Press Release: Group Beats the IRS in Court

[Joey Smith]

This little tidbit came over the news wires:

http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/04/b ... m-law.html

[webhick]

Finally on June 25, 2003, the IRS agent in charge of Peymon’s case, M. Steburg, wrote a letter to Peymon, which in effect, admitted that the IRS was simply exploring a fishing expedition, which it had no basis for. The letter in part states:

“I also understand that you are concerned that we have already made a determination that you are a promoter of illegal “tax shelters.” This is not true. We have simply found sufficient information on the Internet to indicate that you may be promoting illegal tax shelters and that determination is sufficient to warrant further investigation.”

Not only did the IRS admit that Freedom Law School is NOT a tax shelter, but the IRS admitted that they were sloppy in sending Peymon a form letter that was poorly worded and needed to be reviewed for correction.

That's my favorite part. Talk about demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension. The part that's "not true" is "already made a determination", not "that you are a promoter of illegal tax shelters". Does the IRS need to send them a pop-up picture book?

[Leftcoaster]

This little tidbit came over the news wires:

http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/04/b ... m-law.html

That was an interesting reading of the letter from the IRS. If that's the way they regularly interpret a plainly written letter, it's no wonder they have issues understanding tax law.

[Imalawman]

This little tidbit came over the news wires:

http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/04/b ... m-law.html

That was an interesting reading of the letter from the IRS. If that's the way they regularly interpret a plainly written letter, it's no wonder they have issues understanding tax law.

You don't know that half of it, I can't stand litigating against them, their answers don't even make sense and they really bad attitudes and are arrogant and rude. Most TPs are really quite amiable really, but FLS jerks are hardly that. But they have always lost and always will. Why the IRS isn't more aggressive with them I don't know. I cannot stand them.

[Leftcoaster]

You don't know that half of it, I can't stand litigating against them, their answers don't even make sense and they really bad attitudes and are arrogant and rude. Most TPs are really quite amiable really, but FLS jerks are hardly that. But they have always lost and always will. Why the IRS isn't more aggressive with them I don't know. I cannot stand them.

Sounds a bit like when I have to deal with these guys.

Of course they have this wonderful flow chart so it all makes perfect sense.

[LPC]

They say "attorney Peymon Mottahedeh," but he's not a lawyer, so they couldn't get three words out without getting something wrong.

[ASITStands]

Go to attorney Peymon Mottahedeh's Freedom Law School ...

Didn't know the man was an attorney. News to me.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

You don't know that half of it, I can't stand litigating against them, their answers don't even make sense and they really bad attitudes and are arrogant and rude. Most TPs are really quite amiable really, but FLS jerks are hardly that. But they have always lost and always will. Why the IRS isn't more aggressive with them I don't know. I cannot stand them.

Sounds a bit like when I have to deal with these guys.

Of course they have this wonderful flow chart so it all makes perfect sense.

That is simply too weird. I wouldn't want to be near those people for fear of catching whatever virus has tunnelled in their central nervous system. Interesting that they can't even use the spell checker to catch the "Ceasar" typo.

[ASITStands]

It's been my experience the government withdraws a civil summons in favor of a criminal summons later. Just because there's a lull in the action doesn't mean there's no activity.

Question: What's the general prognosis such is happening here?

I'd suspect CI has not completed its investigation, and since he fought the civil summons to determine whether he might be liable for a section 6700, et al. penalty, it's likely they'll come back with either an injunctive action or indictment. Whadda ya think?

[grammarian44]

Imalawman, close your mouth.

[Imalawman]

Imalawman, close your mouth.

What? I thought that was all public information. The papers didn't have the Illuminati sea green stamp of confidential on it.

[ASITStands]

I thought 'grammarian44' was talking about closing your mouth to flies.

[webhick]

I thought 'grammarian44' was talking about closing your mouth to flies.

I took it as a warning that the tapioca monster was hovering nearby, ready to claim him as a victim and that he needed to find a way to permanently close its mouth or else be devoured in a horribly painful fecula related death. One of thousands a year.

grammarian44 just doesn't want to see Imalawman end up as a statistic.

[AdamW]

With regards to ASITStands, what about the people who have beaten the IRS in court? Are the jurors making a mistake when the government refuses to show the law?

I'm been a big fan of Quatloos but to suggest there is nothing to the rumors that the IRS is unconstitutional or that all federal income tax goes to pay interest to the private Federal Reserve Corporation is preposterous.

Reagan's 1984 Grace Commission said this:

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all
individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."

And the modern day federal income tax was passed the same year that a private corporation was granted a legal cartel to create U.S. money. Since then the dollar has lost 97% of its value. The Federal Reserve admits they caused the first Great Depression.

How can you ridicule any question whatsoever into the IRS? It is the Constitution that says direct taxes must be apportioned thus the income tax is unconstitutional (no new tax powers were created with the 16th Amendment) and it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that says to create a graduated/progressive income tax.

Please read attorney Tom Cryer's Memorandum which was submitted in his Federal Court Case. Of course, Tom was acquitted by 12 jurors.

http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf

I assume some of you believe Joe Banister is just a big fraud promoter?

Former IRS CID Special Agent beats IRS in court -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DF86B1.DTL

Attorney Tom Cryer beats IRS in court -
http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/04/t ... ioner.html

FEDEx Pilot beats IRS in court -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=34031

[AdamW]

You don't know that half of it, I can't stand litigating against them, their answers don't even make sense and they really bad attitudes and are arrogant and rude. Most TPs are really quite amiable really, but FLS jerks are hardly that. But they have always lost and always will. Why the IRS isn't more aggressive with them I don't know. I cannot stand them.

Are you a federal/state prosecutor?

If their arguments don't make sense, then how was Joe Banister, Tom Cryer and many others acquitted of tax fraud? Why did the IRS tell Joe to resign when he simply asked to clarify his concerns? Why is the income tax voluntary and why does the statue say "make a return" and not "file a return"?

With all the news of the Federal Reserve loaning money to its own shareholder, JPMorgan, to buy Bear Stearns -- and all the problems with the U.S. dollar, how can you trust the IRS when they are literally the collection agent for the Fed?

Do you know anything about economic integration or the economist Béla Balassa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration

I'm a huge due diligence person, I hate con artists and I've seen so many bank trading deal scams it's not even funny. But NO ONE has ever convinced me that the IRS is a legal, constitutional entity that operates for the public good.

Everything from the IRS, the Fed and the CFR suggests that it is an intentional system designed to steal wealth from the middle class and to further economic integration into new supranational states (e.g. the Treaty of Lisbon's new European Union).

PLEASE prove me wrong.

READ attorney Tom Cryer's Memorandum that he used to beat the IRS -
http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf

[Demosthenes]

I'm a huge due diligence person

Sure you are... laughing.

That isn't the Memorandum that Cryer used to beat the evil feds. The memo you posted was denied by the judge.

03/19/2007 35 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 20 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 21 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 25 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1) . Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 3/19/07. (crt,McInnis, S) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

During the trial, Cryer relied on the Cheek defense, also known as the I'm-too-stupid-to-understand-the-tax-laws defense. Here's the real trial brief he relied on:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/cryer74.pdf

He won because the jury believed his belief was sincere, not because his belief was correct.

He'll still have to pay the underlying taxes, just like Lloyd Long and Vernie Kuglin did.

[Agent Observer]

I'm a huge due diligence person

Sure you are... laughing.

That isn't the Memorandum that Cryer used to beat the evil feds. The memo you posted was denied by the judge.

03/19/2007 35 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 20 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 21 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1); denying 25 Motion to Dismiss as to Tommy K Cryer (1) . Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 3/19/07. (crt,McInnis, S) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

During the trial, Cryer relied on the Cheek defense, also known as the I'm-too-stupid-to-understand-the-tax-laws defense. Here's the real trial brief he relied on:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/cryer74.pdf

He won because the jury believed his belief was sincere, not because his belief was correct.

He'll still have to pay the underlying taxes, just like Lloyd Long and Vernie Kuglin did.

Hehe.. As is said in some forums on the Internet:

"d00d, j00 got 0wnt"

[The Operative]

With regards to ASITStands, what about the people who have beaten the IRS in court? Are the jurors making a mistake when the government refuses to show the law?

The jurors aren't acquitting because the government refuses to show the law. The government shows the law to the defendants many times. The jurors acquit because the defendants are able to convince the jurors that the defendants were too stupid to know they had to file or pay taxes. I know that sounds a little ridiculous, but it is basically the truth. The most common criminal charge against a tax protester is "WILLFUL failure to file tax returns". The key word is "willful". If the defendant convinces the jury that he/she truly believed they didn't have to file, the jury should acquit.

I'm been a big fan of Quatloos but to suggest there is nothing to the rumors that the IRS is unconstitutional or that all federal income tax goes to pay interest to the private Federal Reserve Corporation is preposterous.

Reagan's 1984 Grace Commission said this:

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all
individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."

And the modern day federal income tax was passed the same year that a private corporation was granted a legal cartel to create U.S. money. Since then the dollar has lost 97% of its value. The Federal Reserve admits they caused the first Great Depression.

Wow, you are full of conspiracy theories. Let's look at some facts. Dan Evans explains the IRS in a straight-forward manner, so I'll link to his page. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#IRS

As far as the Federal Reserve, interest on the debt and the income tax, the Grace Commission report was done more than 20 years ago and it doesn't say what you claim. The Grace Commission said that at the time of the report all individual income tax revenue collected only went to pay interest on the debt. They did not say that it all went to the Federal Reserve. Additionally, there are more holders of U.S. Government debt than just the Federal Reserve.

Now, let's look at some current facts. In 2007, the individual income taxes collected was approximately $1.13 trillion dollars. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=203
The total interest on the debt paid in 2007 was approximately $430 billion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... xpense.htm
Obviously, not all income taxes go to pay the interest on the debt. You may wonder why or how the Grace Commission came to its conclusion. It's simple really. At the time of the study, the interest rate on the debt was close to 12% and revenue from individual income taxes was much lower. Currently, the interest rate on the debt is 5%. If the interest rate rises to 12% again, it could be possible for individual income taxes to only go to interest on the debt, however, that is not the case now.

Your statement about the interest on debt being paid to the Federal Reserve is also wrong. First, the Federal Reserve does not loan money to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government borrows money by issuing Treasury securities. These are T-Bills, T-Notes, and T-Bonds. These securities are sold by the Treasury at auction. Anyone can buy these securities, even you. The U.S. Government will not redeem a security until it's maturity date. Therefore, even if someone was holding $900 billion in U.S. Government debt, they cannot simply tell the government to pay up. If a holder of a Treasury security needs to reclaim their money, they must sell their securities on the open market (aka secondary market). The open market is where the Federal Reserve obtains the U.S. Government debt that it holds. Open market operations is also on method the Federal Reserve uses to adjust the money supply, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.

The Federal Reserve does collect interest on the debt that it holds, however, as required by law, it returns excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. This can clearly be seen on the independently audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve which are part of the annual reports to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... efault.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... ec6/c3.htm
In 2006, the Federal Reserve collected approximately $36.5 billion in interest on U.S. Government debt. However, it returned to the U.S. Treasury $29.1 billion.

The Federal Reserve isn't privately owned either. The Federal Reserve is controlled by the Board of Governors, which is a 100% government agency. The Board members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, similar to other Federal officials. There are 12 Federal Reserve district banks. These banks are setup similar to private corporations, but with some distinct differences.

First, let's look at the share structure of the district banks. Private individuals, corporations, foreign governments, etc. are not allowed to own Federal Reserve district bank stock. Nationally chartered banks (i.e. National Bank of Arizona or Bank of America, N.A., etc.) are required by law to SUBSCRIBE to Federal Reserve district bank stock. This makes them member banks of the Federal Reserve system. State banks may also become member banks, if they meet certain requirements. The amount of stock they must subscribe to is set by law to a percentage of the member bank's paid-in capital. The member bank can hold no more and no less than the amount prescribed by law. Additionally, they cannot sell, trade or even give away the stock they hold. To recompense them for losing the use of their capital, the stock pays an annual 6% dividend. In 2006, the total dividend came to only $871 million or approximately $300,000 average per member bank.

Now, let's look at what rights those shares provide to the holders. As I mentioned, the shares earn a fixed 6% dividend per year. Each member bank gets to nominate TWO people to serve on the Board of Directors of the district bank to which they belong. The nominees cannot be an officer, director, employee of any bank and one of the nominees cannot even hold shares in any bank. When the board of directors is voted on, each member bank has only ONE vote per board member regardless of the number of shares they hold. Also, if a Federal Reserve district bank is dissolved, the member banks will be reimbursed for their shares at the original share value plus any unpaid dividend. All other assets and liabilities become the responsibility of the U.S. Treasury. If the district bank was really a private corporation, the additional assets would become property of the member banks.

How can you ridicule any question whatsoever into the IRS? It is the Constitution that says direct taxes must be apportioned thus the income tax is unconstitutional (no new tax powers were created with the 16th Amendment) and it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that says to create a graduated/progressive income tax.

Please read attorney Tom Cryer's Memorandum which was submitted in his Federal Court Case. Of course, Tom was acquitted by 12 jurors.

http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf

I assume some of you believe Joe Banister is just a big fraud promoter?

Former IRS CID Special Agent beats IRS in court -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DF86B1.DTL

Attorney Tom Cryer beats IRS in court -
http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/04/t ... ioner.html

FEDEx Pilot beats IRS in court -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=34031

As I said, some people have convince a jury they were too stupid to know they had to pay taxes. You should probably look at Dan Evans' Tax Protester dossiers for more information.
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/
Especially look up the information on the FedEx pilot.
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/vernice-kuglin

You should read Dan Evans' explanations about income taxes and the 16th amendment.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower

[LPC]

I'm been a big fan of Quatloos but to suggest there is nothing to the rumors that the IRS is unconstitutional or that all federal income tax goes to pay interest to the private Federal Reserve Corporation is preposterous.

Oooo. Fresh meat.

Yummy.

[Cobalt Shiva]

I'm been a big fan of Quatloos but to suggest there is nothing to the rumors that the IRS is unconstitutional or that all federal income tax goes to pay interest to the private Federal Reserve Corporation is preposterous.

Oooo. Fresh meat.

Yummy.

Looks like Demo and The Operative got all the good stuff, we're left with the tough, stringy parts.