themselves are indicted and maybe incarcerated, then they get to submit a claim for actual and limited losses (without any "profit") but for which there is no binding agreement to pay any benefit, and if the IRS sues more SAPF members the assessments increase almost exponentially for all members (assuming they stay in the fellowship and keep paying).
But you don't see a problem with this non-binding "insurance-like" arrangement?
Would you recommend that your mother, grandmother, youngest sister, whomever, pay into SAPF and rely upon its tax research for their filings and legal defense?