Now wait a damn minute. To the best of my knowledge Schultz has NEVER asked for money for the information that he has put out. He has asked for help in paying for the ads. You got a problem with that??!!
To the best of my knowledge Schultz has NEVER asked for money for the information that he has put out.
No just one continuous call for donations.
That of course doesn't even begin to cover the expections of those he front's for like, [ IRWIN SCHIFF ];
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.
And one of IRWIN SCHIFF's super amazing "FREE" OFFERs on his Very Own Site:
("Free electricty for life")
"If you decide to keep the kit we thank you by registering you to receive all of your electricity for free forever at such time as we can accomplish this and deliver our machine to your home."
Signature: "
The IRWIN SCIFF who used this Brown Case until it went totally belly up and defunct on him, because it no longer provided him with support for his GET A REFUND SCAM!! and still sell the documentation he wrote on it as being reasonable arguments in a courtroom
And John Kotmair with his organization for S.A.P's (how appropriately named)
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:
- "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
- ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
- (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
- ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
- (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
- (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
- Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
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, he operated 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.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.
I know, he jess didn't follow your precise instructions!!
Or Bannister and Conklin who just never seem to really get it right, but it sure doesn't keep them from selling their books and material to the gullible as well:
We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education (Robert L. Schulz) ran the ad:
"Robert Schulz, chairman of the Foundation, and Joseph Banister, a former special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (accompanied by a videographer) delivered copies of the Remonstrance to designated officials of the three branches."
Robert L. Shultz is a pro-se litigant, who looses alot and apparently has no particular claim to fame other than he files frivolous civil rights cases and looses, one good example that is found on the web: http://law.touro.edu/2ndCircuit/December96/s96-76250.html.
The only case mentioned in the Shultz's ad was:
"The [5th Amendment] privilege protects against compelled
testimonial communications?."
U.S. v Conklin (1994), WL 504211 (10th Cir. Colo)"
Since the ad, there does not appear to be much follow up, the ad itself appear to be more a leader into Shultz's organization which is hawking for "contributions" and selling Conklin's book.
What Conklin and "We The People Foundation" don't provide in this partial and out of context quote:
" Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him. "
Claiming a victory which did not occur, as is Conklin's normal condition and apparently Shultz's as well:
WILLIAM T. CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 89 N 1514
Filed May 2, 1994Plaintiff William T. Conklin is a "known tax protestor like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington," to use the self-description contained in "PLaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Govt's [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment" (filed Dec. 11, 1989). He filed this action to get a refund of the $75 he paid towards a $500 penalty assessed by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return. His basic position appears to be two-fold. First, he claims, he did not sign the return because he was advised that he could not do so without waiving his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; rather, he gave the IRS a power of attorney to sign the return, if this could be accomplished without a waiver of such rights. See generally "Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded)" (filed Sept. 5, 1989). Second, since he "did not sign the return, [he] did not file it" and cannot, therefore, be penalized for "filing" a frivolous return. United States' Mem. in Supp. of the Renewed Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. E (letter from plaintiff to IRS dated Aug. 9, 1989) (filed Oct. 2, 1990). He also claims that numerous procedural gaffes on the part of the IRS preclude imposition of the penalty.
At the beginning, we see how this thing is going. Shall we continue? A little more ... [skipping some boring stuff]
With this general background in mind, I turn to plaintiff's specific contentions. He first asserts that his refusal to sign his 1987 Form 1040 is proper on the ground that his signature would amount to a waiver of his fifth amendment rights. This is not the law. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1985). In Betz, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Government where a taxpayer sought a refund of the "frivolous return" penalty in 26 U.S.C.A. section 6702 (West 1989), assessed against him after he filed a return without providing any information on which tax liability could be computed. Plaintiff's argument in Betz, like Conklin's argument in this case, was a general Fifth Amendment objection to the tax return. According to the Tenth Circuit, it is "well-settled that the Fifth Amendment general objection is not a valid claim of constitutional privilege." Betz, 753 F.2d at 835. Not only did the Tenth Circuit affirm summary judgment, but the court went on to award attorney fees and double costs against the plaintiff for filing a legally frivolous appeal."[T]his Court has imposed sanctions where this broad Fifth Amendment privilege has been asserted." Id.
Although Conklin did provide enough information to calculate his taxes (unlike Betz, who provided no information), another court has found that the deliberate failure to sign a return constitutes furnishing legally insufficient information under the frivolous return penalty provision. In Schneider v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 611 (E.D. Mich. 1984), the failure to sign a tax return, even though the return was accurate in all other respects, was held to warrant the imposition of the $500 penalty for a frivolous tax return.
Plaintiff argues that his classification by the IRS as an illegal tax protester justifies invocation of his fifth amendment privilege. This classification, he claims, is a clear signal that he is "confronted by substantial and `real', and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S. Ct. 697, 705 (1968). Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him.
Plaintiff's argument that there were no OMB numbers on the assessment forms, Compl. paragraph 18, is factually incorrect, and his later argument that OMB numbers were incorrect is legally irrelevant, as is his challenge to the assessment procedure. His argument that he was not mailed a copy of the assessment within sixty days is undercut by the fact that he attached a copy of the notice he alleges he never received as Exhibit 9 to the Complaint. See United States' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for an Order Deferring Consideration of the United States' Mot. for Summ. J. at 2. I have also reviewed all of plaintiff's other arguments. I do not believe that the case law supports those arguments. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Government's motions for summary judgment filed August 31, 1990, and October 2, 1990, are GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed August 9, 1990, is DENIED.
3. All other motions are denied as moot.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 1994.
BY THE COURT:
EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM
United States District Judge
Found this at nettaxs.com, Under their FAQ page regarding Conklin
"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.
Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "
I Recommend reading Otto Skinner's research into Bannister, and Conklin. Gives a good summary of the Conklin cases and he will even send you copies of the case filings and judgements for your own review for the cost of printing and mailing them to you.
http://ottoskinner.com/a-banister.html
"Now let's get back to Banister's book. On page 8, he states:
- In order to understand Conklin's victory, ...
Two paragraphs down, he states:
- Conklin's victories focused my attention on the fact that American taxpayers, without realizing it, apparently waive their 5th Amendment rights every time they submit information on their federal tax returns.
What victory? What victories? I believe that what should be apparent to any CID agent, is that the Fifth Amendment argument as an excuse for not filing tax returns has been failing individuals since long before 1980.
On page 11, Banister discusses another Conklin case (not one of the cases listed above) where Conklin had filed unsigned returns and was hit with a $500 penalty for filing a frivolous return. (Study 26 U.S.C. 6702 and you will understand the reason for the $500 penalty.) Banister states:
- Conklin even gave the Internal Revenue Service a power of attorney to sign the returns for him if they could do so without waiving his 5th Amendment rights.
This may sound impressive, but I do not believe any IRS person has the authority to sign a return that an individual submits; with or without a power of attorney. (In my opinion, to expect an IRS person to sign such a document is down right stupid.)
Banister goes on to say that Conklin sued in federal court, and that Judge Nottingham eventually ruled against him. This Conklin loss is apparently supposed to mean that Conklin proved his Fifth Amendment argument. Is the reader supposed to believe that a loss is a win? That a loss is a victory? I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of double speak within the patriot community.
In his book, Banister refers to Bill Conklin's book, Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. At page 38 of this book, Conklin is discussing Tavery v. United States, 32 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1994). Tavery (Conklin's spouse) was arguing that information on her tax return should not have been used in Conklin's contempt of court case regarding his eligibility for appointment of counsel. Both the district court and the appellate court ruled against her.
Still at page 38, Conklin states:
- It is clear in this particular situation that Ms. Tavery waived her Fifth Amendment protected rights when she filed the tax return and disclosed the information that the government allowed into evidence. Could the government have used Ms. Tavery's tax return information against her if she had been compelled to submit it? Of course not, if the Fifth Amendment means anything.
Good grief! What kind of sophistry is this? The Fifth Amendment states:
- No person shall be " compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
This means that no person can be required to provide evidence that would tend to incriminate him, and which could be used against him in a criminal case.
Hello. Anybody home? The information was used against Tavery in a civil case and not a criminal case. No information was being used against anyone in a criminal case. Certainly no information was being used against Tavery in any criminal case. And providing she had not supplied false information on her return, or supplied any self-incriminating evidence of some other kind of criminal act, she had not incriminated herself. Since she did not supply information that would tend to incriminate her (in other words, she did not provide information that might get her convicted for a crime), she did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights, contrary to what Conklin claims.
At page 31 of his book, Conklin states:
- I am a Communication Expert and have made an extensive study of the morpho-syntax of English. I have a Master's Degree from the University of Colorado in Communications and I have over fourteen years of experience teaching English and Communications at the elementary, junior-high, high school, and college levels.
Give me a break! Does Conklin not understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? Does he not understand the difference between incriminating evidence and information that is not incriminating? (Maybe I should be glad that I only have a Bachelor of Science degree and actually struggled with English, my one and only language.)
I know a lot of people have been led to believe in this Fifth Amendment argument. But these people do not bother to actually study the cases upon which the promoters supposedly rely. By simply believing what someone says a case says has landed a lot of people in jail. Most of these promoters are quite clever at leading people down a primrose path to legally invalid conclusions.
Who are some of the other people who have not only promoted the same kind of flawed information about the Fifth Amendment that Conklin has, but who are also promoting Joe Banister as if he is a wonderful addition to the freedom movement?"
There is alot more but I'm sure you will get the picture.
Go shopping it helps defer the out of pocket costs
My favorite are the jackets
But while were chatting, I thought you might be the perfect person to let in on a special deal that I can arrange. I am forming a limited partnership to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge. I can let you get in on the ground floor. All you need to do is cover my intial expenses. Interested ?