Of course, not having half a brain
doesn't mean that you can't cash in like the
other tax scam artists. For a mere $24.95 you
can get the whole Devvy collection of conspiracy
theories and her "proof". But wait! Selling CDs
is small pickin's compared to Devvy's other gig,
which is endorsing "El Dorado Gold Discount" which
deals in gold coins over the internet.
At one point, Devvy apparently tried to
form the "Wallace Institute" (named after Mel
Gibson's character in Braveheart) but was
unsuccessful in getting 501(c)(3) charitable
status, so that went by the wayside.
Devvy's theory regarding taxes is that
the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.
Of course, she didn't do any significant
research on her own but merely refers to
ex-felon and fellow Quatlooser Bill
Benson's "The Law That Never Was". In
January of 2000, Devvy proclaimed that the Wallace
Institute was preparing to file a lawsuit in
Oklahoma City to declare the 16th Amendment
illegal. The case of course went nowhere. Devvy
also has put our flyers declaring the income
tax to be "voluntary", although the courts have
regularly sanctioned, fined, and convicted those
who have raised this ridiculous
argument.
Devvy has also been implicated in the "We
the People" scam, which has had its greatest
publicity recently with Lynne Meredith's
indictment. We can only hope that Devvy is soon
able to spend long hours chatting with her
comrade-in-scam.
___________________________
Devvy Kidd 's
Claims Exploded
Devvy Kidd 's premise is that all federal
income tax laws are unconstitutional because the
Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified,
or because the State of Ohio was not properly a
state at the time of ratification. This argument
has survived over time because proponents
mistakenly believe that the courts have refused
to address this issue.
The Sixteenth Amendment provides that
Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes on income, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several states,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.
U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment
was ratified by forty states, including Ohio,
and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly
thereafter, two other states also ratified the
Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution,
only three-fourths of the states are needed to
ratify an Amendment. There were enough states
ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without
Ohio to complete the number needed for
ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the income
tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of
the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that
time, the courts have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of the federal income
tax.
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d
236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the
court stated, "We find it hard to understand why
the long and unbroken line of cases upholding
the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment
generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company . . . and those specifically rejecting
the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was,
have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to
seek a more effective forum for airing their
attack on the federal income tax structure." The
court imposed sanctions on them for having
advanced a "patently frivolous"
position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d
1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary
of State's certification under authority of
Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been
ratified by the requisite number of states and
has become part of the Constitution is
conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld
Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns
and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749
F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the
contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not
constitutionally adopted as "totally without
merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against
Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his
appeal. "Every court that has considered this
argument has rejected it," the court
observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d
457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883
(1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction
for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and
filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his
claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never
properly ratified.
See also http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification
Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further
exposed as scam artists at http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html
Thurston Bell says Devvy Kidd 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.
