Peymon Mottahedeh and Freedom Law School on Youtube

[wserra]

Hmm. Seems my viewpoint is not so welcome in this forum.

You offered a bunch of opinions without any support for them at all. I asked you a series of questions seeking the bases for your opinions. You ignored them. What do you expect - compliments?

Perhaps I should leave and not come back.

You should do whatever you want. In the unlikely event that you want to understand how Mottahedeh is a con man who fleeces the gullible - well, here you go.

[JamesVincent]

Hmm. Seems my viewpoint is not so welcome in this forum. Perhaps I should leave and not come back.

Please. Spare us the faux victim statement. You showed up, spouted a bunch of crap with no substance, and then cried when you got called out. Wes gave you the perfect opportunity to relate any facts to support your statement and you couldn't be bothered. You wanna be a drive by troll then be a drive by troll, just don't try to pretend to be any thing else.

[noblepa]

Hmm. Seems my viewpoint is not so welcome in this forum. Perhaps I should leave and not come back.

You, as well as your viewpoint, are welcome here.

However, we ask a few things of those who post here. First and foremost, are verifiable facts, not unproven theories.

Conventional wisdom and case law has it that US law requires everyone to pay income tax.

If you wish to argue that this belief is unfounded, you are welcome to do so. But, you must first demonstrate an understanding of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the duly constituted courts of the United States. To argue against the tax code, you must use actual facts and actual law, not pipe dream theories.

Please cite even one court decision which ruled that paying income tax is NOT required, or that it is voluntary, or that the tax laws contradict the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (this is actually redundant, because the BOR is PART of the Constitution). It must be a case that was not been overruled by an appeals court.

If you can not cite such a case, then I suggest that you do the following: refuse to file a return and pay the tax that the law would seem to require you to pay. When the IRS and the DOJ come after you, go into court, present your arguments to the judge, and convince him or her of the validity of your arguments. Then, wait for the inevitable appeal and convince the appeals court of the same. You may have to ultimately convince the US Supreme Court.

That is how the law works in the US. You are certainly welcome to hold the belief that taxes are somehow unconstitutional or not required, but you are not the one who gets to make that decision. The courts have that responsibility. Like it or not, the law, including the Constitution are what the courts say it is. You may feel that they decided wrongly. I personally feel that they have decided a couple of cases wrongly in the last ten years, but their rulings in those cases are still binding law, as is the tax law.

No one has come up with a new theory as to why taxes are unconstitutional in a long time. Virtually all recent cases have been rehashes ideas that have been thoroughly denounced by the courts.

Our system of jurisprudence is based on a couple of things: statutes as enacted by Congress, and case law in which the courts have decided cases involving those statutes. As I said, it is the courts, not you or me, that have the power to make rulings that are binding on the rest of us.

[Cspeter8]

Are there not trials by jury, where the juries have authority to supercede the opinions of the judge in deciding the verdict on a defendant? I know Joe Bannister won his criminal case by verdict of the jury.

[The Observer]

Are there not trials by jury, where the juries have authority to supercede the opinions of the judge in deciding the verdict on a defendant?

First off, judges do not have "opinions" that have to be "superceded" by a jury. Nor does a jury have "authority" to supercede a judge's "opinion." The fact that you make such a statement reveals that you do not understand the basics of law as it pertains to courtroom procedures. Judges are reponsible for deciding how the law (case law and statutory law) applies to the conduct of a trial. Judges do not and are not allowed to express their opinion about the case at hand; judges who do so are likely to have the verdict rendered in the case they were presiding over overuled by a higher court. Juries are not empaneled to "supercede' a judge's rulings on the law; a jury's only responsibility is to decide on the facts of a case as presented and render a verdict. A jury is not to make a determination about the law, not to decide a particular law is bad or good, or try to negate the law by rendering a verdict that is not commensurate with the facts presented in the case. Judges instruct juries on the law and how it applies to the case and how they must render their decision within the constraints of the law.

In Joe Bannister's criminal trial, the jury's responsibility was to listen to the evidence as presented by the prosecution and the defense and decide whether the government had met its requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannister had committed a crime. They did not listen to an opinion given by the judge and they did not supercede his authority in deciding that Bannister was not guilty. Apparently you think somehow that the jury did otherwise.

As I recall, Bannister was charged with conspiracy to evade taxes by advising Walter Thompson to not pay taxes. Conspiracy is a more complex allegation to prove and it is not suprising that the jury was not convinced by the government's case - Thompson himself was found not guilty of this charge. But Thompson was found guilty of the remaining tax evasion charges against him by the jury in his case.

The other tax trials that involved Joe Bannister were due to him contesting proposed tax liabilites and penalties against him. He initiated these suits in US Tax Court where there is no jury system. He lost, failing to prove that he was not liable for taxes and penalties, and his subsequent appeal for one trial failed as well. His petion to the Supreme Court failed due to the Court declining to accept his petition.

Joe also filed suit in federal district court in regards to him losing his right to represent taxpayers before the IRS. The district court ruled in favor of his disbarment, thus supporting the earlier decisions by the administrative law judge and IRS Appeals to bar him from representing clients.

[jcolvin2]

The district court ruled in favor of his disbarment, thus supporting the earlier decisions by the administrative law judge and IRS Appeals to bar him from representing clients.

I think you mean the “Appellate Authority,” who is an individual appointed to serve as the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury in deciding appeals of ALJ decisions in OPR cases. At least over the last 10 or 15 years, this person has ordinarily been a high ranking employee of the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office. This post has no connection with the Independent Office of Appeals.

[wserra]

Are there not trials by jury, where the juries have authority to supercede the opinions of the judge in deciding the verdict on a defendant? I know Joe Bannister won his criminal case by verdict of the jury.

So did O.J. Simpson. So I guess, according to you, killing your wife is legal.

[The Observer]

I think you mean the “Appellate Authority,” who is an individual appointed to serve as the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury in deciding appeals of ALJ decisions in OPR cases. At least over the last 10 or 15 years, this person has ordinarily been a high ranking employee of the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office. This post has no connection with the Independent Office of Appeals.

Thanks for explaining this. I hadn't realized that particular function was handled by Chief Counsel.

[Cpt Banjo]

The other tax trials that involved Joe Bannister were due to him contesting proposed tax liabilites and penalties against him. He initiated these suits in US Tax Court where there is no jury system. He lost, failing to prove that he was not liable for taxes and penalties, and his subsequent appeal for one trial failed as well. His petion to the Supreme Court failed due to the Court declining to accept his petition.

Not only that, in one case the penalties and interest he was found liable for were greater than the underlying tax deficiencies. That should tell you something about the merits of his crackpot arguments.

[jcolvin2]

Lest people think it is unfair that there are no juries in the Tax Court, if taxpayers want a jury to decide the factual issues in their case, they can pay the tax and sue for a refund in US district court. Juries are available in the district courts. The Tax Court was designed to be an expeditious means of providing pre-assessment judicial review. Having juries would certainly dramatically increase the cost of a Tax Court trial.

[The Observer]

...(I]f taxpayers want a jury to decide the factual issues in their case, they can pay the tax and sue for a refund in US district court.

And it's a good rule that keeps tax deniers from overwhelming the system with frivolous suits and the cost of empaneling a jury. It is a rare occurrence to see a tax denier pay the assessed tax in full and think they will win in court. Most realize they are pushing bogus arguments that will lose. It's simple to see why Mottahedeh didn't pursue this avenue.

[Burnaby49]

Lest people think it is unfair that there are no juries in the Tax Court, if taxpayers want a jury to decide the factual issues in their case, they can pay the tax and sue for a refund in US district court. Juries are available in the district courts. The Tax Court was designed to be an expeditious means of providing pre-assessment judicial review. Having juries would certainly dramatically increase the cost of a Tax Court trial.

It doesn't work that way in Canada. If you appeal a tax assessment you must have your appeal heard at the Tax Court of Canada. There is no discretion allowed to either the appellant or the King (the Canada Revenue Agency is not involved in appeals).

[wserra]

And it's a good rule that keeps tax deniers from overwhelming the system with frivolous suits and the cost of empaneling a jury.

There's always FRCP 56 (summary judgment). . . .

[noblepa]

Are there not trials by jury, where the juries have authority to supercede the opinions of the judge in deciding the verdict on a defendant? I know Joe Bannister won his criminal case by verdict of the jury.

As The Observer observed, juries do NOT have the authority to "override the opinions of the judges". Unfortunately, they do have the ability to do that. It is a phenomenon known as "jury nullification". It has no basis in law or the constitution, but, since juries do not have to explain or justify their verdicts with cites to statutory, constitutional or case law, it is difficult to prevent nullification. That is why jury verdicts have no precedential value and can not be cited in court. Rulings by a judge, especially those that have survived appeals and been upheld by higher courts CAN be cited.

But, just because a jury finds someone innocent of a crime does not mean that the law is in any way invalid. That is one thing that juries most definitely can NOT do. Only a judge can do that, and such a ruling almost always ends up being appealed to a higher court, maybe even SCOTUS.

As The Observer also pointed out, OJ's acquittal does not mean that the California law against murder is invalid or that murder is therefore legal. Did you somehow think that the movie "The Purge" was a documentary?

Further more, Bannister's acquittal just means he didn't have to go to jail. He still had to pay the tax, plus interest and penalties.

You also don't seem to understand that there are two facets to the tax law. There is a CIVIL requirement that you file returns and pay taxes. Then, there is the CRIME of willfully failing to file a return, or pay the tax, or committing tax evasion by knowingly underreporting income or overstating deductions. For the first, you are subject only to civil penalties, such as interest and fines. For the second, you are subject to serving time in prison, in addition to having to pay the tax.

If I fail to file a return, because I am in a coma, or if I fail to pay the tax due because I can prove that I simply don't have the money to do so, I am almost certainly not going to jail. But, when I awake from the coma or I come into some money, I still have to pay the tax.

[jcolvin2]

And it's a good rule that keeps tax deniers from overwhelming the system with frivolous suits and the cost of empaneling a jury.

There's always FRCP 56 (summary judgment). . . .

Yes. Of the cases that did not settle, almost all of my district court tax cases were resolved on summary judgment. At least in my cases, the underlying facts were not really in dispute, but rather the legal significance of those facts.

[JamesVincent]

When case law contradicts the constitution, bill of rights, and plain United States Civil Code as maintained by the US House of Representatives, and violates our God-given rights, might it not be more virtuous to not comply with case law, and defend our freedoms? All of you arguing against Peymon are sheep, and are un-american. You shame our founding fathers.

Just curious but did Payme ever mention this?

In June, Richard Thomas Grant, 63, was found guilty of three counts of tax evasion following a jury trial in Oakland, California. In 2001, Grant stopped filing individual income tax returns and paying income taxes despite the fact that he received significant income as a partner with Grant Engineering & Manufacturing, an engineering company in Richmond. In 2003, Grant stopped filing annual partnership returns for Grant Engineering, even though he continued to pay a CPA to prepare these returns. That same year, Grant became a member of Freedom Law School and paid thousands of dollars in yearly membership fees. While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attempted to collect unpaid taxes owed by Grant for 2001 and 2002, and attempted to examine Grant’s taxes for subsequent years, Grant, with the assistance of Freedom Law School and its founder, Peymon Mottahedeh, attempted to frustrate the IRS’s actions by, among other things, filing multiple and ultimately unsuccessful law suits in various jurisdictions.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tax-defi ... ax-evasion

I think going to jail is the opposite of winning.

[The Observer]

As The Observer also pointed out, OJ's acquittal does not mean that the California law against murder is invalid or that murder is therefore legal.

Actually, it was wserra that pointed out. But on the other hand, I have never seen him pointed in.

[Cspeter8]

Just curious but did Payme ever mention this?

In June, Richard Thomas Grant, 63, was found guilty of three counts of tax evasion following a jury trial in Oakland, California. In 2001, Grant stopped filing individual income tax returns and paying income taxes despite the fact that he received significant income as a partner with Grant Engineering & Manufacturing, an engineering company in Richmond. In 2003, Grant stopped filing annual partnership returns for Grant Engineering, even though he continued to pay a CPA to prepare these returns. That same year, Grant became a member of Freedom Law School and paid thousands of dollars in yearly membership fees. While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attempted to collect unpaid taxes owed by Grant for 2001 and 2002, and attempted to examine Grant’s taxes for subsequent years, Grant, with the assistance of Freedom Law School and its founder, Peymon Mottahedeh, attempted to frustrate the IRS’s actions by, among other things, filing multiple and ultimately unsuccessful law suits in various jurisdictions.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tax-defi ... ax-evasion

Indeed he did!
https://www.freedomlawschool.org/posts/richard-grant

[The Observer]

Indeed he did!

And Peymon pulled excuses #8 and #17 out of the Tax Scam Promoter's list:

My client didn't listen to me or follow my instructions exactly.

My client screwed up his tax case before he came to me.

This aren't even original ideas of Mottahedeh's - they have been used by other tax scammers as well.

And his explanations excuses are so weak:

(1) My client screwed up his tax case before he came to me: Really? And you didn't warn him that you couldn't help him? And still took his money anyways? And then appeared as a witness in his case where your testimony helped get him convicted? I would think that an ethical representative might have at least offered a refund for not doing a thing to help him.

(2) My client didn't listen to me or follow my instructions exactly - Wow. Is the Freedom Law School method so complicated that, despite the amount you charge, a client could still screw it up? It would seem that the $22000 plus he paid should have been a little more easier to comprehend and follow. And why did he have to retain a lawyer to represent him despite paying money for your surefire method? And then there is the problem with your testimony at his trial where you confirmed that you advise all of your clients that they can still go to jail even if they have bought and followed the Freedom Law School program.

Just more chutzpah from the King of Chutzpah.

[Cspeter8]

And Peymon pulled excuses #8 and #17 out of the Tax Scam Promoter's list:

curious; where is this Tax Scam Promoter's list?

And his explanations excuses are so weak:

(1) My client screwed up his tax case before he came to me: Really? And you didn't warn him that you couldn't help him? And still took his money anyways? And then appeared as a witness in his case where your testimony helped get him convicted? ...

He does warn anyone joining his freedom law school that the guarantee has specific restrictions:
"Lifetime Guarantee
‍When you lawfully and correctly stop filing 1040 Income Tax "confession" forms as directed by FLS and do all of the above in previous paragraphs and timely maintain and pay your annual membership dues, FLS will guarantee that IRS will not steal any or your property by Levy or Notice of Levy. This guarantee is for each calendar year, for all unfiled, non-federal income, from the start of your Restore Freedom Plan membership".
from https://www.freedomlawschool.org/restor ... -agreement

This plan agreement was updated in just the last week. Previously if I recall correct, he said if there are pre-existing IRS issues before coming to Freedom Law School, he only promises help without guarantee on a best-effort basis. It's much harder to get toothpaste back into the tube after pushing it out. His current plan appears to list specific situations under which he cannot guarantee anything, which seems to be a good starting point for better informed conversations.
[/quote]