David Myrland arrested

[notorial dissent]

Well, with friends like Chris "Chappy" Chapman, how can things get much worse??? for our boy, well actually, probably a lot. I lost count, before I lost consciousness, but I think piece of drivel carts out most of the major "frivolous arguments" that have been shot down repeatedly in court like they were newly revealed brilliance, which just tells you how well that is going to fly.

Sounds more like Chappy has found a new con to get in to, since I can't see any lawyer wanting to continue in practice even giving that a first look.

[Famspear]

Myrland had been scheduled for release on December 20, 2013, but his release date has been changed to January 29, 2014.

He is inmate # 40941-086 at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota.

[Famspear]

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, David Myrland was released from prison on schedule yesterday, Wednesday, January 29, 2014.

[grixit]

Any chatter in the Sovsphere? Anyone taking up a collection for him, or at least asking after his health?

[bobhurt]

According to bop.gov, the bureau of prisons released Myrland on 11 March 2014. Now what?

I know Chris "Chappy" Chapman, and I like him. He may have made mistakes in the past but he seems like a good and sincere man now. He has a web site http://www.werus.us devoted to selling David Myrland's To-Congress Criminal Complaint AND Chappy's own audio ebook on "Breaking Your Presumptions of the IRS." Chappy does this to make a little money, of course, and because he's a true believer that ordinary US Citizens owe no income tax, etc.

While Quatloosians might want to show their traditionally pithy scorn for Chappy, they ought to recall the strangling murder of Portland OR federal public defender Nancy Bergeson the very night after a jury convicted Marcel Roy Bendshadler, whom the grand jury had indicted along with Cajun Mike Mungovan, Richard Fusilier, Joseph Saladino, and Richard Ort. The DOJ tried but failed to get Chappy indicted, because he was one of their associates. I believe that's because he actually went to visit the Orlando FL grand jury and challenged them with his 4 USC 72 argument that the IRS has no permission from Congress to operate any offices in the several states, and therefore they have no authority over him from the local office. And of course he presented other views to them to which he did not make me privy. It seems crystal clear to me that either the DOJ or IRS had Nancy murdered because she vowed to get to the bottom of the skulduggery behind the wrongful conviction of her client Marcel. And maybe the grand jury that indicted those defendants got fed a line of hooey by the US Attorney, and Saladino and his associates did not sell an abusive tax evasion program at all. And maybe the IRS and DOJ did not want a snoopy bitch public defender digging around in their dirt. God knows what would happened if she had uncovered that the IRS had suborned both the jurors and the judge.

I find it strange that Quatloosians went silent over Nancy's murder, and didn't clamor over the sweeping that has since shoved it under the rug. I, for one, did NOT go silent about it as some of you might recall. Her murderer is still at large, apparently.

Anyway, I wondered, when Chappy first told me about Myrland's criminal complaint to Congress, what he hoped to achieve with it, aside from earning money by charging people to join it. Maybe Congress has forgotten all about it during his years of incarceration.

Have any of you read it? What do you think of his supporting memorandum?

http://www.werus.us/Dave/01fMEMORANDUM-58pg.pdf

I consider David Myrland a Kool-Aid drinker for that ridiculous stunt he pulled that got him convicted and imprisoned for years. To me that means he will probably continue to monger patriot myths and try to make a living from it. If he feels strongly against income taxes the way he felt about his right to drive without a license or plate, then maybe he should team up with Luis Ewing and run for Congress.

[LPC]

While Quatloosians might want to show their traditionally pithy scorn for Chappy, they ought to recall the strangling murder of Portland OR federal public defender Nancy Bergeson the very night after a jury convicted Marcel Roy Bendshadler, whom the grand jury had indicted along with Cajun Mike Mungovan, Richard Fusilier, Joseph Saladino, and Richard Ort. [...] It seems crystal clear to me that either the DOJ or IRS had Nancy murdered because she vowed to get to the bottom of the skulduggery behind the wrongful conviction of her client Marcel.

I think maybe you've got the tin foil wrapped too tight.

[wserra]

I think maybe you've got the tin foil wrapped too tight.

And it has been that way for the five years since we first discussed this. Can't be good for you.

OTOH, I'm glad to see that, even though bob has no more facts than he did five years ago, he holds steadfast to yet another conspiracy that makes no sense. Hang in there, bob.

[The Observer]

It seems crystal clear to me...

And maybe the grand jury...

And maybe the IRS and DOJ...

God knows what would happened if she had uncovered...

Bob, all of the above indicates that you don't have any proof or evidence. I would suggest that your conspiracy theory is anything but "crystal clear".

But since you have established the bar for alleging conspiracy, let me swing in with my "conspiracy theory" about who might have murdered Ms. Bergeson. Maybe it was one of the kool-ade drinkers out there who was at odds with how Ms. Bergeson had conducted her defense of Benshadler. And maybe it was a sovereign citizen who decided that Ms. Bergeson had to pay with her life for failing to keep Benshadler from being convicted. And maybe it was a paytriot who got was insulted that Bergeson refused to use the kool-ade "legal" strategies that he or she was insisting should have been used in the courtroom. And maybe, just maybe, the fact that the trial was held in the presence of a gold-fringed US flag just set off any one of the idiots in the tax protester community to murder Bergeson.

Or maybe it was some article posted by bobhurt that kept alleging that Chapman was a victim of government conspiracy that finally incited one of readers to go off the deep end and strangle that poor woman. Did that "maybe" occur to you, bobhurt?

[notorial dissent]

I don't know if Bobby's foil is wrapped too tight or if he is too loosely wrapped, I'm not sure it matters.

And Chapman's nonsense is just that. The first few paragraphs alone were enough to convince me that I was wading in to complete nonsense.

Nice try Bobby, but still no cookie.

And as far as your current pet conspiracy theory, let's go with pure unadulterated horse hockey, rather like all the rest of your suppositions and fantasies, it fits the facts and reality so very much better. I would hate for you to be inconsistent.

[Lambkin]

It seems even more likely that a convicted former client of this public defender had a grudge.

[Famspear]

.....Chappy does this to make a little money, of course, and because he's a true believer that ordinary US Citizens owe no income tax, etc.

In other words, he's a nut ball.

...The DOJ tried but failed to get Chappy indicted, because he was one of their associates. I believe that's because he actually went to visit the Orlando FL grand jury and challenged them with his 4 USC 72 argument that the IRS has no permission from Congress to operate any offices in the several states, and therefore they have no authority over him from the local office......

And I believe that every beautiful, large breasted woman in the United States over the age of 18 finds me to be irresistible.

[Famspear]

.....The DOJ tried but failed to get Chappy indicted, because he was one of their associates. I believe that's because he actually went to visit the Orlando FL grand jury and challenged them with his 4 USC 72 argument that the IRS has no permission from Congress to operate any offices in the several states.....

No, that never happened Bob. And that dumber that dumb-*ss argument didn't work for David Myrland, either. For example, Myrland tried that stupidity without success in in his own personal bankruptcy. See In re Myrland, 209 B.R. 524 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1997):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 96&scilh=0

And, see the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in another case:

.....the Hugheses [Richard and Joan Hughes] argue that the IRS has no authority outside of Washington, D.C. To support this contention, they rely on 4 U.S.C. § 72, which states that "[a]ll offices attached to the seat of governments shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law." This section does not foreclose the exercise of authority by the IRS outside the District of Columbia. The President is authorized to establish internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws, and these districts can be created outside of Washington, D.C. See 26 U.S.C. § 7621. Furthermore, as we have held, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have the authority to delegate tax collecting power to local IRS officers and employees throughout the country.

--from Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992), at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 44&scilh=0

Of course, the geographical IRS districts were eliminated pursuant to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998), but the result under 4 USC section 72 is the same today: the IRS has authority throughout the United States.

[Famspear]

Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley also tried to use the "4 USC 72" argument to avoid long prison sentences:

Defendants [Lindsey Kent Springer and Oscar Amos Stilley] first contend they committed no crimes because no government entity exists outside of Washington, D.C. with the lawfully delegated authority to collect taxes or enforce federal tax laws. As we understand their argument, defendants believe the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to collect taxes only within the territorial limits of Washington, D.C. See Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 10 (citing 4 U.S.C. § 72 ("All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.")). To accommodate this geographic restriction, defendants contend, Congress granted the President, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7621, the power to establish internal revenue districts, headed by district directors, to exercise the Treasury Secretary's authority beyond Washington. See Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 8-9. However, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 ("RRA"), Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, which, among other things, abolished internal revenue districts and district directors. See Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 11 (citing the RRA and asserting that "[w]ithout [internal revenue districts and district directors] there could never have been any proper delegation of authority outside the District of Columbia from the [Treasury] Secretary to any U.S. Attorney."). Consequently, defendants claim, there is no legally authorized entity to collect taxes or enforce the tax laws, and no criminal offense stemming from their failure to pay taxes. See id. ("Without [internal revenue districts and district directors] the indictment failed to allege an offense in all Six Counts because no law required Springer to deliver any Form 1040 . . . to any place required by law." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

These types of spurious delegation arguments were rejected as frivolous before the RRA was enacted, see, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990), and they have been rejected as frivolous since, see, e.g., United States v. Ford, 514 F.3d 1047, 1053 (10th Cir. 2008). The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 6091(a) to promulgate regulations prescribing "the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement or other document." Internal revenue districts are "now defunct," Allnutt v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 406, 408 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008), but 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-2(a) requires individuals to file returns with "any person assigned the responsibility to receive returns at the local Internal Revenue Service office that serves the legal residence. . . of the person required to make the return." Otherwise, if so instructed, individuals or corporations must file returns with a specifically designated internal revenue service center. Id. § 1.6091-2(c).

In short, defendants' delegation argument is patently frivolous.

--United States v. Springer, Nos. 10-5055, 10-5057, 10-5156, 11-5053, 444 F. App'x 256, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (October 26, 2011) (per curiam).

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... s_sdt=3,44

The convictions were upheld.

Lindsey Kent Springer is projected to be released from prison in May of 2023.

Oscar Amos Stilley's projected release date is July of 2023.

[Famspear]

Similarly, in a Federal District Court in South Dakota:

Equally spurious is Ehrman's [Raymond Ehrman, one of the litigants] contention that "Title 4, Section 72, clearly limits who, how, when, why and where [IRS] Agents can act for the United States of America outside the area known as the District of Columbia." (Filing 35 at 3, ¶ 6) This statute provides that "[a]ll offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law." 4 U.S.C. § 72.

--from United States v. Kuyper, et al., No. 4:11CV4170, U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota (May 29, 2012), at:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... s_yhi=2012

EDIT: Link to case added.

[notorial dissent]

So, to put it in simple English for you Bobby, just another tissue of lies, fabrications, false quotes, and utter nonsense leading no where, well, except to jail for the parties concerned. Chapman is a fool and a really poor conman, and you're just a gullible fool, like you've always been.

We've been down this same goat trail with you before Bobby, and it never ends any differently.

[LPC]

Anyway, I wondered, when Chappy first told me about Myrland's criminal complaint to Congress, what he hoped to achieve with it, aside from earning money by charging people to join it. Maybe Congress has forgotten all about it during his years of incarceration.

Have any of you read it? What do you think of his supporting memorandum?

http://www.werus.us/Dave/01fMEMORANDUM-58pg.pdf

I followed my usual method and read until I came to the first piece of errant nonsense. In this case, it was on page 2, first paragraph, containing the first citation to any authority:

1.2 The United States has admitted tacitly (See Jim L. Walden v. United States, et al., #A-05-CA-444-LY, U.S. Dist. Court, Austin, TX, Tab #8 Protective Order) that Title 26 USC's provisions do not provide for any contact between the Internal Revenue Service and the Petitioner.

I checked the docket of that case on PACER, and the only protective order that was issued was issued against Walden, to prohibit him from conducting any discovery against the United States. That was followed two months later by a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

In other words, the United States government was protected from harassment through frivolous discovery proceedings until it could get the frivolous complaint dismissed, which it did.

The government "admitted tacitly" absolutely nothing.

And I don't need to eat the entire apple to know that it's rotten, so what I think of Myrland's "supporting memorandum" is that it's all rotten.

[Jeffrey]

Gonna bump this thread with a question, David Myrland is Sir David Andrew?

[bobhurt]

Just a few comments.

First, Thank you for the citations on 4 USC 72, etc.

Second, thanks for keeping your comments graciously pithy. If you start feeling bored, you can go dish out some real snark with the loathsomely sarcastic sophists at fogbow.

Third, I believe Myrland keeps a low profile these days and purveys his congressional criminal complaint. I get the idea that those who join it hope to use the joining as proof that they don't willfully violate the law by failing to file tax returns. And he seems to hold the position that 26 USC 83 equates wages to the market value of the respective service performed, and so wages don't constitute taxable income. So I guess that means he doesn't agree with the court opinions saying otherwise.

Fourth, I believe all of us wear tinfoil hats of one kind or another. Unless your life is a sham, you hold dear your own array of supreme values and believe the whole universe should embrace them. Most who embrace patriot myths do so because they believe they cannot trust government employees, particularly elected and appointed officials, most particularly lawyers, to remain loyal to their oaths to support the constitutions of the US and their state. Or, at best, one's own definition of "support the constitution" seems to run the gamut from "just doing my job, man" to abject criminality and treason. Furthermore, for very good reason, most lawyers refuse to teach, or even to talk to, the patriots who most need patient instruction. Such truth-hungry patriots fumble for resources, don't know what to trust, and when Dave Myrland, Barton Buhtz, Roger Elvick, Sam Kennedy, Winston Shrout, Tim Turner, and their ilk come along with the "sure-fire genuine simulated" solution, the patriots forego a study of actual case law (not that they believe the judges necessarily opine rightly, particularly when judges so broadly disagree with one another on so many issues), and start listening to the myth mongers. You deride them for wearing tinfoil hats because theirs seem to contain so much more tinfoil than your own, but what effort do you make to heal their delusion and ignorance? Quatloos is your effort? Well, I have to admit that it seems better than saying nothing. I have discovered that Quatloosians more or less willingly engage in dialogue with me, albeit spitefully, and while I don't enjoy being the target of efforts to humiliate me, I realize that most Quatloosians are covertly hostile and supercilious, and simply cannot help it. Lest you think me unfair in such a pronouncement, take a look at attorney Larry Becraft's efforts to inform the ignorant. He puts much more effort into informing than in denouncing, other than lambasting the specific sources and purveyors of patriot myths. So, I thank you for the gracious dialogue, since I know it makes you feel like a duck out of water.

Fifth, those of you who know I have published my comments at the Google Lawmen group since 1 May 2006 might also know that I have backed way off from supporting tax protester theories and mortgage foreclosure defense, and I strongly encourage my subscribers to learn the law, learn to look up and rely upon appellate opinions, and to shun patriot myths and the mongers thereof. For example, you might appreciate this comment on the video of a redemption theorist in criminal court before a judge with saintly patience. You might also appreciate the effort I have put into showing people how to beat the bottom feeders in the mortgage lending industry.

Really? No, not really. I don't expect any of you EVER to appreciate my efforts to encourage and inform my fellows. But I do it anyway.

[Duke2Earl]

The key point is they don't appreciate your efforts. I gave up trying to cure delusion and insanity by internet after not only finding it ineffective but receiving personal threats. But if you enjoy it....feel free....

[Famspear]

....And he [Myrland] seems to hold the position that 26 USC 83 equates wages to the market value of the respective service performed, and so wages don't constitute taxable income.....

Hello, Bob, it's been a while.

I realize that you don't speak for Myrland, and he isn't here to speak for himself. That said, if that's his position about section 83, that's pretty bizarre (no surprise, of course).

If section 83 equates wages to the market value of the service performed, then obviously wages DO constitute taxable income.

Section 83 reads, in part:

If, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of—

(1) the fair market value of such property (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) at the first time the rights of the person having the beneficial interest in such property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over

(2) the amount (if any) paid for such property,

shall be included in the gross income of the person who performed such services....

(emphasis added).

Myrland might be trying to read section 83 as though the last portion of the text were as follows:

shall NOT be included in the gross income of the person who performed such services....

Of course, it doesn't say that.

Alternatively, he might be making some stupid assumption about the meaning of the phrase "the amount (if any) paid for such property".

Many of the tax protesters do have the false idea that an individual "pays" for or has "basis" in his own labor because he has to pay for the food he eats, etc., etc. Maybe that's what he's hung up on; I don't know.

If you are simply providing a service for someone and you gave no money or non-monetary asset in exchange for the money (or other property) you RECEIVE in connection with the provision of that service, then by definition there is simply no "amount paid for" the property you RECEIVE. Thus, the amount that is subtracted from the fair market value of the property you RECEIVE is zero, which of course, means that the amount you include in gross income is simply the fair market value of the property you receive.

Simple example: Assume that you perform a service in the form of labor for Joe Schmo in exchange for $10,000 worth of cabbage patch dolls, and that you transfer NOTHING to Joe Schmo. All you do is provide the labor. Under the tax law, the amount you have PAID for the cabbage patch dolls is ZERO. Therefore, the amount you include in your gross income is $10,000 (i.e., $10,000 minus zero equals $10,000).

If at the moment you receive the $10,000 worth of cabbage patch dolls, there is no restriction on your ownership of the dolls, and if your rights in the dolls are fully transferable and are not subject to any substantial risk of forfeiture, then you have realized $10,000 of income at that moment.


EDIT: Corrected the phrase "...if your rights in the dollars are fully transferable...." to read what I actually intended to say, which was: "if your rights in the dolls [i.e., the cabbage patch dolls] are fully transferable..."