$300,000 Income Tax Reward (Peymon Mottahedeh)

[JamesVincent]

Maybe there is some case law I can find from a recognized source that will back my viewpoint. I'm sure you are convinced such legal precedent does not exist. Arguing anything else that backs income tax protesters I understand will be quickly dismissed as legal gibberish.

You made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Payme's failures are well documented as well as Freedom Law Schools so anything taken from him or his teachings has already been debunked. Most every major tax denier has a thread somewhere in Q, along with documented cites of case law and/or results of tax court results. Hell, even Wesley Snipes has his own thread, along with links to his court loss. So anything you learn from any of those sources has already been proven wrong. One of the posters on here, Dan Evans, set up a website years ago with all of the accumulated tax protestor's claims along with the legal reasons why they're malarkey. Maybe you should spend some time there and take a long look. All of this stuff has been beaten down over and over in the courts.

https://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[wserra]

Do all of you put blinders on to look at all legal truth in terms of case law and legal precedent?

I guess we need to talk about the definition of "legal truth". First of all, one of the ways in which law is an art and not a science is that defining such a thing is problematic. There are areas of the law where things are in flux. There are other areas where courts don't agree. There are others where legislatures (almost always for political reasons) throw together something that doesn't make a lot of sense. Every now and then, a situation arises where there actually is no defining law. Such a patchwork makes "legal truth" a pretty amorphous concept.

In other areas, though, one can quite easily say what the law is without needing to worry about "legal truth". Mottahedeh's stuff is one of those areas. The stuff he sells to the marks is simply wrong, which is why that stuff has never won (I'm not talking about the one instance where he got certain liens vacated by using standard arguments - even though the govt quickly reimposed them). When all current courts agree on a point - as they do with Mottahedeh's nonsense, which is why neither he nor you can come up with a single counterexample - that is "legal truth".

Do you believe in absolute truth

I don't even know what "absolute truth" means, and frankly neither do you. One generation's absolute truth is another generation's superstition. I could give twenty examples off the top of my head.

and in right and wrong logic

I certainly believe in logic. For example, see my sig. And it is clearly illogical to insist that you are legally right when those with the power to actually decide the law - courts and legislatures - unanimously agree that you're wrong.

and does that carry any weight such that it might cause you to critically examine the logical soundness of potentially a huge edifice of case law that might be built on top of a logically rotton or contradictory foundation?

If you're looking for someone who will uncritically defend something just because a court or legislature has said that it's the law, you've found the wrong person. Just limiting our search to Supreme Court cases, there are several that today are universally accepted as wrongly-decided. Dred Scott and Korematsu/Hirabayashi come to mind. But at the time they were decided, they were in fact the law. That's the difference (although there are actually about a billion differences) between someone like Dr. King and someone like Mottahedeh. Dr. King never said that segregation wasn't the law. Instead he readily acknowledged that it was, and then at great personal sacrifice (ultimately, of course, his life) demonstrated its inhumanity. Mottahedeh not only claims that what is the law is in fact not, he seeks to personally profit from it.

That's what made Dr. King a hero, and makes Mottahedeh a con man.

[Cspeter8]

One of the posters on here, Dan Evans, set up a website years ago with all of the accumulated tax protestor's claims along with the legal reasons why they're malarkey..... https://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

JamesVincent,
thanks for this link. This website could very well be an invaluable resource for anyone wishing to examine both sides.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of the posters on here, Dan Evans, set up a website years ago with all of the accumulated tax protestor's claims along with the legal reasons why they're malarkey..... https://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

JamesVincent,
thanks for this link. This website could very well be an invaluable resource for anyone wishing to examine both sides.

The problem, here, is that Peymon's "side" has an unbroken string of failure after failure.

[JamesVincent]

JamesVincent,
thanks for this link. This website could very well be an invaluable resource for anyone wishing to examine both sides.

Both sides? There's the legal side and then there's the side that everyone who tried has either owed a ton of money or went to jail.

[JamesVincent]

While doing some research on Payme I ran across a press release called The California Tax Letter. I'm guessing it's an annual put out by the California Tax Board. Anyway, it had an article about Payme, which I perused looking for any additional info besides what we already had. The last paragraph shows exactly what tax professionals think of the tax protest movement.

Most practitioners won’t see a tax
protestor walk through their door.
These cases just serve as a reminder
that the tax protest movement is still
out there, arguing that a taxpayer is
not a “person” or that the United States
consists only of the District of Columbia,
federal territories, and federal enclaves.
These arguments never stand up in
court. They do, however, provide some
levity as you embark on the next 1040
Confession Form filing season.

https://www.caltax.com/spidellweb/publi ... p_sytr.pdf

You have to scroll down to page 7 to find the article about Payme but it did have some good reading before then also.

Within the article is also this tidbit. As part of the article the writers decided to do research on Freedom Law School's track record.

Here’s the connection: In doing so,
we see Peymon’s name quite often.
His are the cases that can involve up
to 14 taxpayers consolidated into one
case, all arguing that the taxpayer was
denied a fair hearing, and the FTB
didn’t provide evidence to support the
assessment against the taxpayer.
In a search of his name within the tax
appeals on caltax.com, there are 112
instances of Peymon representing FLS
clients in front of the Board. Just to be
fair, I checked each and every one … all
were losses and, in all but two cases, the
taxpayers were hit with frivolous appeal
penalties ranging from $750 to $5,000.

Kinda negates that claim of Winning!!!1!!!!1!

[Arthur Rubin]

While doing some research on Payme I ran across a press release called The California Tax Letter. I'm guessing it's an annual put out by the California Tax Board.

Sorry, the California Tax Letter is a publication of Spidell, for California tax (income, property, sales/use, and probably other California taxes I don't remember) professionals. It shows more humor than most official tax publications, especially in their podcast. I think the first issue I had had a 2-page article on when hot dogs are subject to sales tax. (Factors included whether the dogs were consumed on the premises, whether drinks were also served, whether the dogs were pre-cooked or cooked on the premises....)

[Edited to add] They do point out when the Franchise Tax Board or other state agency makes an absurd ruling, as well as an occasional article on "tax protesters".

[JamesVincent]

Sorry, the California Tax Letter is a publication of Spidell, for California tax (income, property, sales/use, and probably other California taxes I don't remember) professionals. It shows more humor than most official tax publications, especially in their podcast. I think the first issue I had had a 2-page article on when hot dogs are subject to sales tax. (Factors included whether the dogs were consumed on the premises, whether drinks were also served, whether the dogs were pre-cooked or cooked on the premises....)

[Edited to add] They do point out when the Franchise Tax Board or other state agency makes an absurd ruling, as well as an occasional article on "tax protesters".

Thanks Arthur. The one I went through definitely did have some humor and really good articles in it.

[JamesVincent]

To bring this thread back on track there is one issue that has not been solved in any thread related to Peymon:

Cite one case, unredacted, where Peymon's theories have carried a case to victory, including appeals.

(In the interest of clarity unredacted means, at the very minimum, a clear case number, name, and holding. Personal information like social security numbers, addresses and similar information is expected to be redacted in any public documents. The holding must clearly show that it was decided based on Payme's theories being accepted, not due to some procedural anomalies.)

[NYGman]

To bring this thread back on track there is one issue that has not been solved in any thread related to Peymon:

Cite one case, unredacted, where Peymon's theories have carried a case to victory, including appeals.

I thought I would help, I found this, Peymon Mottahedeh V. CIR, No. 19-71432 (9th Cir. 2023) which I am not sure was posted before, but clearly shows Paymon's complete victory, but unfortunately only to a blind man.

[wserra]

which I am not sure was posted before

It was. As you say, another resounding win.

[NYGman]

which I am not sure was posted before

It was. As you say, another resounding win.

Ah, missed it.

I mean you would figure that an appeals court would easily have agreed with him here, if his positions were so sound, unless of course, Peymon's intellect is so great that his real plan is to confuse them into this ruling, with the intent to eventually go before the Supreme Court where he will be easily able to point all this out to the Supreme Court Justices and ensure it is the law of the land. If so, I await the glorious outcome.

[wserra]

I think I've figured out why Mottahedeh sycophants insist on displaying their ignorance by comparing being required to pay income tax with slavery: because the Great Man does it himself. And we all know that - despite his distressing propensity to lie - he must be right, mostly because we really don't want to pay. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

Mottahedeh appears to be behind a new video called "Slave Nation". He leads off with the usual fear-mongering - best way to get people who don't know better to cough up that $22K, right, Peymon? He continues by explaining how "international bankers" - dog whistles, anyone? - have "enslaved America". He reaches a crescendo by anointing himself "the number one enemy of the IRS". No ego problem there.

I recently visited the newest of the Smithsonian institutions, the National Museum of African-American History and Culture. Wonderful place in which you can easily spend multiple days. Needless to say, it treats slavery - real slavery, not Mottahedeh's bullshit - in considerable detail. Anyone ignorant enough to believe that any comparison between the income tax and slavery is possible needs to visit. After doing so, anyone who still believes that such a comparison is possible is an asshole.

[JamesVincent]

That was an insult to Pink Floyd.

[The Observer]

He continues by explaining how "international bankers" - dog whistles, anyone? - have "enslaved America".

This is very ironic, given that Peymon is Jewish. I guess he hopes the marks can't decode "international bankers." Failing that, I guess his next hope is that they don't realize he is Jewish.

[wserra]

First and foremost, Peymon is Con-ish.

[JamesVincent]

Hmmmm........

To be not very intelligent or of questionable mental capacity. This expression can appear in many different forms and variations (e.g., "a few sandwiches short of a picnic," "one card shy of a full deck," etc.).

A brick short of a load

[Pottapaug1938]

Hmmmm........

To be not very intelligent or of questionable mental capacity. This expression can appear in many different forms and variations (e.g., "a few sandwiches short of a picnic," "one card shy of a full deck," etc.).

A brick short of a load

Nine cents short of a dime.

The lights are on, but there ain't nobody home.

[JamesVincent]

Payme talking smack about other tax deniers and repeating the "IRS only applies to DC" argument. And also claiming that he beat the IRS on multiple occasions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1TE1rqZAVA

[jcolvin2]

That was an insult to Pink Floyd.

I am not sure what you meant by this comment, i.e. what insulted Pink Floyd.
Thinking about it, several Pink Floyd songs seem to describe Peymon and/or his followers, including Brain Damage and Sheep.