WND Exclusive THE POWER TO DESTROY IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 7/26/2007 | Bob Unruh

[zeugma]

What will end up happening is that Congress will simply pass a statute defining "wages" as "income" and that will be that.

You'd think so, but they haven't seen to do so over the past almost hundred years. I think there is a reason they've not done so (probably connected with the various foundations set up immediately prior to the passage of the income tax to shelter the assets of the super-wealthy), but I've not yet discerned exactly what the reasons is.

[AntiScumbag]

but they haven't seen to do so over the past almost hundred years

You're kidding, right? Have you read 26 USC 61?

In case you haven't, here's the pertinent part which illustrates how totally delusional your "wages aren't income" bunk is:

Section 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

See how that works? Wages are "compensation for services." They are taxable as gross income and always have been. There is no court decision that has held otherwise in almost 100 years.

Why do you think that you know something that nobody else, other than idiot tax protesters, "knows" and if there is any such thing, why hasn't some smart, well-paid lawyer figured this out in the service of their many wealthy client?

[TBP]

Here is a source of much interesting and valuable information on this ssue:

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/

[editor-surveyor]

"Essentially, he convinced a jury that he was too stupid to understand what 99.9% of the public understands. It only works once, because now he is on notice that he has to file."

That truly is rubbish!

He proved to the satisfaction of the jury (the same jury that had been instructed bt the judge that ignorance and misperception are no excuse) that there exists no statute that requires an individual to pay taxes on the exchange of his services for cash. Why do you wish to deceive?

[AntiScumbag]

Here is a source of much interesting and valuable information on this ssue:

LOL. Did you mean a source of lies and disinformation? Kotmair and his scam are under a federal injunction. From the DOJ site:

MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006

FEDERAL COURT ORDERS HALT TO INTERNET-BASED TAX-FRAUD SCHEME

Maryland Man Operated Frivolous Letter-Generating “Complex”

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal court in Baltimore has permanently barred John Baptist Kotmair, Jr., of Westminster, Md., and his organization, “Save-a-Patriot Fellowship,” from selling a tax-fraud scheme, the Justice Department announced today. The court described Kotmair as a “seasoned tax protestor,” stated it was without question that he is “violating the tax laws,” and described his representations about the tax laws as “clearly fraudulent.”

The court’s opinion states that Kotmair and his organization knowingly made false and fraudulent statements to their customers about the tax benefits of their schemes. According to Senior Judge William Nickerson’s opinion, Kotmair, in 1984, shortly after serving two years in prison for failure to file income tax returns, began promoting the position that U.S. citizens need not pay any taxes on income earned within the 50 states – a view, according to the court, that has come to be known as the Section 861 argument. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) refers to this section in its “Dirty Dozen” list of most notorious tax scams: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154293,00.html.

[snip]

Kotmair is appealing. He will lose.

[AntiScumbag]

He proved to the satisfaction of the jury (the same jury that had been instructed bt the judge that ignorance and misperception are no excuse) that there exists no statute that requires an individual to pay taxes on the exchange of his services for cash.

You don't have a single clue, do you?

What the jury decided was that he really, really, really believed his delusion. That is what a "Cheek" defense is.

The judge's Cheek instruction to the jury regarding good faith belief and willfulness was precisely the opposite of what you claim. The good faith belief doesn't even have to be reasonable. Believe it or not, juries don't decide what the law is, judges do. Juries make decisions about facts. The only fact at issue here was willfulness, a necessary element of the charged crime, willful failure to file.

What's funny is that John Cheek, whose U.S. Supreme Court case (498 U.S. 192) is the reason that the "Cheek" defense against willfulness exists, was convicted when he was retried, his conviction was upheld on appeal and he did time in prison. Plus he got to pay all of the tax due, plus penalties, interest and his lawyers for two trials and three appeals. Real smart guy, huh?

[TBP]

He makes very similar claims to what this fellow claims, that the Federal government has no justification for imposing the income tax on American citizens. So if this guy is a winner, then Kotmair is a winner too.

The IRS knows that he is telling the truth. That is why they’re trying to shut him down. I really don’t understand why you hate him.

[Constantine XIII]

Nope. :p

[TBP]

Believe it or not, juries don't decide what the law is, judges do. Juries make decisions about facts.

Not true. Jury nullification is a time-honored part of our legal system. One of our most basic freedoms, freedom of the press, was secured and protected by an act of jury nullification in Colonial times.

John Peter Zenger was accused of printing articles critical of the King. There was no question that he had done so. But a jury of his peers found that he had every right to do so and acquitted. That was just one of many cases.

Juries are not required to interpret teh law the way the judge tells tehm; they are quite free to interpret it in the way that they believe correct, regardless of what they are told.

[TBP]

From the article about Mr. Cryer:

“But for the rest of the nation, he’s working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.”

[AntiScumbag]

So if this guy is a winner, then Kotmair is a winner too.

Kotmair is a convicted tax cheat. Cryer escaped prison, but he still owes tax, penalties and interest. They're both losers.

The IRS knows that he is telling the truth. That is why they’re trying to shut him down. I really don’t understand why you hate him.

What planet are you on? The IRS knows Kotmair is a scammer. And, why do you assume I hate him? I'm merely pointing out facts.

Jury nullification

Except that this wasn't nullification, this was a Cheek "I'm too stupid to understand the law" defense.

he’s working with Save-a-Patriot

Birds of a feather.

Don't be surprised if Cryer is prosecuted for willful failure to file for years other than the two in this case. He has apparently filed to file returns for at least 10 years. In the IRS prosecutes again, it is unlikely he will find another jury dumb enough to swallow his "I really, really didn't think I had to file" BS.

[AntiScumbag]

Kotmair is appealing. He will lose.

Just for the record, he lost.

Release Date: JULY 26, 2007

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01297-WMN)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Kotmair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se; George E. Harp, Shreveport, Louisiana, for Appellant SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, an unincorporated association. Richard Farber, Carol Ann Barthel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John B. Kotmair, Jr., and Save-A-Patriot Fellowship appeal from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and issuing a permanent injunction against them based on their activities in promoting a tax evasion scheme, and denying their motions for a new trial and for modification of the injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kotmair, No. 1:05-cv-01297-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2006; Feb. 7, 2007). We deny Save-A-Patriot's motion to strike portions of the brief filed by the United States, and 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

Kotmair can ask for an en banc re-hearing of the appeal. If he does, it will be denied. He can then petition the U.S. Supreme Court. If he does, the response will be "Cert denied." And that will be the end of that.

Meanwhile, the stay of the injunction granted by the trial court pending the appeal which Kotmair just lost means that Kotmair and SAPF will now have to comply with all of the terms of the injunction, which include posting a copy of it on the SAPF website.

And another TP loser bites the dust.

[SeaHawkFan]

Terabitten What will end up happening is that Congress will simply pass a statute defining "wages" as "income" and that will be that.

You'd think so, but they haven't seen to do so over the past almost hundred years. I think there is a reason they've not done so (probably connected with the various foundations set up immediately prior to the passage of the income tax to shelter the assets of the super-wealthy), but I've not yet discerned exactly what the reasons is.

The reason is rather obvious: If Congress were to now define "wages" and "income", it would be an admission that all previously collected taxes were not supported by law and individuals would be entitled to the refund of those monies. Those in the government obviously realize that it is better to let a sleeping dog alone.