Text File

From: ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) Subject: IRS Suffers major defeat! Message-ID: <1993Apr1.154516.20329@colorado.edu> Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 15:45:16 GMT Lines: 457

Hello All: Here is a definitive anti-tax package. This article proves many recently contested (on Internet) contentions regarding the legality of the income tax. There is no statute in the IRC that states that one is liable to file a return or liable to pay tax. It is a VOLUNTARY system. Thanks to certain naysayers who have attempted to get my Internet access suspended, I cannot post the last few lines of the article as they might be considered an "ad" as the article mentions where and for how much this package may be obtained. I will be happy to email it to anyone who is interested. This is HOT STUFF especially with april 15 approaching fast. Very informative and to the point. I have spoken with the group by phone as well as others who have used this technology. It is bullet- proof. Enjoy!

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207) Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)

[START OF DOCUMENT: hawaii.txt.lis ]

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE: The IRS suffers a major defeat in Hawaii.

On Wednesday August 8th, 1992 a Federal Jury acquitted Royal Lamarr Hardy and Mike Harada of a seven count indictment which consisted of conspiracy to launder drug money and structuring currency transactions to avoid income reporting requirements. This acquittal is a major victory for the entire "Patriot Movement," and a serious blow to the I.R.S. who tried to frame Lamarr Hardy into this hideous money laundering scheme (Danny Hashimotoi, National Commodity and Barter Association, NCBA, Director for Hawaii). Alexander Silvert, Hardy's Federal Public Defender, said that the evidence in this case showed that the I.R.S. created the crime, supplied the means to commit the crime, and even laundered the money themselves, and by insistence and strong handed persuasion tried to induce Mr. Hardy to become involved in this crime simply to be able to charge Mr. Hardy with a hideous crime that the I.R.S. knew he had never committed in the past, nor would he ever commit in the future if it wasn't for the government agents pushing Hardy into the criminal actions. The jury in this case made a tough decision. It was a tough case but the jury saw the truth and set Mr. Hardy free on all counts. This is a major loss for the I.R.S. and it will send shock waves clear back to Washington to let them know individuals will not tolerate this kind of action by the government or government representatives.

Historical background. Lamarr Hardy is the Executive Director and Co_Founder of "Corner Stones to Freedom", and Unincorporated Research Foundation. Hardy is best known in the "Patriot Movement" for the development of the "Reliance Defense." His program became so successful that the I.R.S., according to court documents, gave Hardy the coveted title of "one of the most dangerous tax protesters in the country." Over 4,000 people are already building their personal foundations. Is it any wonder that the I.R.S. considers Hardy's "Reliance Defense" program as extremely dangerous to their survival! The "Reliance Defense", or Personal Foundation as Hardy calls it, is based upon negating the "willfulness" portion in a 7203 "willful failure to file" charge. The key in this case is if there's no evidence of willfulness, there can be no criminal conviction. To accomplish this the Research Foundation assists its members to acquire competent legal advice on income tax issues. Over the last twelve years Hardy has built one of the most powerful personal legal foundations ever put together in the Patriot Movement. In 1985 it was the prestigious Barrister Inn of Boise, Idaho who first recognized this advanced technology. Later that year they published a front page article in the October "Alert" newspaper entitled "Willful Failure to File" is dead. The article went into depth to explain about the "reliance Defense" technology and how important this strategy was for certain types of individuals who choose not to file income tax returns. Quoting from paragraph 11, they said "every patriot has to know that intent is an element of the offense, but in the majority of cases patriots have been unable to make use of that knowledge as a matter of law to convince a jury. In the past, patriots have relief on their own knowledge as a basis for their arguments---only to lose. However, utilizing the "Reliance Defense" technology and not filing because you sought and received sound legal professional advice is entirely another matter., No one in the case of statutes requiring specific performance can be held criminally liable because of legal advice provided by counsel. John Voss, Head of the NCBA, wrote to Hardy in 1989 and told him, "I consider your position letters to the I.R.S. to be one of the best and most comprehensive that I've seen to date! It is further strong testimony to your continued research and commitment to education of all concerned." John Voss used this same technology in his own "willful failure to file" case and he was found not guilty on all counts in his case largely because of using this strategy. Bob Minarik, club leader of Patriots for Liberty, recommended to his members to explore setting up their own "Reliance Defense." In their November 1989 newsletter, Minarik said, "Lamarr Hardy has developed position letters and a defense that is excellent in quality, superbly researched, and well documented. In my opinion, the strength of his strategy is that he establishes his position on the professional advice of experts in the fields of tax law, and then shifts the burden of proof back to the I.R.S. Further, our research confirmed his findings." Martin Larson of the "Spotlight" also wrote an article in the November 1989 issue about Hardy and his "Reliance Defense." He said, "Lamarr Hardy of Honolulu, Hawaii has carried his research further than anyone else I know of." Is it any wonder after all this that the I.R.S. considered Mr. Hardy one of the "most dangerous" tax protesters, "the most dangerous to them!" For 10 years the Criminal Investigations Divisions (C.I.D.) of the I.R.S. was unable to find a crack in Mr. Hardy's "Reliance Defense" program. Then in 1987 the I.R.S. and the U.S. Attorney's office launched a massive Grand Jury investigation into Hardy's activities which after two full years resulted, interestingly, in no indictments. At this point the I.R.S. was exasperated, so early in 1990 the local I.R.S. office obtained permission from the Justice Department to set up a "STING OPERATION" on Mr. Hardy, The I.R.S. brought in Special Agent Ralph Jacoby to be the #1 drug money laundering specialist to come to Hawaii and take Mr. Hardy out.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. ROYAL LAMARR HARDY was arrested on August 16, 1990, and released on bail. He was arraigned on an Indictment on September 28, 1990. On December 7, 1990, Hardy was Re-indicted and Arraigned on a new seven-count Superseding Indictment which was pending before the court and was set for trial on August 18, 1992. On January 18, 1991, Hardy filed a motion to have all the charges against him dismissed based upon outrageous government conduct. Oral arguments and hearings of evidence were held on this motion on March 18th and 19th, and April 10th and 11th of 91. On August 2, 1992, the Court issued a written order denying this motion. Meanwhile, the court granted Hardy's motion to continue the trial based upon the fact that the case of Jacobson v United States, Federal Public Defender Alexander Silvert, counsel for Hardy ordered transcripts of all pertinent hearings bearing on the issue of outrageous government conduct. Having received this material, Hardy respectfully asked the court again to reconsider its previous order denying Hardy's motion to dismiss the charges pending against Hardy. Again, the court issued a written order denying Hardy's motion.

II FACTS OF THE CASE. The testimony and facts introduced in the case demonstrated that prior to the "sting operation," the I.R.S. had labeled Hardy one of the most dangerous tax protesters of the country due to his prominent role as the main leader of the tax protester movement in Hawaii. {Stip.#1. Stip. # refers to the numbered stipulation of fact reached by the parties which was lodged with the Court on April 2, 1991, and which is attached as Exhibit B. "Tr." refers to the transcript of the various hearings held on this motion by date.} There had been I.R.S./C.I.D. investigations since 1981 and formal grand jury proceedings into Hardy's "tax activities" since 1988. {Stip. #2. The court granted, over defense objection, the government's request to seal all the government papers which authorized the "sting operation" on the basis that they did not constitute Brady material. However, independent of the Brady issue, these materials are material and relevant to a determination of the issue pending before the court and thus should have been unsealed and made part of this record}. This information was specifically mentioned in the papers filed by the local I.R.S. office to their Washington office in order to gain approval to conduct the "sting operation." {Tr. 4/10/91 at p. 60} Prior to conducting the "sting operation" which was directed specifically against Hardy, the I.R.S. had no information whatsoever that Hardy had ever laundered "drug monies." {Stip. #11; Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 60-61} In fact the very idea Hardy would be targeted for a "sting" involving "drug money" was entirely made up and designed by Special Agent Ralph Jacoby (an I.R.S./C.I.D. Sting Specialist) just so the "crime" would fit under the more severe umbrella of the 18 U.S.C. (1956). {Tr. 4/10/91 at p. 64} The only information the government possessed about Hardy being involved in simple "money laundering" was in Count 5 of the indictment. However, this allegation was dismissed as a matter of law by Judge Pence on March 19, 1991. {Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 61-62} The government claims and contends anyone involved in the "tax protester" movement is per se guilty of "money laundering", but there was no evidence provided to support this "argument, other than what was contained in Count 5. Based upon the above information the I.R.S. launched this hideous "sting" operation against Hardy in March of 1990 and brought in the #1 I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agent (Ralph Jacoby), who had 45 "stings" to his credit, from California to implement and run the operation. The evidence is clear at least two undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents initiated contact with Hardy by phone on a number of occasions in April and May of 1990. {Stip.#3; Tr. 4/10/91 at pp.49-50} The agents continued to make a number of phone contacts with Hardy until Hardy finally agreed to a meeting on May 3, 1991. It was a direct result of the insistence of the I.R.S./C.I.D. undercover agents that the May 3rd meeting was held. {Stip. $5} The evidence shows Hardy was never informed prior to May 3, 1991, of any illegal purpose for the meeting. {Tr. 4/10/91 at p. 52} At this meeting, it was the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents who initiated the discussion abut the possibility of "laundering money." It was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents who wanted to "launder the money" by utilizing cashiers' checks and not by any other means! Hardy of course refused! {Stip. #7; Tr. 4/10/92 at p.88} Finally, Special Agent Jacoby admitted that at this meeting, and every other meeting when the issue of payment for Hardy's alleged service was mentioned, it was always the agent's who brought it up, not Hardy.

Court hearing: Special agent Jacoby: "I believe there was conversation about remuneration for services, yes." Federal Public Defender Alexander Silvert: "And weren't those conver- sations always, in every instance, begun by you?" Special Agent Jacoby: "Probably in all likelihood, yes." {Tr. 4/10/92 at p. 48}

Special Agent Jacoby's testimony demonstrated that Hardy consistently rejected all offers of payment until finally, in an unrecorded conversation, Agent Jacoby threw money down on Hardy's desk and strongly suggested he take it! Despite Hardy's continued refusal to cooperate with the undercover special agents on May 3, 1991, the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents continued to phone him throughout May of 1991 and continued to "modify" their plans to see if they could suck Hardy into their trap! {Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 49-50} Each time, Hardy politely rejected their invitations. Nevertheless, in June of 1991, agents of the I.R.S., knowing full well that Hardy had refused to help them over and over to launder money by using illegal means, the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents contacted the D.E.A. Special Agent who they knew from first hand experience to have a D.E.A. informant who ran a check cashing business in Honolulu (Mike Harada) to help them such Hardy into their trap!

Court hearing: Attorney: "In June of 1991, did you have a discussion with a Special Agent of the I.R.S. regarding money laundering in the State of Hawaii?" D.E.A.Special Agent: "Yes, I did." Attorney: "And what was the extent of that conversation?" D.E.A. Special Agent: "It was, as you say, in the month of June 1991 when the Special Agent of the I.R.S. requested that I contact Mr. Mike Harada of the Hawaii Check Cashing Company, to ascertain whether or not he had a specific number of check cashing stores here in the State." Attorney: "Do you know why the I.R.S. Special Agent asked you that?" D.E.A. Special Agent: "For two reasons. I believe he asked me, one, because he knew that I had a personal relationship with Mr. Harada and his friends; and also because he knew Mr. Harada personally as well." He also told me that I.R.S./C.I.D. was conducting a financial "sting operation" on money laundering with the State; and that there was a ......it had come up where someone was going to, a suspect was attempting or would be utilizing a check cashing company to launder money: and the information further indicated that it was going to be the largest check cashing chain in the State." {Rt. 4/10/91 at pp. 12-13}

The D.E.A. Special Agent did as requested and informed Harada (to act as D.E.A. informant) and keep an eye out and report back if he became aware of any suspicious activity. {Tr. 4/10/92 at p. 14} Special Agent Jacoby testified he was aware of I.R.S./C.I.D. and D.E.A. Special Agents directly involved in the "sting operation" being conducted against Hardy. {Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 46-47} Finally, it was Harada (the D.E.A. informant) who set up and initiated the first meeting with Hardy. During that meeting it was Harada who brought up the idea of wanting to buy money in exchange for cashier's checks to hardy during their July 1991 meeting, not Hardy.{Stip. #15 and #16} Only after these events did Hardy become sucked into and involved with the unlawful activities hoisted upon him by the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents and the D.E.A. Special Agent informant.

III. ARGUMENT: The question of whether the actions of government special agents amount to outrageous government conduct which arises to the level of violation of a defendant's due process rights is a question of law for the court to determine.United States v Bogart, (1986) and United States v Ramirez, (1983) Fundamental fairness will not permit any defendant to be convicted of a crime in which police conduct is deemed "outrageous." United States v Twigg. (1978) The question whether police conduct sufficiently rises to the level warranting dismissal of charges is examined in light of the totality of the circumstances. United States v Twigg, (1978) In Jacobson v United States (1992) the Court held that the government had failed, as a matter of law, to give as a reason of proof any evidence to support the jury's verdict that Jacobson was likely to (independent of the government's acts) violate the law. Hardy readily acknowledges Jacobson was "framed" as an "entrapment" case. However, the nature of the decision and the analysis employed clearly applies to this case and certainly to the issue of outrageous government conduct. In Jacobson the court acknowledged sting operations were still valid investigative tools. However, the court made the following general conclusion regarding catching those defendants who were already engaged in illegal activity. Specifically, the Court states: "Likewise, there can be no dispute that the Government may use undercover agents to enforce the law. It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises. Immediately upon the heels of this statement, the Court stated: "In their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." The court held the government must prove beyond reasonable doubt "that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents." Of significance is the court said, "THE criminal act," not A criminal act." Finally, the court stated in conclusion: "When the Government's quest for convictions leads to the apprehension of an otherwise law abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law, the courts should intervene." Thus, the Court's analysis in Jacobson, although worded in terms of an "entrapment" case, leaves little doubt the legal issue of "outrageous government conduct" is alive and well and should itself be analyzed under the dictates of Jacobson. In Jacobson the Supreme court has sent a clear message to the lower courts that overreaching and illegal conduct by the government cannot and should not be tolerated by any court. The evidence could not be clearer in this case that the government targeted Hardy, solely because the I.R.S. did not like how Hardy has chosen to exercise his First Amendment right of free speech and political expression. Indeed, the government is frighteningly brazen about their reasons for going after Hardy. The testimony in this case shows there was no evidence whatsoever to support the fact that Hardy had previously been involved in "drug money laundering" or even simple "money laundering" prior to the government's operation. The only prior claim of "money laundering' which could be made against Hardy was contained in Count 5 of the Indictment which was dismissed. In an act which rally shows the government's illegal intent Special Agent Jacoby testified, simply to have the sting "fit" a more serious criminal statute than the one applicable to simply money laundering,he created the idea of drug money laundering out of his own head, even though the I.R.S. in all the years of investigating Hardy had absolutely no evidence to suggest Hardy had ever previously committed any sort of drug crime in his entire life. This was not an "investigation" that the I.R.S. was conducting, rather it was an exercise in 1990's McCarthyism! The evidence also demonstrates over a period of months it was the I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agents who consistently contacted Hardy and gradually turned the conversation to drug money laundering, not Hardy. Although confronted with vague innuendoes the undercover agents wanted to "launder monies from drug sources,: Hardy kept insisting he could only set up a system of legitimate trusts so they could do it legally. It was the special Agents who kept insisting the monies be converted into cashier's checks. Special Agent Jacoby's testimony about the May 3rd meeting clearly show it was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents who kept demanding some sort of illegal, clandestine operation be established, specifically using cashier's checks, not Hardy. Despite these repeated attempts by the undercover agents to such Hardy into their trap, Hardy over and over declined their overtures for several months. However, it was in July of 1991, Hardy was approached by one, Michael Harada, who ironically is a co-defendant in this case,who just happened to own the largest check cashing business in Hawaii, and who just happened to be a part-time D.E.A. informant and just happened to be working with the same D.E.A. Special Agent whom the I.R.S. was working on this sting operation. As the evidence shows, it was Harada who searched out and set up a meeting with Hardy for a discussion concerning the establishment of a legitimate trust system for Harada by Hardy. Frankly, it was Harada who brought up the subject whether Hardy knew anyone who had extra cash available to help him in his check cashing business. Only and only at this point did Hardy mention anything about exotic pawn dealers having extra amounts of cash from their business who needed to exchange their cash for cashier's checks. Thus, even if Harada was not clearly working for the D.E.A. during this time in terms of being under contract, although Hardy maintains he was, Harada was acting in an agency capacity for the D.E.A and on behalf of the I.R.S./C.I.D. covert sting operation. The D.E.A. Special Agent directly involved in the sting operation had specifically gone to the D.E.A. Special Agent to have him contact Harada, who just happened to have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars of cashier's checks, in order to launder the money of the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents and make the operation work. The I.R.S./C.I.D. Agent did as testified in this case inform the D.E.A. Special Agent there was a sting operation being conducted specifically dealing with the need for cashier's checks. The record shows this discussion took place after Hardy had declined over and over again to get involved in any money laundering cashier's check cashing scheme! The evidence in this case clearly shows Hardy did introduce Harada to the Special Agents and Hardy was present at the meetings between Harada and the undercover agents when the arrangements were made as to how the alleged drug money was to be laundered. But, Hardy made it very clear he was simply hooking up two interested parties as a business favor and Hardy was not interested in receiving any monies for helping the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents for putting the two "businessmen" together . The evidence in this case proves it was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents who insisted, time and time again, Hardy receive money for his "part" in the scheme. Again, the evidence clearly shows Hardy again and again kept refusing to take any money despite repeated attempts by the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents to force him to take a "cut." Thus, the evidence shows the government created the crime, supplied the means to commit the crime, even committed the crime themselves by laundering over $300,000 in cash just because they couldn't get Hardy to do it, and by insistence and strong handed persuasion tried over and over again to induce Hardy to become somehow involved in this crime simply to be able to charge him with a hideous crime they knew he had never committed in the past nor would ever commit, if it wasn't for the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents pushing him into their criminal activities. On the point the Supreme Court has said: "In their zeal to enforce the law, however, the Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person'[s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so the government may prosecute." Jacobson, 1992. The evidence in this case is clear this happened and "Jacobson" dictates the result. This court or any court should not stand by and condone the outrageous conduct committed by the I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agents in this case. The conduct by the I.R.S. and D.E.A. is even more offensive than most cases because, as the government brazenly admits, this entire "sting" operation was conceived of and conducted specifically because the I.R.S. wanted to silence Mr. Lamarr Hardy for the technology Hardy developed and in the way which Hardy has chosen to exercise his First Amendment right, which was to speak out against the I.R.S. and their criminal activities! As the record shows the I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agents even went so far as to fabricate a drug money laundering scheme and "structure" their "sting operation" so it would fall under the dictates of the "drug money laundering" statute rather than the less serious criminal statute related to evading I.R.S. reporting requirements (failing to file reports related to monetary transactions over $10,000 in cash) because they knew the punishment for drug money laundering is so much more severe. Again, such behavior by agents of the government who have taken an oath and sworn to catch criminals, not create them. should not be acceptable in a society of supporting free men! Under "Jacobson", the Supreme court recognized the government must show a defendant was predisposed to commit "the crime," not "a crime." Based on these facts, the court was requested to grant Hardy's motion to reconsider and dismiss all or part of the charges presented against him, even after all this the court denied his motion to dismiss and set the case for trial on August 27, 1992. After two weeks of hearing government agents tell their hideous story of how they framed and sucked Hardy into their drug money laundering scheme---for the sole purpose of silencing him---the jury on Thursday morning September 8th acquitted him of all counts. After the trial the members of the jury all came up to Lamarr Hardy and shook his hand, some of the jury even hugged him. What a joyous moment! The jury couldn't believe the government would go so far, just to get someone. They felt the I.R.S./C.I.D./D.E.A. Special Agents were the ones who committed the crime. In this case and tried every way they could to induce Hardy into their scheme for the sole purpose of trying to induce and honest citizen to commit a crime. "We weren't going to let that happen in America. We made the right decision. We acquitted Lamarr Hardy and we're proud of it." We must also give a special thanks to Alexander Silvert, Hardy's Federal Public Defender, and the whole staff at the Public Defender's Office for their hard work fighting for justice in this case. They did an awesome job. Finally, I'd like to thank my precious Yahweh, our Creator, for being with me throughout my trials and tribulations and finally setting me free to continue to teach the truth about the crime that the I.R.S. is perpetrating on his people. If you'd like to contact Lamarr Hardy personally, you can reach him by phone by calling (800)............. If you'd like to get more information about how you can set up your own "Reliance Defense" to protect yourself against the I.R.S., please send your full legal name, address and phone number plus .........to P.O.Box ............................... Ask for the "Reliance Defense Packet." The packet will explain in detail every thing you need to know about setting up your own personal "Reliance Defense." Remember, this is the same information the I.R.S. spent millions trying to stamp out--obviously for some very good reason---they don't want you to have it. Why?! Because they know it works! Hurry, order your packet today before it's too late!

[END OF DOCUMENT: hawaii.txt.lis ]

+=============================================================================+ | D I S C L A I M E R | +------------------------------------oooOooo----------------------------------+ | The sender of this message is not responsible for and does not necessarily | | agree with the content or opinions contained herein. Mail will be forwarded | | to the source identified, if any. This is for "information purposes only", | | has not necessarily been verified or tested in any way, and "should not be | | construed as legal advise". Your comments and responses are encouraged. | | Please Email to "ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.EDU" instead of replying here. | | With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, UCC 1-207, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris. | +=============================================================================+ | The American's Bulletin, Mr. Robert Kelly, Sui Juris, Editor (503) 779-7709 | | c/o 3434 North Pacific Highway, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A. Postal Zone: 97501 | +=============================================================================+