Posted on 01/04/2003 10:41:43 AM PST by churchillbuff
January 4, 2003
By Monte Morin, L.A. Times Staff Writer
Cruising Pacific Coast Highway in a Corvette convertible, wearing high heels, metallic eye shadow and leather pants, Lynne Meredith doesn't look much like a threat to the federal tax system.
But that's how IRS officials describe her, and once she starts talking, it's easy to understand their concern.
Meredith has made millions marketing the gospel of tax avoidance, the IRS says. Her message: You don't have to pay federal income taxes, ever. She preaches not to anti-government extremists but to suburbanites struggling to balance their household budgets. ....READ FULL ARTICLE AT LA TIMES
Can't argue with her there.
Those are the real victims of the income tax - middle class people who are taxed into debt to pay for all the wasteful government, including all the cushy benefits of government employees. IF you ask me, W's tax cuts don't go nearly far enough.
THIS IS THE PROPER LINK - - - can the moderator sub it for the incorrect one above?
They run one every January. This is an IRS general public warning.
What's extreme about being anti-government? I thought it was the norm.
Whatever the outcome, I would be concerned that objective justice may be somewhat hypothetical at the federal level.
http://www.quatloos.com/lynne_meredith_indicted_for_tax_fraud.htm
Seven individuals associated with a tax fraud group known as "We the People" and " Sovereignty Pure Trusts" were arrested this morning on various federal charges related to the promotion of bogus tax shelters that falsely promised to limit exposure to federal income taxes.
A federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Thursday returned a 35-count indictment that includes charges of conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and fraudulently using Social Security Numbers and passports.
The California residents arrested this morning are:
These defendants are expected to make their initial court appearances this afternoon in various federal courthouses in California.
According to the indictment, from October 1994 to November 2001, Meredith sold books and bogus trusts to people with the purpose of leading them to believe they could legally protect income and assets from taxation. The defendants allegedly encouraged and assisted taxpayers by forming phony trusts, opening bank accounts with phony Taxpayer Identification Numbers, filing fraudulent income tax returns and encouraging taxpayers not to file income tax returns.
We the People sold the "trusts" for approximately $500 at seminars that were held throughout the United States and internationally. To entice potential trust purchasers at seminars, Meredith represented that the trusts were "professional and affordable" and that each trust was customized with the "combined efforts of attorneys, paralegals, CPAs and other professional staff for its execution."
When purchasers complained about t he t rust s, We t he People - which was also known as Free the People, Sovereignty Pure Trusts and Liberty International - refused to issue refunds.
Meredith also encouraged taxpayers to file frivolous tax returns that, for example, accurately reported income but fraudulently requested a refund of all income taxes paid. The defendants also encouraged taxpayers to send protest correspondence to the IRS with the purpose of impeding and obstructing the IRS.
Meredith wrote books, including How To Cook A Vulture and Vultures In Eagle's Clothing, in which she falsely claimed that individuals could lawfully stop paying income taxes, stop their employer from withholding income taxes, and refuse to produce books and records to the IRS. The books contained examples of frivolous tax returns and protest letters.
From 1994 to 1997, according to the indictment, Meredith caused taxpayers to file fraudulent income tax returns with the IRS. Those fraudulent tax returns sought refunds for as much as $21,855, but the IRS did not issue any refund checks.
The indictment also alleges that Meredith earned more than $6.2 million from 1994 through 1999 as a result of the scheme. Meredith did not file a Federal income tax return during these years, and she did not pay any federal income taxes.
The indictment further alleges that six of the other defendants did not file nor pay any income taxes on income they earned in the scheme.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Tax Division, said: "The Department of Justice and the IRS are committed to stopping promoters of illegal tax schemes from selling false promises, obstructing lawful IRS functions and cheating honest taxpayers."
Michael S. Kochmanski, Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles Field Office of IRS-Criminal Investigation, stated: "Meredith misled numerous people into believing that the tax shelters she was selling would legally keep them from having to pay income taxes. Instead many of these people now find themselves owing back taxes, penalties and interest. The public should be wary of anyone who says that they have away to keep you from having to pay income taxes."
All seven defendants are charged with conspiracy and 11 counts of mail fraud (both charges carry potential five-year prison sentences). Meredith is additionally charged with two counts of false representation of a social security number (five-year maximum sentence), one count of passport fraud (potential 10-year sentence), and five counts of failing to file a tax return (each count carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison). Bybee is accused in three counts of failing to file; Giordano is named in two counts of failing to file; Watts faces three counts of failing to file; Erickson allegedly failed to file for three years; and Moore is named in three counts of failing to file.
The indictment names an eighth defendant in the case, Toni Smith Silva, 49, of Cypress, who is charged with one misdemeanor count of failing to file a tax return. Smith will be summoned to appear in court for an arraignment.
Today's arrests come two days after the Department of Justice and IRS filed a civil law suit against individuals in San Diego, Boston and Cincinnati for selling bogus trusts to hundreds of taxpayers. The IRS has been cracking down on promoters of abusive trusts by filing civil law suits and launching criminal investigations. On Thursday, IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti testified before the Senate Finance Committee that "identifying and combating actively promoted tax schemes was the IRS' highest compliance priority."
The case against the promoters of We the People and Sovereignty Pure Trusts is the result of a continuing investigation by IRS-Criminal Investigation. Victims who purchased trusts or books issued by this group are encouraged to contact IRS-Criminal Investigation at (949) 389-4466.
Additional Links
Busted for Bad Tax Advice --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/16/national/main506237.shtmlSeven Are Arrested in Alleged Tax Shelters Scheme -- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20020418-9999_1mc18taxbust.html
Trusts and the Untrustworthy: Patriots-for-Profit Exposed, by Mark Pitcavage, PhD -- http://www.adl.org/mwd/puretrust.asp
Which back taxes, penalties and interest are ruled upon by people whose paychecks come directly from said back taxes, penalties and interest, just like the old English vice-admiralty courts. ;-)
Which back taxes, penalties and interest are ruled upon by people whose paychecks come directly from said back taxes, penalties and interest, just like the old English vice-admiralty courts. ;-)
Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.
Furthermore:
1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. Their pay cannot be taken away from them.
2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.
3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.
4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.
Something is lacking in your analysis and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.
Your "analysis", that is. We had a Civil War in this country over the prior funding of the federal government (tariffs). Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding would go away and would have to be replaced under the bright light of public scrutiny. That would be an amusing spectacle!
Whether you like it or not, judges get paid from tax dollars. They rule on tax cases. Therefore, they have an inherent conflict-of-interest. Occam's razor, in its simplest form.
==========================
Oh, and you can drop your usual "cut and paste argument" tactics.
I never posted anything remotely resembling "If that were true, the protestation that taxes do not apply to you is non-sence. For those judges will be certain to make the tax law apply to you". This is a non-sequitur on your part.
I merely pointed out, correctly, that the judges are hopelessly comprised by a massive conflict-of-interest in this matter, and their "rulings" on tax cases are phony. Period.
I merely pointed out, correctly, that the judges are hopelessly comprised by a massive conflict-of-interest in this matter, and their "rulings" on tax cases are phony. Period.
And your unvarnished word is going to provide a legal defense. ROTFLMAO
We had a Civil War in this country over the prior funding of the federal government (tariffs).
Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding would go away
Dream on!!
By Pre CIVIL WAR Law:
Constitution for the United States of America:
James Madison, Federalist #39:
James Madison, Federalist #45:
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill
Consideration received for labor or product is commerce, a contract subject to duty or excise.
You're the kind of supercilious little swine that would have sneered the same crap at those who dared to dispute the Dred Scott decision. "But Taney has held that slaves (and even the free descendants of slaves) are not citizens and may not sue in the federal courts, and that Congress can not forbid slavery in the territories of the United States," cries ancient_geezer. "He is a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and we all must grovel in homage to his black-robed majesty!"
Sorry, pal - I'm not blinded by the man behind the curtain, unlike you. ;-)
====================
As for your lame Civil War "refutation" (cut and paste central!) - a few hundred thousand Americans died over a question you seem to consider settled BEFORE the Civil War.
Again, Occam's Razor says that you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the question is that simple.
Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding would go away.
should read:
Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding from the income tax would go away.
I guess I thought that such an outcome was a foregone conclusion, but you seem to need it spelled out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.