Kotmair Appeal Fails

[The Observer]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. KOTMAIR, JR., D/B/A SAVE-A-PATRIOT
FELLOWSHIP AND NATIONAL WORKERS RIGHTS
COMMITTEE; SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION,
Defendants - Appellants.

Release Date: JULY 26, 2007


UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Appeal from the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge.
(1:05-cv-01297-WMN)

Submitted: July 24, 2007
Decided: July 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Kotmair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se; George E. Harp, Shreveport, Louisiana, for Appellant SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, an unincorporated association. Richard Farber, Carol Ann Barthel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John B. Kotmair, Jr., and Save-A-Patriot Fellowship appeal from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and issuing a permanent injunction against them based on their activities in promoting a tax evasion scheme, and denying their motions for a new trial and for modification of the injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kotmair, No. 1:05-cv-01297-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2006; Feb. 7, 2007). We deny Save-A-Patriot's motion to strike portions of the brief filed by the United States, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

[LPC]

I was surprised to see George Harp as counsel for SAP. He was also a lawyer for Cryer during his recent trial.

[.]

IIRC, the injunction was stayed pending the appeal. How long before the stay is lifted and Kotmair has to comply? Automatic?

[Nikki]

I was surprised to see George Harp as counsel for SAP. He was also a lawyer for Cryer during his recent trial.

Harp has a long history with the SAPs: No. 37,905-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA and related case No. 39,111-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

Interestingly

A Tough Day in Tax Court: Lawyer Loses Two Failure to File Tax Return Cases -- His Client's and His Own
This doesn't happen every day: the Tax Court yesterday decided that a lawyer and his client were each liable for failing to file their tax returns:

Olmos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-82 (4/9/07): A California dentist received Forms 1099-MISC reporting over $75,000 in payments from over a dozen health insurance companies for dental services provided to plan subscribers but did not file a tax return. The Tax Court upheld the Service's assessment of taxes, interest and penalties in the face of a less than vigorous defense by the taxpayer's counsel, George E. Harp:
When petitioner’s case was called for trial on March 31, 2006, petitioner did not appear. Instead, George E. Harp (Mr. Harp) appeared on petitioner’s behalf, and the Court filed Mr. Harp’s entry of appearance. Although Mr. Harp offered no evidence at trial regarding petitioner’s unreported income, Mr. Harp objected to all but one of respondent’s exhibits. After hearing argument on the objections, we overruled petitioner’s objections and admitted the exhibits.

(Mr. Harp had unsuccessfully tried the same non-defense in Heers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-10 (1/16/07):


When petitioner’s case was called for trial on March 7, 2006, petitioner’s attorney appeared, but petitioner did not. Although petitioner’s attorney offered no evidence at trial, he objected to three of respondent’s exhibits. After hearing argument on the objections, we overruled petitioner’s objections and admitted the exhibits.)

Harp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-83 (4/9/07): Mr. Harp failed to file tax returns for 1995-2000. The Tax Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and assessed taxes, interest, and penalties against Mr. Harp:
During the examination of the years at issue, petitioner submitted tax returns reporting all zeroes and attached documents entitled “Asseveration of Claimed Gross Income” and “Statement and Asseveration of Exclusion of Remuneration from Gross Income”. In the returns and attachments, petitioner argued that his income was not includable in gross income and raised various tax-protester arguments. After respondent received petitioner’s returns, respondent used the bank deposits method to reconstruct petitioner’s income.

The blog author neglected to mention that the court, in Harp v. Commissioner, sua ponte assessed a $5,000 6673 penalty against Harp.

[scam a patriot]

Old Kotmair better get used to living in a confined space with a large sweaty man named Bubba.

[Truthstalker]

Old Kotmair better get used to living in a confined space with a large sweaty man named Bubba.

More likely a rather short, sweaty man named Bubbito.