****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.
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.
Mighty bold talk from a one-eyed fat man. ;0)
BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves.
He told of how there are training sessions set up where 50 agents are brought together and told A, B and C about the tax code, etc., and the training ends there. But if they had gone a step further told the agents D, it would have invalidated everything they were told previously.
These lying scum who are directing this fraud (some of your lawyer buddies perhaps?) are even deceiving their own people. They deserve a rope, and nothing more. They train all of the professional CPAs, accountants, controllers, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in this system of plunder.
Is it any wonder that the judges go along with it all when the fraud is so pervasive? Besides, they know they would end up out in the cold if they oppose the bankers, so they go along with it. They have betrayed the rest of us and one day soon the other shoe will drop. Just be careful you do not end up under that boot when it does.
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.
Have you ever studied any of the positions of the Fellowship? I assure you it is based in factual reading of the law. And shows the misapplications of law by the IRS thugs and government attorneys.
I have not met Kotmair in person, but have had the pleasure of speaking to him on the phone a couple of times. I find him to be one of the most principled, honest and forthright men I've ever come in contact with. It helps, of course, to know his personal background, which I do.
John has been fighting corruption for a very long time, even since before he started the Fellowship.
Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger. Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger.
Why is it you never have anything other than insults and unverifiable personal assurances as your argument? Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you? BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you? Kept you out of court have they?
Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.
I assist executives of computer-tech companies perform due diligence on mergers and technology acquisitions. I also evaluate companies in which I might want to invest, or simply follow the arguments of companies suing each other (like IBM v SCO) or being sued by the SEC. All of which makes looking at public court records of company principals, patent suits, contract disputes, etc useful, and for a free PACER account at 8 pennies a page, it beats driving down to the court house and waiting in line to do the same thing with their computers.
But then, as experienced as you are, you knew all that didn't you... you were just testing me weren't you.
Why is it you never have anything other than insults
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you?
Allow me to relate to you a personal incident of mine from about 6 years ago.
When I came here to Missouri, the first place I got a job driving a truck was a small outfit with maybe 7 trucks. I told them when I applied that I would not provide a SSN and that they would not have to take any withholdings from me nor would they have to pay in their share of taxes.
To this end I provided the proper documents to fulfill the requirements under the Code for them requesting a number and not receiving one. At that time, employers were only required to request a number. They did not actually have to get one, and there is a procedure to follow with affidavits of transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue (in Philadelphia) so that all of the requirements of the Code are followed.
I got thos documents made up and paid for them myself, and I told the boss if ever there was a problem I would back him up on it, But, I told him to follow the instructions exactly. His daughter was doing the bookkeeping and she sent the affidavit and other paperwork to the regional office in KC. That was a mistake since it sent up a red flag with those know-nothing idiots.
The jerk agent kept calling and harrassing the daughter and sending her IRS publications and other literature (which is NOT the law) and making threats over the phone. When the boss told me of this, I told him the forms I gave him should have been sent to Philly, not KC. The main office in Philly handles international (between the several states and the USG) issues. The regional offices do not. This is where the problem arose. The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it.
I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared.
Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers. This response is time consuming enough right now. Suffice it to say that the agent was shut down because he was hit with the truth, the facts and the law. I just do not have this stuff on the tip of my tongue like others might. But, when I have the chance to discuss thigns with someone who knows these issues, I am able to carry on an intelligent conversation well enough.
If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.
And this was all done with help from SAPF staff, and the Nationsl Worker's Rights Committee. All of what they are doing is based on the facts and the law. And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me. That is conversion and theft, in case you didn't guess.
So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit.
BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you?
Fine up to now. Everything I have done so far has worked without bringing anything to court. But, we are cooking up some things which are sure to give our insolent and disobedient servants in government ulcers and sleepless nights. I have a case here now which was filed in Virgina which is going to be the template for what we are doing regarding private property rights issues. And, yes, our labor property is private until we contact it away. And we have a right to a return of that labor for something of value. It's just that those nasty FRNs are having less and less value all of the time. Would you like to buy some Liberty Dollars? LOL Didn't think so. ;0)
Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.
Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice. Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.
I found out about Pacer when I got an info packet from the federal court earlier this year. It would not be worthwhile for me to mess with it since I have nothing to keep up with, as you seem to for your gig. Eight cents per page view would only be good if it didn't amount to much. I'm taking donations if the Lord moves you. ;0)
you were just testing me weren't you.
Life is a test. Test, 1, 2, test. Just like the sound check at the concerts. Watch out for Pyro Pete. He has got some awesome boomers and you need to stay clear when they do the pyro check. ROTFLOL!
lol - I'm crushed. And I had such high expectations for your reply.
Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers.
Why am I not surprised. At least you didn't pretend the dog ate it.
If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.
The issue is not my doubting you, but rather your hypocrisy to criticise the facts posted by others while providing none yourself. But then there's not much else you can do, is there.
Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice.
I admit I doubted anyone actually paid for your tax advice, so I assumed it was given.
Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.
And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me.
Well it would seem you are a taxpayer, however unfair you might think it. Let me know when $5,000,000 in taxes is stolen from you. Then we'll talk.
#23. To: Starwind, noone222, Neil McIver (#22)(Edited)
Why am I not surprised.
Sorry, but you have no idea what I am dealing with over here. I simply do not have the time to dig out that material and find the proper references and post them here. You are lucky to get any reply at all. You should really be on the filter, but I at least give you a pass for now. :p
The fact remains that ALL of the research has been done and shown numerous times and is also available in material which may be obtained from Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.
Well it would seem you are a taxpayer
Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact.
You filing a return signifies that you are returning a portion of your earnings as an employment tax on a privelege. This would be significant if only to show that the tax is being grievously misapplied. But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered. Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact.
Well, based on your statements here alone, he either didn't believe in the legality of your non-withholding, or he in fact withheld improperly.
Either way, if your non-withholding theory is legal and correct (as you repeatedly claim) the law is on your side right? Why not have the IRS refund what should never have been withheld? After all, you were bold and confident earlier:
The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it. I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared.
They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right?
They'll probably write you a check and then just plain disappear again. 'Course depositing it without a bank account could be tricky, but maybe you could endorse it over to a check-cashing outlet for a factor.
I do have a rough idea of what you are dealing with 'there', and so you have the last word, unless you want me to debate it (I'm willing to take this as far as you want).
They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right?
You have confused two separate incidents with two different places I worked which happened at least 3 years apart.
When these IRS thugs get backed into a corner by presenting the facts and the law, they generally disappear. It's that simple. It does not always work that way when they get the levy ball rolling, but the way SAPF works, if you stay on point and are timely, you have the possibility of beating them at some point. Nothing is assured, of course, because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.