Tax protestor represents herself in court

[Bill]

Interesting.

"During a break, Montgomery-Ware discussed why she chose to represent herself without a lawyer. "Only I can claim my status,'' she said. "An attorney can't claim who I am, and that's important."

Montgomery-Ware said her husband passionately believes in their cause and has helped represent her in previous court appearances. She said he was not allowed to represent her in this case and was banned from the Tampa federal courthouse because "he can be loud and boisterous."

It has been hard representing herself without his help, she said, adding that U.S. District Judge James Moody refused to allow most evidence she wants to introduce.

"It's been a challenge. I really don't know what I'm doing," she said. "The odds are stacked against you. Everything I've put in is based on the rules of the court and they wouldn't let it in."

She hasn't filed a federal income tax return since 1999, she said, after "doing my own research and gaining new understanding that really there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen." Also, she said, the United States has the status of a corporation, and no person can be a citizen of a corporation.

Desvaux-Bedke cross-examined Montgomery-Ware, asking her about previous instances in which she had acknowledged that she was a U.S. citizen. In a loan application, for instance, she stated in several places that she was a citizen.

Montgomery-Ware said she wrote "All rights reserved" on most sections of the application but accidentally missed a couple of places. "They didn't give me a choice to put my true status," she said."

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070830/NEWS/708300552/1039

[mwillman]

If she doesnt want to pay taxes then she shouldnt get to use the roads or bridges or toilets or call the police or have her house put out when a fire hits or complain to the police when she is raped or beaten.

While I agree that alot of my tax dollars are being wasted by political hacks with nothing but the profit of a few on thier minds. Its also true that to live in a modern society with all its perks you need to pay your fair share of taxes.

[Bill]

If she doesnt want to pay taxes then she shouldnt get to use the roads or bridges or toilets or call the police or have her house put out when a fire hits or complain to the police when she is raped or beaten.


It doesn't seem to say that she isn't paying local taxes. Or state taxes.

[kres24GT]

This bogus reasoning is shot down every time. The government has the ability to get your money anyway they can and give it to be who didn't earn it... either via welfare or bogus government contracts... sometimes both.

[Bill]

Yep, she's toast.

It don't matter what the constitution says, what matters is who controls the courts and the men with guns and clubs and cages.

[mwillman]

God everyone is such a freaking victim.
Im sure you are all just suffering terribly.

We live in a society that is very interdependent and as much as you would like to deny it you are gaining by living in this society.

Can it be improved hell ya but that wont be done by letting every redneck and or ivy league aristocrat do what ever they want.

Stop crying like little girls pay your taxes and vote out of office this terrible regime.

[Bill]

You don't have a soft spot for tax protestors, mwillman?

I think they're sweet.

[mwillman]

I just thinks its a waste of the courts time.

No judge is going to vote to cancel thier paycheck.

[Moby]

If she doesnt want to pay taxes then she shouldnt get to use the roads or bridges or toilets or call the police or have her house put out when a fire hits or complain to the police when she is raped or beaten.

According to Bill O no one in San Fransisco should get the support of the military because one of the universities didn't want them to recruit on campus.

[mwillman]

HeHe

Yea thats my university. I was in the military (Honorable Discharge)so Bill O can eat me.

[moonman]

From Irwin Schiff to Montgomery-Ware they all go down. They always claim that they've researched the law and the judge who has probably researched the law for 30+ years is either stupid or corrupt.

It's really sad to see otherwise good and decent people fall prey to tax protester scams and cults.

The really incredibly inconceivable part to me is that if you don't want to pay federal tax it so easy freakin' easy to structure your finances such that you won't pay any federal tax under the accepted rules as opposed to some failed legal strategy.

[disrupter]

The supreme court long ago ruled that the 16th amendment is an empty exercise,
it adds or determines no new powers.

In Brushaber vs Union Pacific it said there is a mistaken notion that the 16th amendment adds any new powers or meaning to the constitution.

An individual income tax that is not apportioned to the states is explicitly ruled out by the constitution.

In fact the congress that ratified the 16th amendment explicitly rejected wording that would have given it any actual empowered meaning.

The current individual income tax on wages is not apportioned [proportionally distributed] to the states, therefore it is unconstitutional & illegal.

you've been duped.

quit caving in to intimidation.
you are the people,
you are america,
you make the rules,
& you can alter or crush them at your command.

these people aren't even following the rules,
dash them to the ground for it.

oh, i forgot, this is the same American public that allows the NSA & executive branch to break the law & spy on every single one of their domestic phone calls & emails in datamining software.

If you can't quit being mercenaries long enough to be patriots,
at least you should demand that your government be a law abiding mercenary enterprise rather than completely lawless & rogue.

Maybe spineless people deserve to be lawlessly & unconstitutionally taxed?
no, that would be moralizing.
get a pair, grow a spine, stand up like adult men & women.

If you are so thrilled about paying personal income tax while corporations offshore & duck theirs with accounting gimmicks,
at least demand that they amend the constitution to make it legal.

[moonman]

eee gawd disrupter. Now I get why you conspriacy freaks constantly fall victiom to misreadings of the law. Here's the link and the decision in Bushaber v. Union Pacific http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=1

Read the first paragraph. The issue before the court was NOT the 16th Amendment. As usual though SCOTUS got off on a tangent and basically restated Pollock v. Farmers which upheld Article 1 Sec (8) (9) granting Congress unlimited power to tax.

The issue in Bushaber my friend was wether or not Bushaber could proceed from failing to seek to any relief. Bushaber was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed because in courts of equity a plaintiff must seek relief. Bushaber did not and that's why the dismissal was affirmed or upheld by SCOTUS.

The legal arguments in both Polk and Bushaber concerning direct taxes merely recognize the conflict in law regarding the general meaning of the phrase 'apportioned among the States' v. the unlimited power to tax directly described in Article 1 Sec. 9. The Courts have always resolved the conflict by affirming or deferring to the unlimited power to tax.

IF apportionment is to have any limitation on the power to tax it is upon you to advance that cause in a manner the Courts might hear. YOu and those who support the idea have failed miserably in that task and the result is rather than keep trying you advocate rebellion.

It's not the system disrupter it's the inability of you conspiracy freaks to convince any court that you're right.

[Bill]

The really incredibly inconceivable part to me is that if you don't want to pay federal tax it so easy freakin' easy to structure your finances such that you won't pay any federal tax under the accepted rules as opposed to some failed legal strategy.

Patriotic fervor about fighting government intrusion into personal business?

It's true it's fairly easy to game taxes, especially if you're rich - but what if you believe government shouldn't have the right to invade financial privacy?

This is a political stance, not a financial one. Doomed yes, but political.

[Krome]

The lady is a bitch. She earns tons of cash and tries to avoid paying tax. She is true scum who thinks she is clever. I wouldnt trust her with my kids teeth after reading about her.

I really want her house to get burn to the ground and she calls the Fire Dept. who tell her they cant come as no-one has paid their taxes and they had to sell the Fire Engines to a Turkish second hand Fire Engine dealer to pay the rent on the Fire Station.

[Bill]

I really want her house to get burn to the ground and she calls the Fire Dept. who tell her they cant come as no-one has paid their taxes and they had to sell the Fire Engines to a Turkish second hand Fire Engine dealer to pay the rent on the Fire Station.

Very little of her federal taxes go to the fire department.

Most go to the war, paying off the national debt, stuff like that.

A lot goes to stuff like social security payments for old people. Since that system will be bankrupt relatively soon, all the young people paying in now are going to be SOL.

But you can legitimately suggest she's ripping off the old folks. Firemen, not so much. That's local and state taxes.

[mwillman]

Bill
Thats not exactly true. Acually alot of federal dollars are spent locally as grants. For instance we had a bridge collapse do to a large flammables truck burning. The federal government declared an emergency and granted money to help with the rebuilding. This occurs all the time in many differing ways and the fire department is sometimes the recipiant.

[Bill]

Bill
Thats not exactly true. Acually alot of federal dollars are spent locally as grants. For instance we had a bridge collapse do to a large flammables truck burning. The federal government declared an emergency and granted money to help with the rebuilding. This occurs all the time in many differing ways and the fire department is sometimes the recipiant.

Like I said, very little, percentage wise.

If I followed strict libertarian theory I would say that such grants, which are done as a form of political favoritism, wouldn't be necessary in the first place if the federal government didn't force citizens to give up such a large percentage of their income.

But I'm a mixer, as libertarians go, so I just said "very little".

[moonman]

Patriotic fervor about fighting government intrusion into personal business?

It's true it's fairly easy to game taxes, especially if you're rich - but what if you believe government shouldn't have the right to invade financial privacy?

This is a political stance, not a financial one. Doomed yes, but political.

The most difficult time people have gaming the tax system is when they fall within the alternative minimum tax. There are many ways to avoid it. Easier for the rich? No not really because the rich have to know what is going on or they too will be swindled by their money managers.

The issue before us from appellee Bill is his contention that there is in our 'politics' some right to financial privacy. I do see a right to be secure in one's person and effects in the 4th Amendment and that gubment shall not take one's property without compensation in the 5th but the question before us is wether or not privacy is a condition of security as in to be secure in one's person or effects.

Are we secure in our homes even though everybody knows or can easily know who owns what house? Absolutely we are secure in our homes. We don't deny that the house we live in is our own or our's and the banks. On the contrary we proudly announce to the world in various ways that we are the homeowner.

No there is no 'political' right to financial privacy found in our law. There is only reasonable protections that you will be secure in your person and in your effects or property. A right to financial privacy? No not under our law and/or politics. There is no there, there Bill.

[disrupter]

Supreme Court:
We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=240&invol=1

is that not clear enough?

the 16th amendment is devoid of contributory meaning to the constitution.

it is an empty or redundant passage.

Elsewhere in the constitution it EXPLICITLY bans direct taxes that are NOT apportioned to the states.

[Linkster]

Im pretty sure that there will be more cases that get acquittals coming up - Tom Cryer in La. just got acquitted of tax evasion for not paying his taxes - his contention is that no where does the tax code require a tax on compensation for labor (which it doesnt) - and the court agreed

[moonman]

Supreme Court:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=240&invol=1

is that not clear enough?

the 16th amendment is devoid of contributory meaning to the constitution.

it is an empty or redundant passage.

Elsewhere in the constitution it EXPLICITLY bans direct taxes that are NOT apportioned to the states.

Aw c'mon disrupter yer pounding the table like a 4 year old. Bushaber didn't win becasue he didn't seek relief. The tangent which the Court indulged is meaningless.

Now here's a like to Cryer, referenced by Linkster above. It's a brilliant piece of legal writing, research and work product. It's something we can all get behind, use properly and in its proper context. I can't stress that enuf'.

Forget those whining conspiracy freaks you've been reading, they're nuts.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/07/lawyertax-prote.html

[Bill]

Here's a nice example of the way federal tax money is used as a kind of political favoritism that borders on corruption.

In this case, the fire dept money came from the new and creepily named DHS - federal anti terror money going to the fire department. Lot's of terror in hicksburg NC, I'll betcha. Ragheads are everywhere! Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Victory!

With the representative being judged by how much federal money he can bring back to his district - grants are more often than not federal welfare given in exchange for votes and political favors.

http://mchenry.house.gov/

"Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10) last Tuesday presented $37,156 in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant to a local fire department ... "

The juicy goodness in this example?

Supposedly this NC Republican Rep McHenry is associated with the gay man who was the murderer in the apparently gay murder-suicide house, with it's ties to another gay pedophilia murder case involving republicans in Pennsylvania.

And there are supposedly more gay rumors about this infamously right wing Republican congressman from North Carolina.

[Linkster]

Bill - I wouldnt be surprised to see him outed this week :)

And just for the fun of it - in the other example I gave above - to see how well the administration scrubs news about an acquittal on tax evasion - go type the guys name into google news - you might find one blog article - and all the real news stories have been removed (Tom Cryer that is) - although when it first happened a few weeks ago every news outlet carried it - even all the archives of the stories at the major newspapers have been wiped

[moonman]

Bill - I wouldnt be surprised to see him outed this week :)

And just for the fun of it - in the other example I gave above - to see how well the administration scrubs news about an acquittal on tax evasion - go type the guys name into google news - you might find one blog article - and all the real news stories have been removed (Tom Cryer that is) - although when it first happened a few weeks ago every news outlet carried it - even all the archives of the stories at the major newspapers have been wiped

I did google 'United States v. Tom Cryer' and found over 62,000 links. That would be a tad more than "one blog article" you claim. Seems they're as good at scrubbing as they are at war and nation building.

[Linkster]

Try doing it under google news (as I posted) - thats the section I was talking about - not regular google - the news section is where the government always scrubs stuff - they cant scrub all of the blogs in the regular google

[Jennifer]

Without saying if I think she is right or wrong, I'd like to say that this is a typical BS situation where a judge who is above the law, works against a person who is under the law.

Our judicial system is hopelessly out of touch with the people. Don't believe me? Try getting a jury trial when the village sues you for an amount in excess of $20 as is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

[mwillman]

Our judicial system is one of the most fair systems in the world.

This reminds me of an old quote. I forget who said it but it goes, Im paraphrasing.

Democracy sucks but its better then any of the other choices.

[disrupter]

I think it is attributed to Winston Churchill, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.'

the trouble with 'justice' is that it assumes their is some empirical, absolute standard/scale of determination.

I am a [hopefully] rationalist, local relativist, who sees us embedded in an effectively infinite span of space & time.
I hope we can agree that survival of humanity & hopefully a good chunk of the natural biosphere [upon whom we are currently completely dependent] makes a broad initial first priority.
I realize this runs counter to the virtual suicide religious armageddonists of several monotheisms.

I think we have to keep in check the mess we make of this planet,
I think we should try to keep society reasonably safe to live & conduct commerce in.
If we are giant intellects perhaps we will free ourselves from most of the needs for moral retribution which is just veiled revenge.
Clinical, analytical, discipline, because optimized survival & comfort demand it.
Just say no to unnecessarily sloppy thinking.

Technological progress is important, perhaps even vital, but i don't 'think' that is something that can be dictated. Encouraged, supported, yes, but forced imposition is probably more counterproductive than effective.
inspiration requires some degree of joy or elation,
not something you can probably force.