Devvy Kidd made the following statement to me, “. . .I spent countless hours at the law library inside the Federal Courthouse in Denver, Colorado [10th Circuit] reading each and every one of Bill Conklin's cases. If you had done the same thing, you wouldn't be taking the position you are.”

This was in response to my statement that the Fifth Amendment does not offer to the taxpayer blanket immunity against filing a 1040.

Let’s see where Devvy went wrong. . . .

If you read Mr. Conklin's cases you would see that in none of the six cases he cited on his web site (http://www.anti-irs.com/index.html) did the court affirm the claims he has made, namely that:

1. No statute makes a person liable or responsible to pay income tax.

2. No statute constitutional can exist which require the filing of a 1040 form.

3. The IRS can not cannot legally require the information required on the 1040 form.

Mr. Conklin clearly implies to the gullible that he has won "case after case" based upon the above unproven premises.

Here are the case notations Mr.Conklin touts as his wins:

Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492

United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265

United States v Church of World Peace, 878 F2d 1281

Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318

Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032

Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027

Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado

The fact is the cases cited addressed NONE of the claims Conklin lists at his web site. By going to West’s Reporter we see that the cases addressed:

1. The tax-exempt status of churches. (U.S. v. Church of World Peace,1985)

2. The Fifth Amendment protections related to IRS an summons, not 1040forms. (U.S. v. Church of World Peace, 1985)

3. The First Amendment rights of churches. (U.S. v. Church of World Peace, 1985)

4. That the IRS may enforce summons in an adversarial judicial proceeding. (Church of World Peace v. IRS, 1983)

5. The church's petition for a declamatory judgment against IRS regarding "discovery" of church records. (Church of World Peace v. IRS,1983)

6. How the IRS must address deficiency notices regarding jointly filed returns by husband and wife. (Conklin V. IRS, 1990 and Tavery v. U.S., 1990)

7. Whether Conklin is required to pay "court costs".( Conklin v. U.S.,1987)

As you can see these cases did not affirm the long debunked position that the 5th amendment allows one to withhold income statements (1040's) from the IRS. That question was long ago settled in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983).

Bill Conklin says he, “. . .is a paralegal and tax consultant who has [these] 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.” But, upon examination we see that he is not listed as council for any of the cases.

This is a sham. A sham Devvy Kidd peddles as the truth.

I did find some eye opening truth on Conklin's website as he discredits his rivals in the selling tax freedom industry.

URL: http://www.anti-irs.com/cof.html

[excerpts]

Conklin: Probably the biggest problem in the Freedom Movement is the fact that there are many different individuals selling many different scams to enrich themselves. Individuals in the Freedom Movement are easy pickings for con men because, there are many individuals who are only into the movement for the money. They really have no interest in the philosophical elements of the Freedom Movement.

Conklin: It is my opinion that the individual in California is either a con man or a fool or both. The problem is, he won't have any problem finding fools to buy his product. As PT Barnum once said; " A fool is born every minute."

Conklin: In my estimation, in the Freedom Movement, five fools are born a minute.

Conklin: Remember this: There are no silver bullets. There is nothing that some con man can sell you that will make the IRS simply go away and save your property. If you got into the front lines of the movement with property, you have already made your mistake, you may have to just take the hit and go on. Many individuals, who have received silver bullet kits for large amounts of money, have really only succeeded in getting their civil case postponed while the IRS considers a criminal one. The con men selling these packages continue to sell them to the "true believers" in the movement who seem to want to be duped. For your own protection, if you are offered a silver bullet; put the burden of proof on the con man. Ask him to show you specific proof that the idea really works. If the idea does work, you may be able to prove it by getting a complete FOIA file on the individual and finding out if the IRS really has stopped its procedures because of something that was said in a letter. The IRS could have simply turned the whole thing over to criminal investigation. To date, I have never seen anyone come up with proof that is real proof.

Now, Mr. Walker and Mr. Jones of the IRS placed a lien against us for not paying an excise tax on the manufacture and sale of certain commodities - for which we do not have any involvement with at all. They demanded money from us for a debt we did not owe. They threatened with this legal document to freeze our assets if we did not cave in to this fraud. As I said, this lien document is a form that goes out to millions of Americans.

The State of Colorado also took action. Now, in Colorado's handbook for filing a state return, it states that ONLY IF you are liable to file a federal return are you required to file a state return. Since our lien from the IRS was based on fraud and extortion, so follows the State of Colorado in their RICO activities. Does the truth matter to any of these government officials? Hardly.

Did we pay this extortion money? Yes.
http://www.devvy.com/9509.html

Now, Mr. Walker and Mr. Jones of the IRS placed a lien against us for not paying a lawful tax on income from any source. They demanded money from us for a debt we owed. They threatened us with legal action to freeze our assets through lawful due process. As I said, this lien document is a form that goes out to millions of Americans who owe a lawful debt to the IRS.

The State of Colorado also took action. Now, in Colorado's handbook for filing a state return, it states that ONLY IF you are liable to file a federal return are you required to file a state return. Since our lien from the IRS was lawful due process, so follows the State of Colorado in their lawful due process activities. Does the truth matter to any TAX EVASION material selling Guru? No.

Did we pay this lawful lien money? Yes we did!

Conclusion: Devvy paid her federal income taxes.
Not even Larry Becraft could help her! None of Devvy's idiot legal arguments were worth two cents.

Patriot legal fallacies are only evidence of a person's state of mind. They are not evidence of the the law pertaining to any case as all the law applicable to the case will be contained in the jury instructions.

Court: Receive "B" into evidence. Members of the jury, "B" is received for the purpose of considering a connection with Devvy Kidd's beliefs. Any materials such as this that are admitted in trial are relevant only to her state of mind. They are not relevant and may not be considered at all in connection with the actual requirements of the law.

Devvy's idiot income tax arguments are so old that the courts will not even hear them anymore.

[Footnote 7] The opinion stated, 882 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269, n. 2 (CA7 1989), as follows:

"For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered `objectively reasonable' in this circuit:

"(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified, and therefore never came into being;

"(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally;

"(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment;

"(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional; [498 U.S. 192, 199]

"(5) the belief that wages are not income, and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;

"(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and

"(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Buckner, 830 F.2d at 102; United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1987); Coleman v. Comm., 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); Moore, 627 F.2d at 833. We have no doubt that this list will increase with time."

The notion that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified is simply incorrect. Even though this misconception is an article of faith in the anti-tax community, it remains a fact of law that income from all sources is taxable.

Marvin D. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Internal Revenue Service.
[excerpt]

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, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed.2d 493 (1916), 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. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n. 6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir.1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir.1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

Eye Opening Larry Becraft Information

Devvy Kidd: Her two booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty have sold in excess of one million two hundred thousand copies [1993-April 1999].[*Want to buy a wooden nickel?]
No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district.

Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D.