New edition of "Idiot Legal Arguments"

[fortinbras]

As some of you already know, I am the author of a compilation titled "Idiot Legal Arguments", first posted on the internet in 1995 by Militia Watchdog. I have been working on an updated edition of this compilation and it's almost completed and now I am eagerly looking for an existing website that would sponsor it.

Originally, it was posted on The Militia Watchdog, in 1995, as was intended, since the Militia Watchdog was exactly the venue I wanted. But a few years later the Watchdog and its website were all taken over by the Anti-Defamation League, which continued to post the compilation, for which I am grateful, but I felt that the ADL had pre-existing baggage that tended to distract or confuse the readership audience of my compilation. The Militia Watchdog shut down completely last year and now I am looking for a home for the much expanded compilation. Someone associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center expressed an interest but I have heard no more from SPLC and it also has some baggage.

I was hoping for a law enforcement or legal venue. If anyone can suggest (especially if they have some connection to) a website that might be willing to offer the revised version, Please let me know.

[Demosthenes]

What about Daryl Johnson's website for law enforcement?

dtanalytics.org

Feel free to use me as a referral if you contact him.

[fortinbras]

Well, I wasn't really looking to have people pile on complaints about the ADL or SPLC. Just help me find a website willing to post my stuff (figure more than twice the bulk of the 1995 edition).

[Lambkin]

Thanks for writing the update, I look forward to the new version.

If it were my product, I would be interested in the widest possible distribution so the reputation of the SPLC or ADL would not concern me. I would call their offices and at very least try to get a mention in their newsletter even if they don't care to publish it directly.

As I review the 1999 version on the ADL site, it seems to have a natural affinity with Dan Evans' work as well.

[fortinbras]

I won't lie. I ruthlessly exploited Dan Evans's work in the tax section of my compilation. Also Becraft, also others. But a good deal of it is my own.

[grixit]

How about Snopes?

[Torp]

How about Snopes?

Perfect place for it. That made me laugh.

[LPC]

I won't lie. I ruthlessly exploited Dan Evans's work in the tax section of my compilation.

Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

But attribution is still appreciated.

[fortinbras]

Oh yes, Dan Evans gets credit and a URL link in my compilation.

Public Law 108-432, enacted on Dec. 20, 2006, contained, at 120 Stat. 2960, a new 26 USC 6702, raising the penalties for frivolous returns and positions, and instructing the IRS to draw up and publish a list of frivolous positions so that taxpayers are suitably warned to not to try to use those arguments. The 2008 edition of this list, titled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, was IRS Notice 2008-14, which appears several places on the internet (sometimes with updating) (one place in 2010 was http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf ). The previous version of sec. 6702 had been upheld as Constitutional. Herndon v. Egger (SDNY 2/13/87) 59 AFTR2d 732, 87 USTC 9193. The IRS provides people making such arguments with a copy of this compilation. Barry v. CIR, TC Memo 2011-127; Mooney v. CIR, TC Memo 2011-35; In re Verschoot (Bankr., D.Mont 4/4/05); or it will refer them to the internet link for it. Meyer v. CIR (D.Minn 9/27/2010); Battle v. CIR, TC Memo 2009-171; Little v US (MDNC 11/7/05) 96 AFTR2d 7086 aff’d 178 Fed.Appx 230. Once the tax-dodger has been alerted to this compilation, he cannot claim a good faith defense in persisting in any of the arguments listed therein. US v. Beiter (11th Cir 10/11/2011) 448 Fed.Appx 900, 108 AFTR2d 6747; Barry v. CIR, TC Memo 2011-127; Powell v CIR, TCM 2009-174, penalty against counsel affirmed as Barrington v. US District Court (DC Cir 12/2/2010) 408 Fed.Appx 381, 108 AFTR2d 5368.

Another such list (which I have also plundered shamelessly for this compilation) is the “Tax Protester FAQ” worked up by Daniel B. Evans, a Philadelphia tax lawyer (in 2010 at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html ). The litigants in a tax case are presumed to know whether any of their arguments have been repeatedly rejected (at least in published decisions) and their attempt to use such arguments constitutes frivolous pleading for which they will be penalized. Avery v. CIR, TC Memo 2007-60.

[Montana Notasovrun]

I have long had the "Idiot Legal Arguments" saved on my computer and found them helpful. An update is probably in order. The arguments haven't changed much, but one I encountered today and once earlier had to do with jurisdiction. The defendant filed a discovery request directed to the judge challenging jurisdiction and required the judge to prove the source of the court's jurisdiction and to provide a copy of the oath of office. The penalty for failure to answer the "discovery" was that the case would be dismissed or some such other sanction. Somehow, in the mind of these sovereign or moorish boorish whatevers the judge is an opponent. Since judges always rule against them I guess I can understand their suspicion, but if one were to want the judge to be a neutral abrbiter, I don't think I would pick a fight with the judge. My hope is that you can add a bit to this area of the "arguments". Your past work has been spot on, thanks.

[fortinbras]

Most of this did not appear in my first edition:

Quibbling about the oath of the judge or prosecutor: US v. Dunkel (ND IL 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6529 rev. in part on other grnds (7th Cir 7/1/97) 80 AFTR2d 5148, 97 USTC 50565; US v. Ferguson (SD Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 8 aff’d 793 F2d 828 cert. denied 479 US 933; US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal 4/30/97) 79 AFTR2d 2784 recons.den 27 F.Supp.2d 1191; Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC 50326; US v. Scheumann (7th Cir 12/16/97) 132 F3d 37(t) cert.den 524 US 940; Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okl.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; US v. Medenback (9th Cir 6/2/97) 116 F3d 487(t) cert.den 522 US 923; State v. Cella (Mo.Supm. 2000) 32 SW3d 114; (a small typo in the copy of this judge’s oath has no legal effect) State v. Saunders (2004) 120 Wash.App 800, 86 P3d 232; (the litigant alleging that an official has failed to make the proper oath or bond has the burden of proof, not only for the lack of this item but also for its legal significance to the case) State v. Webb (Mont.Supm. 8/10/99); (it appears some defendants accuse a judge of not taking the oath without bothering to make an investigation, e.g., a defendant made this claim but the State Secretary of State found the file with the oaths, dated more than a year before the trial) Alvarez v. State (Tex.App 9/11/03); (the mere absence of a prosecutor’s oath of office in the state files does not prove that the oath was not administered properly, only that a document is missing) State v. Cella (Mo.Supm. 2000) 32 SW3d 114; (similarly, the absence of the prosecutor’s oath in the file does not mean his office was vacant, nor that another person held the office instead, and a belated filing or refiling of that oath is a retroactive cure of the omission) People v. Scott (Colo.App. 2004) 116 P3d 1231 app.den (Colo.Supm. 6/6/05).

Similarly, there is a presumption of regularity that the proper oath was taken which can be refuted only with evidence in the record - as distinguished from a mere omission from the record. D.R. Murphy v. State (Tex.App 4/18/02) 95 SW3d 317; similarly (the oath would have been taken long ago, orally, not written, and a part of that oath had since been held by a court to be unconstitutional) People v. D.C. Wheeler (Cal.App 12/21/05); (- this means evidence that shows he is disqualified from office for some reason other than lack of oath, as the taking of the oath will be presumed) Lizar v. State (Okl.Crim.App 1946) 82 Okl.Crim 56, 166 P2d 119; (the court interpreted the law requiring a judge to take an oath to be satisfied by the oath that this judge took when first admitted to the bar as a lawyer 30 years earlier, and it was sufficient to know that an oath was then required without having a 30 year old document to attest to his personally taking it) In re Y. Radogna (E.D. Penn 5/16/07); (a court would take judicial notice of the terms of office and the official oath of another judge) People v. R.E. Stanley (Colo.App 2007) 170 P3d 782 cert.den 552 US 1297; (any defect or delay about the filing of the judge’s oath is a mere procedural irregularity which does not disqualify the judge nor invalidate his decisions) Kneip v. State (Tex.App. 8/8/01); ditto Potts v. DeWeese (Ohio App 1/23/02) app.den (Ohio Supm 5/1/02) 95 Ohio St.3d 1438(t), 766 NE2d 1003(t); ditto Spears d. DeWeese (2004) 102 Ohio St.3d 202, 808 NE2d 389; ditto State v. Britton (1947) 27 Wash.2d 336, 178 P2d 341; (the alleged expiration of the bond of the prosecutor does not invalidate the subsequent conviction of the perp) State v. Stockheimer (Wis.App 8/30/90) 157 Wis.2d 813(t), 461 NW2d 448(t) revw.den (Wis.Supm 12/11/90) 465 NW2d 655(t).

[Chados]

Would it be possible to get a copy of this? I'm a state prosecutor and I deal with a lot of these people. Any finding tools I can get where courts anywhere have called these arguments frivolous or ridiculous is helpful and gives me things I can use in court to counter these guys. Anything I can get is helpful.

Loved the Canadian judge's opinion posted above.

[fortinbras]

I am delighted that someone is interested.

By the way, I cannot find a mention of a "Canadian judge". Someone please explain to me.

I was thinking of maybe asking "People for the American Way" to host the new edition. Any thoughts on this (or suggestions of other possible hosts)? Anyone with any clout in any such organization???

[Chados]

Sent a PM with my contact info just now, and I really appreciate the assist. Not many of my peers have a clue about these guys and this is starting to become a real major issue in law enforcement circles. I've been studying the movement itself for years (we had a big common-law court movement here a few years ago and I prosecuted the founder after he got out of federal prison and started it all up again) but reported cases are tough to come by even when you know the lingo to search for.

The Canadian case I'm referring to is Meads v. Meads, [2012] ABQB 571, a decision of Acting Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

There's a whole thread on here somewhere about Rooke A.C.J. terming sovereign-citizen theories as what he calls "OPCA" arguments, I can't remember what that acronym stands for but I think the "P" stands for "pseudolegal." It's 185 pages of understated, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek goodness that I'll get lots of miles out of provided that I can get our local judiciary to take note of a Commonwealth jurisdiction's decision-they hate to do that since all the controversies about the U.S. Supreme Court referencing decisional law from outside the U.S. happened a couple years ago. It's the single best resource on the various flavors of the movement I've seen yet.

[fortinbras]

The decision in Crystal Lynn MEADS v. Dennis Larry MEADS (Alberta Queens Bench, Sept 18, 2012)
2012 ABQB 571 (CanII) is found at:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb571.html

This is a BOOK LENGTH decision. The PDF file is 192 pages!! And it is so recent that it may not yet appear in all its citable publications. The decision explains that OPCA is "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments".



I still hope someone will come forward who can swing a posting of my Idiot Legal Arguments.

[wserra]

reported cases are tough to come by even when you know the lingo to search for.

You know about Dan Evans' ("LPC") Tax Protester FAQ, right?

Welcome to Q.

[Chados]

I just found it about a week ago and I have it bookmarked, you bet. Great site.

[ashlynne39]

Thanks for writing the update, I look forward to the new version.

If it were my product, I would be interested in the widest possible distribution so the reputation of the SPLC or ADL would not concern me. I would call their offices and at very least try to get a mention in their newsletter even if they don't care to publish it directly.

As I review the 1999 version on the ADL site, it seems to have a natural affinity with Dan Evans' work as well.

I would say that reputation is quite important when looking for wide distribution. There are a lot of negative feelings about the ADL and SPLC and people who won't consider or believe anything posted through those sites. I don't see how it helps disseminate information when it is posted on a website where those who may most need to read it won't see it.

[The Dog]

Thanks for writing the update, I look forward to the new version.

If it were my product, I would be interested in the widest possible distribution so the reputation of the SPLC or ADL would not concern me. I would call their offices and at very least try to get a mention in their newsletter even if they don't care to publish it directly.

As I review the 1999 version on the ADL site, it seems to have a natural affinity with Dan Evans' work as well.

I would say that reputation is quite important when looking for wide distribution. There are a lot of negative feelings about the ADL and SPLC and people who won't consider or believe anything posted through those sites. I don't see how it helps disseminate information when it is posted on a website where those who may most need to read it won't see it.

I wonder if it might be better for fortinbras to stump up the relatively small sums to have your own webspace and domain name and then encourage other websites to link to it.

[Demosthenes]

I'll host it for free.