Bob Minarik posts A Primer for Non-filers w/ critique by Atty. Tom Cryer
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
*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
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
----- Original Message -----
Cc: becraft@... ; gt@...
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:03 AM
Subject: Your Primer
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
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
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
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.