OK, we'll admit it --
Anybody who takes shots at Schiff, Mottahedeh,
Rizzo, and Global Prosperity, which is perhaps
the worst scam ever, can't be all bad. Conklin's
Weasel
Droppings page which rails on John Rizzo is
priceless.
But on the other hand, there
is a lot of pot-kettle-black going on here and
it is all too easy to overlook the fact that
Conklin is just another tax scammer himself. In
many ways, Conklin is an Irwin Schiff wannabee
who asserts an old argument that Schiff lost on
and then was smart enough to go on to something
else, and Conklin has also copied Schiff's
"challenge" and then exactly as Schiff did
welched on the challenge.
The premise of
Conklin's book is that "an American citizen
cannot be compelled to file a tax return because
the return can be used against the filer in
violation of the Fifth Amendment" -- a claim
which has been exploded time after time by the
courts and which has NEVER WON (see below).
Curiously, although Conklin shamelessly bashes
Irwin Schiff, Conklin's argument is a take-off
an argument that Schiff himself once asserted --
and lost. Conklin has also held himself out to
be the "Reverend Conklin" and sometimes
"Archbishop Conklin" with the "Church of World
Peace".
Like any scam artist, Conklin is
also much-less-than-truthful about his claims of
defeating the IRS in "6 published wins" against
the IRS. Let's take a look at these
cases:
Walder v. Conklin --
Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who
could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was
bogus. Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued
when Conklin welched. The court ruled that
Conklin has structured his argument so that he
was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay
or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch --
exactly like Irwin Schiff had welched in the
case of Newman
vs. Schiff (more pot-kettle-black). This
opinion does not mention the Fifth Amendment
except in the context of Conklin welching on his
bet.
Church of World Peace, Inc. v
IRS, 715 F.2d 492 -- This is a LOSS by the
Church against the IRS. The 10th Circuit
AFFIRMED the IRS's revocation of the Church's
501(c)(3) exempt status.
United States
v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265 --
This case set aside the IRS's attempts to get
the books and records of Conklin's church as
overbroad. This case doesn't mention the Fifth
Amendment at all. The IRS merely toned down it's
request and tried again, the next time
successfully.
United States v Church
of World Peace, 878 F2d 1281 -- This is the
case after the IRS got the documents relating to
the Church. The 10th Circuit dismissed both the
IRS's appeals as to limitations on its request
and also as to Conklin's attempt to get all the
evidence thrown out. Again, no mention of the
Fifth Amendment.
Conklin v. United
States, 812 F.2d 1318 -- Conklin sued the
IRS for a whopping $152 for responding to an IRS
summons. Conklin lost before the District Court,
and awarded the IRS $356.29 in costs. Conklin
appealed, and was able to avoid paying the IRS
the $356.92. (Wow -- What a
case!)
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d
1032 -- In Conklin's dispute over deductions
for contributions to his Church of World Peace,
Conklin voluntarily entered into a stipulation
where the IRS conceded some items as to
Conklin's wife which released both of them after
she paid the IRS. However, after the IRS won
against Conklin in tax court (91 T.C. 41 (1988)
which of course he isn't going to tell you
about), the IRS went back and tried to undo the
stipulation. The 10th Circuit held that the IRS
had to honor Conklin's stipulation which
included paying the IRS.
Tavery v.
United States, 897 F.2d 1027 -- This is the
case against Conklin's wife, which was reversed
because Conklin had entered into the stipulation
and she had already paid the IRS.
As
you can see, despite Conklin's claims he has
NEVER defeated the IRS by asserting his Fifth
Amendment arguments. Atlhough Conklin has a
couple of times won minor procedure victories on
technicalities, he has always ended up having to
pay the
IRS.
_________________________________________
Conklin's Premise
Exploded
There is no constitutional right to
refuse to file an income tax return on the
ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. In United
States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927),
the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer
"could not draw a conjurer's circle around the
whole matter by his own declaration that to
write any word upon the government blank would
bring him into danger of the law." The failure
to comply with the filing and reporting
requirements of the federal tax laws will not be
excused based upon blanket assertions of the
constitutional privilege against compelled
self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d
73, 83 (2 d Cir. 1979) - the court said that
"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize
all witnesses from testifying. Only those who
assert as to each particular question that the
answer to that question would tend to
incriminate them are protected . . . . [T]he
questions in the income tax return are neutral
on their face . . . [h]ence privilege may not be
claimed against all disclosure on an income tax
return."
United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d
248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979) - noting that the
Supreme Court had established "that the
self-incrimination privilege can be employed to
protect the taxpayer from revealing the
information as to an illegal source of income,
but does not protect him from disclosing the
amount of his income," the court said Brown made
"an illegal effort to stretch the Fifth
Amendment to include a taxpayer who wishes to
avoid filing a return.
United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d
1235, 1241 (9 th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S.
925 (1980) - the court affirmed a failure to
file conviction, noting that the taxpayer "did
not show that his response to the tax form
questions would have been self-incriminating. He
cannot, therefore, prevail on his Fifth
Amendment claim.
United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d
28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064
(1973) - the court affirmed a failure to file
conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth
Amendment claim because of his "error in . . .
his blanket refusal to answer any questions on
the returns relating to his income or
expenses.
Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d
941 (5 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
1153 (1995) - the court affirmed tax assessments
and penalties for failure to file returns,
failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous
return. The court also imposed sanctions for
pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had
failed to provide any information on their tax
return about income and expenses, instead
claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each
line calling for financial
information.
Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further
exposed as scam artists at http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html
Otto Skinner says that Conklin
and Bannister
are just flat wrong, see http://www.buildfreedom.com/fiscal/fifth_amendment.html
Thurston Bell says Bill Conklin
is a Scam Artist
from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm
Notice of Academic
Deficiency
5.12.2001
There just seems to be an endless number
of people out here on the internet, who, without
credentials, positive accomplishments, or
evidence of prior experience or knowledge of
their work on the Internet, and who also believe
that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing
by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send
them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of
these people, that I could spend every day for
the rest of my life arguing against and exposing
them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes
of the Treasury Department.
I have to learn to trust that individuals
can be responsible for themselves, can show
prudence, and judge that which is sent to them
over the World Wide Web.
When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only
share a few points of certainty regarding the
issues of lawsuits.
A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule
in YOUR favor because;
B: No Federal Judge wants to be the
Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards
known as the Economic Stabilization
Program.
C: The Government and the Judge will use
Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop
of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.
D: The Courts and the Government will
look for the weakest point of your argument and
they will rule on that one and ignore the rest
of the issues.
So, if someone is sending an e-mail
regarding wanting money from you to help support
a case where there is no specifically damaged
plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I
will not respond to such e-mails.
If you are seriously considering
spreading news of or financially supporting the
ideas of such people who have discovered the
Internet as a means of conning people out of
money, instead of sending me their e-mail please
write back to them and ask them what their
credentials are, what results have they had,
what is their area of expertise and experience,
and do they have references from anyone that you
might hold in esteem.
This how the Establishments of Academia
control discussions and discourse. (References
are important.) And believe me folks, if someone
out there was doing something that you needed to
know about, I would have told you already. And
if they don't have the guts to come to me
directly and seek counsel with people like me
who have results, they certainly are NOT worth
your time and effort.
Thurston P. Bell
Founder
PLEASE NOTE:
NITE has VERY strict standards about
following the letter of the Law. The people and
organizations listed below use arguments that
the courts have already deemed frivolous, and
make all sorts of claims with no results to show
for themselves. While some have truth mixed in
with lies, there is just enough truth to get
people tangled into their web. Some of these
people are academic plagiarists who have been
using NITE's work product and claiming it as
their own and / or intermingling our argument
with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments.
Many of these people / organizations are
networked (i.e. working together). A few of them
are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we
can truthfully say that from our experience and
first hand knowledge, the following people are
"Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who
do not deserve your trust:
Al Adask;
Al Beyer;
Al
Thompson;
American Rights
Litigators;
American Tax
Consultants;
Barry Konicov;
Big
Al;
Bill Benson;
Bill "William"
Conklin;
Bill Drexler;
Bob
Schulz;
Brad Barnhill;
Bruce
Hatcher;
Chad Prater;
Christopher H.
Hansen;
Christopher M. Hansen;
Dale
Livingston;
Dan Meador;
Dave
Bosset;
Dave Champion;
Dennis MacPhaeddon
;
Devvy Kidd;
Dick Simkanin;
Don
Proctor;
Ed Akehurst;
Eddie Kahn;
Ed
"Eduardo" Rivera;
Edmund
Fitzsimmons;
Erwin Rommel School of
Law;
Fairtax;
Financial
Fortress;
Financial Prosperity;
Freedom
Above Fortune;
Freedom Hall;
Freedom Law
School;
Free Enterprise Society;
Gordon
Phillips;
Howard Freeman;
Inform
America;
Institute of Global Prosperity;
IRS Decoder;
Inhabitant;
Irwin
Schiff;
Jeff Dickstein;
Jack Cohen;
Jim
Deal;
John Feld;
John Gliha;
John
Hecht;
John B. Kotmair;
Joseph
Banister;
Joy Foundation;
Justin
Garriott;
Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
Lamar
Hardy, Hawaii;
Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
Law
Research Registry;
Les Hollingshead;
Lynda Wahl;
Lynn Meridith;
Marcia
Doerr;
Mel Stamper;
Pat Patton;
Paul
Andrew Mitchell;
Paul Lienthall;
PreferredServices;
Richard
Cornforth;
Richard Standring;
Right Way
Law;
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
Sean O'Hara;
Solutions Group;
Steve
DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other
alisases)
Steven Swan;
Steven
Beresford;
Supreme Law Firm;
Tax
Ax;
Taxgate.com (NOT Tax-Gate.com);
Tax
Statement;
The Informer;
Tom
Scambos;
Tom Smith (Alleged
Doctor);
Treasury Tax Secrets;
Virginia
Cropsey a/k/a Little Red Hen
Wallace
Institute ( A Disgrace to William Wallace and
Clan Wallace);
Wayne C. Bentson
"We The
People Foundation"
Review Pending
Paul Sulla,
Attorney
People who do not seem to understand
have not seen as many people as Mr. Bell has
seen, get hurt. They lose their property, jobs,
paychecks, and / or families. They obviously do
not have the discernment to understand how
vitally important this issue is, and how we MUST
stay on point or lose.
There is no room for those who claim it
is their 1st Amendment Right for supporting
people who are espousing such res judicata
arguments. The courts and the Kotmair case made
it clear. Guilt by association is NOW supported
by CASE LAW.
