IF You Are Born In A Plane, You Are A Sovrun!

[The Observer]

Or so says one Scott Bodley of Silver City, New Mexico. While certainly an original and creative argument for a sovrun to make, it was of no avail as a federal judge handed down a sentence 6 1/2 years to him for several tax-related violations:

...Bodley stopped filing legitimate tax returns in 1999, threatened to file liens on an IRS agent who was auditing Bodley’s 1999-2001 taxes in 2003 and quit his job in an effort to stop an IRS levy on his wages in 2004. Bodley then filed in excess of 100 false forms with the IRS in 2008 that included 1040s and fake money orders ranging in value from $300 to $70 million...

The judge, Barbara Crabb, described Bodley as narcissistic and a danger to the community. You can read all about it here.

[Pottapaug1938]

Or so says one Scott Bodley of Silver City, New Mexico. While certainly an original and creative argument for a sovrun to make, it was of no avail as a federal judge handed down a sentence 6 1/2 years to him for several tax-related violations:

...Bodley stopped filing legitimate tax returns in 1999, threatened to file liens on an IRS agent who was auditing Bodley’s 1999-2001 taxes in 2003 and quit his job in an effort to stop an IRS levy on his wages in 2004. Bodley then filed in excess of 100 false forms with the IRS in 2008 that included 1040s and fake money orders ranging in value from $300 to $70 million...

The judge, Barbara Crabb, described Bodley as narcissistic and a danger to the community. You can read all about it here.

Nope. All you get is grayed-out text, unless you start a digital subscription.

[NYGman]

What they fail to understand is that you are taxed on your income earned working in this country, regardless of where you were born, or your legal status. The obligation to pay tax doesn't take in to account your place of birth, except that those born in the US are subject to tax on their world wide income. So even if they were born in Antartica, tax would still apply to your wages earned while working inside the United States... However I think this point is the least of this guy's issues.

Also, link worked fine for me. There may have a free article limit, and some of these are implemented via IP address which may not be a reliable method where shared IPs are used by an internet provider.

[obadiah]

The link worked fine for me, twice (I was checking about the greyed-out text).

[Burnaby49]

The link worked fine for me, twice (I was checking about the greyed-out text).

All I got was the grey-out. Not because of any free viewing limit since I've never tried to read an article in this paper before.

[Philistine]

The link worked fine for me, twice (I was checking about the greyed-out text).

All I got was the grey-out. Not because of any free viewing limit since I've never tried to read an article in this paper before.

As NYGman explained, it's possible that a shared IP from your ISP is responsible.
Do you have a static IP from where you are browsing?

[The Observer]

Not sure why some can access the article and others cannot. It might be just one of those things where only those who are in the Inner Circle can see it and those in the Outer Circle are just plain out of luck. But at least its a quick way to determine your status in the Illuminati.

On the other hand, it might be an indicator that you failed to remit your dues on time.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not sure why some can access the article and others cannot. It might be just one of those things where only those who are in the Inner Circle can see it and those in the Outer Circle are just plain out of luck. But at least its a quick way to determine your status in the Illuminati.

On the other hand, it might be an indicator that you failed to remit your dues on time.

Or, it may be that you p*ssed off the Regional Head Illuminatus by getting to a certain supermodel before he could.

[LPC]

What they fail to understand is that you are taxed on your income earned working in this country, regardless of where you were born, or your legal status. The obligation to pay tax doesn't take in to account your place of birth, except that those born in the US are subject to tax on their world wide income.

Both citizens and *residents* of the United States are subject to tax on world-wide income.

Nonresident aliens (persons who are neither citizens nor residents) are subject to tax only on income from sources within the United States, which would include compensation earned for services within the US, rent from property within the US, and income from businesses operating within the US.

So it doesn't make any difference whether you are a citizen of the US if you reside within the US, because the tax rules are the same. Being a US citizen is only significant if you don't live within the US.

On the born on a plane business: I've sometimes wondered if airplanes aren't subject to "law of the flag" rules like ships. So a US aircraft is governed by federal law even while flying over Europe, and a passenger can be prosecuted for violations of federal law even if the passenger has never been within the US.

But I don't think that a baby born on a US aircraft is a US citizen if the parents are not US citizens. And if the parents are US citizens, then I think that the baby is a US citizen regardless of where the birth takes place. Even Canada.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
On the born on a plane business: I've sometimes wondered if airplanes aren't subject to "law of the flag" rules like ships. So a US aircraft is governed by federal law even while flying over Europe, and a passenger can be prosecuted for violations of federal law even if the passenger has never been within the US.

But I don't think that a baby born on a US aircraft is a US citizen if the parents are not US citizens. And if the parents are US citizens, then I think that the baby is a US citizen regardless of where the birth takes place. Even Canada.

As in all things multinational - there are treaties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention ... telessness

It's almost, but not quite as bad, as tax code.

[Burnaby49]

The link worked fine for me, twice (I was checking about the greyed-out text).

All I got was the grey-out. Not because of any free viewing limit since I've never tried to read an article in this paper before.

As NYGman explained, it's possible that a shared IP from your ISP is responsible.
Do you have a static IP from where you are browsing?

No idea what you are asking. As I've often said I'm a technological idiot. I have a desktop hard-wired to a DLS modem and that's it. Same system I've had for over a decade without change. I doubt very much I share an IP address since I've changed nothing since the DSL was put in.

[LaVidaRoja]

Please, Burnaby, the official term is "technological troglodyte" I know, I coined the term!

[Burnaby49]

Please, Burnaby, the official term is "technological troglodyte" I know, I coined the term!

I advised Webhick that in matters relating to my knowledge of computers and software her best approach was to interact with me under the assumption that I'm a total idiot. Since she did not correct me on that phrasing the term stands.

[grixit]

Obstretician: The baby is crowning. One or two more pushes should do it.

Wife: Thanks, Doc. Ready, Dear?

Husband: Ready. Hey, we're ready!

Pilot: Roger. I'm going to tilt the plane a little to make it easier. 3! 2! 1! Go!

Husband and Wife: Yaaaaaaah!

Obstr: They're out, i'm closing the door!

Pilot: Roger! So can you explain that to me, again?

Obstr: <sigh> I can, but it still won't make any sense. It's about making sure that the baby is not bound by any earthly authority.

Pilot: But wouldn't that make it the Antichrist?

Obstr: Shhh!

[fortinbras]

So I suppose that "sovereigns" didn't exist before the Wright Brothers, or at least before the Montgolfier Brothers.

[Philistine]

No idea what you are asking. As I've often said I'm a technological idiot. I have a desktop hard-wired to a DLS modem and that's it. Same system I've had for over a decade without change. I doubt very much I share an IP address since I've changed nothing since the DSL was put in.

Actually, chances are that you do share one (actually several) then. You would pay extra for a unique (static) IP. You will be sharing a pool of addresses with other subscribers at you provider and it looks like someone else has used up your free page hits for that particular site.

[LPC]

As in all things multinational - there are treaties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention ... telessness

It's almost, but not quite as bad, as tax code.

I'm glad it addresses the problem of foundlings.

[morrand]

Not surprisingly, Mr. Bodley has appealed from his conviction. Not surprisingly, it hasn't gone well for him.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 2, 2017*
Decided February 3, 2017

Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
SCOTT BODLEY,
Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 3:13CR00052‐001
Barbara B. Crabb,
Judge.

O R D E R
Scott Bodley appeals from the judgment in a criminal case that ended his multi‐year, obstreperous campaign to impede IRS collection efforts.

It cannot be a good sign when the court of appeals refers to you as "obstreperous" in the first sentence of its order. Anyway:

After a three‐day trial at which Bodley represented himself (he had fired both of the lawyers appointed to represent him after they refused to answer his 52‐question “Voir Dire for Attorney”), a jury found him guilty of obstructing the IRS, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), creating phony money orders, 18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2), submitting false tax forms to the IRS, id. § 1001(a), filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and tax evasion, id. § 7201. The government had established that Bodley sent the IRS fake money orders totaling over $70 million, filed 58 fraudulent tax returns in a single year, falsely claimed on IRS forms that then‐Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was his fiduciary, submitted to the IRS $2.8 million in fake bonded promissory notes as “tax payments” for other delinquent taxpayers (whom he charged for his “services”), filed false IRS forms purporting to document $70 million in unreported income received by IRS employees, and sent threats to a federal judge, a federal prosecutor, and IRS employees. The district court sentenced Bodley to a total of 78 months’ imprisonment—well below the guidelines range of 121 to 151 months, and ordered him to pay roughly $32,000 in restitution.

We initially appointed counsel to represent Bodley, but again he fired his attorney and insisted that we let him continue to represent himself. After filing numerous baseless motions, he tendered an appellate brief that is entirely frivolous. Bodley argues that his 26 convictions must be overturned due to the loss of “highly relevant material informational documentational evidence”—i.e., trial transcripts. But the record contains full transcripts of his trial, as Bodley must know, since the clerk of this court mailed him more than 1,000 pages of transcripts. Bodley also argues that he received ineffective assistance of standby counsel (the second attorney appointed by the district court to represent him), forcing him “to do battle alone and unarmed.” This assertion is meritless because a defendant who exercises his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself does not have a right to standby counsel, let alone effective standby counsel. See Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 597 (7th Cir. 2006).

Bodley’s remaining assertions consist of shop‐worn tax‐protestor arguments that courts have consistently rejected for over a century. For example, Bodley argues that he is not a U.S. citizen, but a “direct individual beneficiary to the Constitutional Compact Trust,” and therefore not subject to federal jurisdiction; that the entire federal criminal code is unconstitutional; that federal judges and prosecutors collude to obtain convictions in tax prosecutions for which, Bodley says, they receive a $40,000 bounty for each person convicted; and that the district court erred by refusing his request for personal financial records from each government employee involved in his prosecution in order to prove such collusion.

You will not be surprised after this to hear that his convictions were affirmed.

[notorial dissent]

I'm surprised with Posner on the panel that there was as little snark as there was. He obviously didn't write the opinion.

[Famspear]

Sixty-year old Scott Bodley is inmate # 73270-051 at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility at Butner, North Carolina, and is scheduled for release on September 30, 2020.