Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bob Minarik posts A Primer for Non-filers w/ critique by Atty. Tom Cryer

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    FF sez: Bob Minarik [rlmpfl9065@earthlink.net] posted this recently and I m passing it on as asked, no comment, as I believe all have the right to information
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      FF sez: Bob Minarik [rlmpfl9065@...] posted this recently and I'm passing it on as asked, no comment, as I believe all
      have the right to information and can and should make up their own
      minds:

      Moderator/Bear: Bob and I agree. Go to www.irsarmory.com and read the transcript or watch my free video Spiritual Tactics for Dealing With the IRS.
      --------------------------------

      As we get closer to April 15th, many will be enticed to join the rapid
      growth of the tax patriot movement and forego the filing of tax returns.

      Wisdom, however, suggests that before one jumps into the deep end of the
      non-filing pool, they proceed with caution and give consideration to the
      ramifications of their actions. In order to stimulate thoughts along
      those lines, we drew up the following report.

      When this report first made its way onto the internet, it was read and
      reviewed by Attorney Tom Cryer down Louisiana way. Tom, as you will
      remember, was found not guilty of willful failure to file in a criminal
      tax case last year. Tom not only read the article, he was gracious
      enough to make his comments. I have attached them at end of this
      article that we have entitled:

      THIS YOU NEED TO KNOW
      "A primer for non-filers"
      bob minarik - rlmpfl9065@...

      There are some facts of life that you flat out need to know before
      you jump into the deep end of the non-filing pool, cause if you don't,
      you're gonna get shot down. And that's reality!!
      I've been involved in the patriot movement since 1969 and the tax
      patriot movement since 1975. We've spent years researching the issues
      and assisting those with tax related problems, both in and out of the
      court room. We certainly haven't won all our cases, but even with those
      we lost, we learned. What we learned, you need to know.
      That's the purpose of this brief report. Wisdom suggests that you
      take the time to read and study it. We've been there, done the research
      and we know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
      At the present date and in a nutshell, our research has confirmed
      that government was intended to be the servant of the people and not
      their master. We have verified that the government originally recognized
      that our fundamental rights came from our Creator and as the Supreme
      Court stated, "existed long antecedent to the state."
      We further found that government's primary purpose was to protect
      those rights. A number of our founding fathers refused to ratify the
      Constitution for the United States of America, until and unless distinct
      restrictions were incorporated within that Constitution, specifically
      protecting the rights of the people. Hence the Bill of Rights, which
      more appropriately could have been titled a Bill of Restrictions, was
      added.
      The Constitution was not meant to restrict "We the People." The
      Constitution was a set of rules from "We the People" to the government,
      just as the 10 Commandments is a set of rules from [the Creator] to "We the
      People."
      The Constitution gave us no rights and only restricted "We the
      People" and local and state government to the narrow extent that
      specific delegated authority was granted to the federal government to do
      specific tasks as enumerated in Article 1, Sections 8, 9 and 10. Any
      subsequent authority was to be transferred only by the Amendment process
      and NOT by usurpation.
      "We the People" do not take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
      Government officials do. And once they do, they become a servant of the
      people with a specific obligation to uphold that Constitution and
      protect the rights of the people.
      With that foundation, we come in conflict with entities like the
      IRS, who presume that we are their servants. The Commissioner of
      Internal Revenue, claiming authority from Congress, who claims authority
      from the Constitution, now presumes that everyone comes under their
      dominion and everyone is obligated to waive fundamental rights in order
      to comply with statutory provisions. We strenuously disagree!!
      I make my claim that NO ONE can obligate me to waive my rights
      to work and exist. I claim my right to the security and privacy of my
      home, my papers and effects. I claim my right to be free from any
      mandate to be a witness against myself, to talk or not to talk, or take
      an oath. Unless I voluntarily waive those rights, no one has rightful
      authority to compel the waiver of those rights, under any guise,
      including taxation, without due process of law within a proper
      jurisdiction.
      Our conflict with the income tax scheme, in its present form as it
      is being administered today, is the forced waiver of rights, not money
      or property, but RIGHTS. The bottom line of the war with our government
      is the theft of our rights, the destruction of our liberty and the
      usurpation of our rightful supremacy as masters over our government.
      However, what is proper, just and correct comes into conflict with
      reality and enormous government power. I have personally seen good
      people jailed, their property stolen, and families destroyed because
      they have refused to waive their rights and comply with arbitrary
      government edicts.
      I have seen good intentioned patriots attempt to fight this
      tyranny based on a myriad of bull manure theories. I have seen con men
      and agent provocateurs under the guise of offering assistance, steal the
      resources of those being personally attacked by government agents.
      I have seen unmitigated arrogance by government officials, who
      claim master status over the people. I have seen judges, merely to keep
      their job or to keep the present system alive, carve out special
      exemptions for those government officials and agencies even when the law
      and the facts were overwhelmingly superior to the government's claim.
      Because of this we have become more foundation orientated. We have
      come to realize that too many of us don't have our ducks in a row before
      we try to reclaim our rights, which through ignorance, we have failed to
      assert.
      Prior to reasserting these rights and making a head on challenge
      to the tax system, we believe that a solid factual foundation is
      mandatory. To establish some standard of what is necessary, we should
      look at the worst case scenario.
      Today, if you challenge any aspect of government on the claim that
      you are the master and government is the servant, the government will
      attempt to destroy your will to resist by jailing you, stealing all your
      property, and permanently breaking up your family. That is not theory.
      That is reality. Don't ever forget it!!
      To counter this, there are steps that must be taken prior to
      making your claim and refusing to submit non applicable government
      forms. First you have to get your head on straight and think logically.
      If you haven't done so already, you need to make a determination of
      whether you are one who is liable to file forms, waive rights, and pay
      an income tax. If you are liable, either follow the dictates of the IR
      Code and corresponding regulations or rid yourself of the impediments
      that bring you within the purview of that Code. If you aren't able to
      make that determination, then file the forms and pay the tax until you
      are able. Don't put the cart before the horse. If you don't know what
      I am saying, you're still not ready!!!
      If you do make that determination and you are prepared to hold it
      as your conviction of your belief, rather than as a preference just to
      save a buck, then you are ready to move forward.
      I am a strong advocate of establishing a solid factual
      evidentiary foundation to gut the first of those worst case scenarios,
      the criminal prosecution. To do this you will need to start by making
      inquiry of the government as to any obligation you may have, especially
      how you are personally obligated to waive fundamental rights in order to
      comply with their statutory scheme.
      This inquiry and the response or lack of response is the
      foundation for the determination that your are not one obligated to
      waive your rights and comply with any taxing scheme under the claimed
      income taxing statutes. Don't presume anything. If the government is
      making the claim, the burden is on the government to substantiate the
      claim and show you the reason why.
      From that point, our contention is that you should reply to any
      substantive counter inquiry by the government "of where is your tax
      form." Most times simply shifting the burden of proof back to the
      accuser and requesting verification of their claim is sufficient to
      establish that evidentiary burden of proof. Remember, its not so much
      what you get, but what you don't get that is important.
      The use of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act
      cannot be overlooked in establishing that factual evidentiary foundation
      to search for any documents of determination within the Treasury/IRS
      systems of records upon which they base their claim that you are "a
      person liable." If you don't understand how to use the FOIA and PA to
      your advantage, you don't yet have your ducks in a row sufficient to be
      on the front lines of the tax patriot movement.
      Another method of building a factual evidentiary foundation, to
      gut a criminal prosecution, is to demand a face to face meeting with the
      agency honchos and personally put the questions to them, while at the
      same time making the demand for documents which support their claim. It
      takes some cohunes, but when the agents can't answer the questions or
      document their position, and further refuse (which they will do) to ever
      meet with you again, that is one fantastic reliance defense!! If you
      can't do these things, then stay in the system!!!!!
      Although I can tell you that I don't submit income tax forms to
      the state or federal government and haven't for 33 years, this doesn't
      mean you have to tell the world that you are a non-filer. Discussions of
      finances and your personal filing status in regard to taxes should
      likely be as personal as your sex life.
      Remember the 3 basic rules of survival when dealing with any
      government entity:
      *1) Don't say anything,
      *2) Keep your mouth shut and
      *3) SHUT UP!!!!!
      If a government agent calls you on the phone and starts asking you
      personal questions, you should respond courteously, but firmly, with a
      statement such as, "I'm busy right now (or I don't discuss private
      matters over the phone), please put your request in writing." If
      another question is asked, repeat what you said and then hang up the
      phone. If you can't remember this, put a note by the phone.
      If an agent comes to your door and tries to question you, you
      smile and courteously state the same thing. If you can't remember this,
      also put a note by your door. You will need to teach this to the
      family. Government agents are pros in eliciting information. They want
      to catch you off guard and get you to make statements that they can use
      to their advantage. This is not even the time and the place for you to
      be making inquiry of them. You must discipline yourself and your family
      to remember the three basic rules of survival mentioned above. These are
      fundamentals. The goal of any prosecutor is to get their case on the
      record and block your case off the record. The more you talk, the more
      ammunition you give them to use against you in or out of court.
      The second worst case scenario is that those who want you back in
      their system, will want to steal all your property to get you there.
      So, inventory your property. If you can't afford to lose it, you need to
      do something with it. You should consider being judgment proof. This
      means "NO PROPERTY IN YOUR NAME PRIOR TO THE ACTION TAKEN." This means
      no funds in the bank, whole life insurance policies, stocks, bonds, real
      estate, vehicles, boats, etc. etc. etc. This means no future pensions,
      IRAs, annuities, payments or accounts receivable etc. etc. etc. Any and
      all property owned by you is subject to theft (with very few exceptions)
      by those in the IRS without a court order. If you can't afford to lose
      it, fix the problem in advance or stay in the system!
      If you don't want hassle, don't leave a paper trail. Liberty is
      inversely proportional to government control. The more control the
      government has, the less liberty you have. A paper trail is, however,
      proportional to hassle. The more paper floating around, the more the
      hassle. That includes 1099s, K-1s, W-2s, W-4s, bank accounts, credit
      cards, public loans, bank mortgage (1098's generated).
      Paper referencing you, is easy to obtain, if you are with the IRS.
      It is rare case indeed when anyone can permanently stop any banking
      entity from turning over an entire file on you, merely on presentment of
      an administrative summons to that banking entity.
      Any 1099's claiming your receipt of "revenue taxable income" will
      establish the presumption that you may be involved in a "revenue taxable
      activity." If that is the case, the courts have held that an IRS agent
      can use a 1099 showing a few bucks received as a basis for going to the
      Bureau of Labor Statistics and alleging a forty or fifty thousand $frn
      claim against you. And the courts universally, in every federal
      circuit, will uphold that fraud. So, I repeat. No paper trail!!!!!! If
      this is to tough for you, stay in the system!!!!!
      The third worst case scenario is the potential destruction of
      your family. You need to talk your position over with your spouse. You
      need to discuss what is the worst case scenario if you come under either
      civil or criminal attack by a government entity. If a problem exists,
      you need to sever your spouse from you for tax purposes. If you are the
      breadwinner, you have an obligation to your family. You better assess
      your risks and determine how well you and your family can swim before
      you take them along and jump into the deep end of the non-filing pool.
      I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I have to present this
      admonition: Don't get involved in some wild theory unless you have
      personally researched that theory and you are confident that you can
      present that theory fluently before a jury!!
      As I stated previously, there are many agent provocateurs and con
      men in the tax patriot movement. These people are willing to promote a
      line of bull and sell it to you for thousands of "$frns." Before you
      jump into the deep end of the pool and buy into their program, you need
      to personally check out their track record. Don't just grab onto some
      wild theory because it sounds good or out of fear. Use common sense.
      Act like a reasonable man or women. Reasonable people don't act
      irrationally. They make inquiry before they commit themselves. A good
      rule of thumb is to look to see how that position is taken with today's
      courts. If today's courts don't recognize the position, don't use it.
      If in doubt, fall back to the "rights issue" position. That position is
      well recognized.
      Believe me, I have seen some wild theories cross my desk. I am
      consistently amazed that so many people are willing to be suckered so
      easily and be so willing to shuck out thousands of bucks without prior
      investigation. Wisdom suggests that the higher the cost, the more gun
      shy you should be. There are no silver bullets!!!!!
      The enemy, those who would steal our liberty, is powerful and
      does not deal from the top of the deck. In addition they control the
      courts and the judges. Even if you are one of those "one-out-of-20" who
      does win a criminal tax trial, the financial costs for a good attorney
      are immense. You are either extremely skilled, overly arrogant, or a
      damn fool if you think you can win against the feds in a criminal case
      without a good attorney.
      What I am trying to impress upon you is to step gently and
      thoughtfully. You've been acting the roll of a subject a long time. It
      takes a while to get your ducks in a row. If you are going to make the
      move, don't procrastinate and don't be skipping important steps.
      I'm stressing to you to lay that solid factual evidentiary
      foundation so you never even get into a criminal courtroom situation.
      I'm stressing to you to keep your mouth shut and your writings on focus
      so as not to make stupid admissions and confessions.
      I'm stressing to you to never give your opponent the opportunity
      to feel confident that a jury will find you guilty of a crime when no
      crime exists. I'm stressing to you to never let your opponent have the
      opportunity to be able to steal any of your property. I'm stressing to
      you to never proceed forward without having protected your family.
      Unless you are serious, don't bog me down with phone calls. If you
      are going to call, get a tape recorder hook up for your telephone, so I
      don't have to keep repeating fundamentals or reinvent the wheel. I talk
      fast but I talk clearly. I don't give legal advice. I am not an
      attorney. I only make suggestions and give opinions.
      The bottom line to weaving your wave through a non-filing position
      is yours. The buck always stops with you. There are no exceptions!!!!
      This - you need to know.

      Bob Minarik - 5288 N. 1000 W. Rochester, Indiana 46975
      e-mail: rlmpfl9065@...
      ph. 574-542-9065



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: CryerLaw@...
      To: rlmpfl9065@...
      Cc: becraft@... ; gt@...
      Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:03 AM
      Subject: Your Primer


      Bob,

      I just reviewed your primer and I wish everyone who is tempted to go
      into the cave alone were required to read that piece first.

      I would add a couple of points, or perhaps the same points, but
      expressed a little differently.

      First, I point out to people that in the cave the beast makes the rules,
      the beast defines "reality", calls what is fair and foul, who is safe
      and out and it owns the scoreboard. If you do battle in the cave, you
      cannot win. Thus the only way to win is to wrestle the fight out of the
      cave and into a courtroom with a jury calling the game, and that means
      going "all in", risking everything. A decision like that requires and
      deserves some serious thought.

      Before one can decide whether to do singular battle with the beast he
      needs to give himself a pre-induction physical. (I often point out that
      if we were to be hitting the beach at Normandy tomorrow as much as I
      would want to be there, at 58, overweight, two heart attacks and five
      degenerative disks? I don't think so. I would be doing
      something--making pup tents, stringing wiring harnesses in P51s,
      whatever I could do--but I would not be packing 80 pounds and an M-1
      through the water and up that beach.)

      1. Does he have a firm and thorough grasp of the law? Not articles,
      not seminars, books, videos or lectures, but the law itself, primary
      sources only: Statutes, Regulations, Supreme Court Cases--without
      anyone else's spin or interpretation, and including an understanding of
      the phony counter-arguments and what makes them phony. If not, then he
      is not academically equipped to serve in personal combat.

      2. Does he have the communication skills to convince a jury? Not all
      of us are able to articulate our beliefs and our knowledge to others
      clearly. And not many of us are able to do so in a manner that the jury
      will understand and see them as believable, especially when that jury
      "knows" and has always "known" the exact opposite was "true". If not,
      then he is not qualified to engage in one on one combat with the beast.

      3. Does he have the nerve to stand the ordeal--the stomach for
      litigation? Not many do. They think that they do. They fantasize
      about being a courtroom wizard, but do they really have what it takes to
      stand toe to toe with a seasoned prosecutor and stand their ground? To
      think not only on their feet, but on the run and under fire? To avoid
      being rattled and lose their train of thought--control of the situation?


      4. Does he have the resources or access to the resources it will take
      to win? And this means a lot more than money (and plenty of it). He
      has to have the energy to spend hundreds of hours honing and polishing
      his knowledge and his presentation. He has to have qualified and
      experienced attorneys who know the terrain and can guide him to the
      target--an acquittal. He has to have the theatrical skills to put
      himself across. He has to have support to allow him to do all of these
      things without the distractions of everyday life.

      5. Is he willing to accept the consequences of failure? One should
      never bet money he doesn't have or gamble what he is not willing to
      lose. If he does, he is, in poker terms, playing with "scared money"
      and scared money is "dead money". If he is not willing to go to prison,
      to lose everything he has or ever will have, then he isn't qualified to
      engage in singular combat with the beast. The jury will sense his fear,
      but they will interpret it as guilt.

      Of those who do end up in the cave, and there are probably thousands who
      have been sent in with nothing but a magic rubber knife and a tin foil
      hat of invincibility sold to them by some charlatan, some sheep are
      selected for shearing, some for skinning. If they decide to pursue one
      criminally the only thing between him and the big house is the jury.
      The judge isn't going to protect him and the DOJ isn't going to worry
      about whether the charges are just. His only hope is the jury, so his
      focus has to be on the jury.

      His lawyer can play games with the AUSA's and judge's minds, he can
      plant seeds of doubt through cross examinations, he can put the
      government at risk with motions and he can run interference, but the
      defendant has to stand on his own on the stand. He has to take the ball
      that last 20 yards by himself and if he falls one yard short it might as
      well be twenty.

      That is why I have developed a method for preparing defendants to go
      into court and to not only articulate and explain their beliefs,
      credibly, but to defend them under cross and to do it in a way that the
      jury believes him and accepts his actions as honorable rather than out
      of avarice.

      As much as I would love to try some of these cases, I know that being a
      'non-filer' I cannot expect to be permitted to enroll PHV for a
      defendant. So I'm filling another need that has gone unnoticed or
      insufficiently addressed. After having gone through it I know what it
      takes and after studying cases where defendants were successful and
      where they weren't I have noted common denominators for success and for
      failure.

      Coupling that experience with my knowledge of the law and trial practice
      and with a combined 65 years of experience with juries and courts, Larry
      Becraft and I have developed a tag-team method, a defense preparation
      and mapping process, that is working. We've only completed one case
      using this process and even though the client had gone buggy for two
      weeks, losing precious preparation time, we still hung the jury (and in
      spite of some damning personal baggage). Larry is trying that case
      again right now, and I hope that the defendant is up to acquittal grade.

      I'm presently getting underway with another case using the same process
      with Joel Hansen and if the defendant will work as directed, I'm hopeful
      that we will be able to get that one acquitted in spite of his having
      toyed with "BIC's" and his "straw man." If we can swing a jury on a
      defendant that reeks of snake oil, that will definitely prove the
      process Larry and I have developed.

      If we had a way to require prospective non-filers to undergo and PASS a
      pre-induction physical as described above, there is no doubt in my mind
      every one of them would be acquitted. It is the unprepared and
      unqualified defendants who make up the vast majority of the convictions.

      Right now, I'm trying to help all that I think can be helped, even those
      only marginally qualified to fight, because their chances are better
      with help than without. I'm reconsidering that approach, however,
      leaning toward tightening up the prerequisites for consideration as a
      candidate for our method. The process is wasted on those who can't or
      won't do what it takes and that wasted time and effort is at the expense
      of those who can and will.

      I just thought that since you had put so much thought into your primer
      you might want to consider a couple more thoughts. Hope this adds
      something.

      Tom

      PS: Feel free to forward this note around. Just as I think they should
      read your primer before strapping on their sword (or rubber knife) I
      think they should have these considerations in mind, as well.

      --------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.