Quatloos!

Well here's another group leading credulous folk down the garden path. Real slick looking operation too. They even try to smooth over the high profile failures that people might have heard of (e.g. Wesley Snipes). Obviously THESE guys have it right and if snipes had come to THEM he wouldn't have had the problems he did.

http://lighthouseliberty.club/index.php

In reality it looks like these guys are just repackaging David Myrland's Section 83 stuff. Regardless, it's really sad that these honeypots are out there luring people onto this path. Seems very predatory but I don't know anything can be done about it.

The comments from users seem to be from a pretty illiterate bunch. I've seen better spelling and grammar in Nigerian scam emails (or maybe the Finance Minister actually does need a way to protect all of that cash).

I just like to say thank you and the law club is great. how do you fill out a non ucc to get what is not mine but they say its me the bierth certificate their is the blenks to fill in just need some up dates on this iam ready to take the bull by the horns you guys are great and iam telling everyone I know about the law club I think its great ive always ben sceptic about the state scams and now iam 52 years old its time to teech my frainds nabers and outsiders to under stand the scams they do on the man and women of this land for profit. I love the club and just getting my paypal card and jumping abord your ship thank you agen guys

Then you've got this insider stuff that reads no better then their legal incoherence. I guess since none of it makes sense anyway they decided to give themselves an air of mystery by making themselves into Zen master types and implying that only when you free your mind from rational thought can you truly understand the reality their selling (yes selling, probably for FRNs but since they are so worthless I guess it's like getting something for free in a Zen kind of way).

Experience This - Enjoin the Law Suit - Taxes and Section 83
Fact or Fiction~? Truth or Belief~? There is no law compelling us nor any statute requiring us to pay taxes. Being a taxpayer is voluntary.
If so, why do people end up in jail after following the advice of so-called experts? e.g. Wesley Snipes. Jail time plus fines for tax evasion? Is that something you want to risk? You would rather pay and be safe than sorry.
But what is the truth~?
Werner Erhard once said: “The Truth, believed, is a lie.” He put it this way: “Man keeps looking for a truth that fits his reality. Given our reality, the truth doesn't fit. If you experience it, it's the truth. The same thing believed is a lie.”
We want to believe taxes are not required, but believing that does not make it the truth. EXPERIENCE it and you know it IS the truth~!
YouTube videos go viral chanting mantras of no substance, myths crafted by disinformation and beliefs fashioned from hearsay.
This video like everything on the Liberty Law Club site and its related TAX information about Section 83 is backed by experiences. If you want the experience and not a mythical belief or disinformation and hearsay check this out.

Wow, deep. I can't understand him at all so he's got to be way smarter than I. The founder is some guy named "Mark Emery" but I don't see anything on this guy. It doesn't appear to be the same person as Marc Emery the pot activist, but give the general level of coherence in the comments I suspect the latter is doing his part to fill the pews.

Well, looking at their IRS page is a hoot:

Surely you never imagined that reading the law would be ‘fun’!

Well, Famspear seems to get some fun out of it - especially when he uses it to show why the crackpot claims don't stand up.

When you know what to look for and where to find it (amongst 40,000 pages of code and regulations) you will be ‘giddy’ when you see how the law is written.

What really counts is how the law is interpreted by the courts. That is where the wheels always seem to come off for tax defiers - regardless of their "understanding" of how the law is written.

You will find the barn door wide open as the law exposes the fraud which is being imposed on unsuspecting Americans as they voluntarily give up their personal property under false pretences.

Really? And Schiff, Hendrickson, Kahn, Bannister, Hart, Rose, Meredith, Cryer, Schulz, and countless other "experts" in the tax defier movement couldn't spot that barn-door-sized loophole? Why should I believe that you were able to spot it?

We’ve already done most of the work for you. Just sit back, relax, read and enjoy!

Almost? Well everything other than getting arrested or indicted, going through a trial, and serving a sentence in prison. But every tax defier promoter offers that kind of product.

I especially like this bit:

... and you will learn the proven methods in the law for neutering the IRS and reducing them to a whimpering pile of wet fluff at your feet. ...

... and you will learn the proven methods in the law for neutering the IRS and reducing them to a whimpering pile of wet fluff at your feet. ...

As an ex-IRSer, I would like to point out that "whimpering piles of wet fluff " generally have a GS classification of 1 or 2 -- the absolute bottom of the totem pole.

They are the ones generally entrusted with the first contacts of the compliance-challenged. As such, the TP gibberish is met head-on with classic IRS gibberish.

Assuming the TP's heads don't explode, they are then passed up the line to non-whimperers who ... (You don't want to deal with them.)

The Observer wrote:What really counts is how the law is interpreted by the courts. That is where the wheels always seem to come off for tax defiers - regardless of their "understanding" of how the law is written.

While true, unfortunately the response always seems to be either

• The court got it wrong because this judge wasn't trained properly, but the NEXT guy will definitely see the light, or
• The decision is even more evidence that the system is trying to hide the true so we must redouble our efforts to expose it

Still can't find much on this Mark Emery guy who founded Lighthouse, but rumor has it (or at least one poster to this blog does) that he purchased a Mercedes using sovereign methods. Interesting to see more infighting here. This guy's tactic is to watch the cannon fodder get blown away in the minefield and then pick his safe way through the bodies.

http://iamman51.blogspot.com/2016/07/la ... ching.html

And hey, he gives the well-meaning but misguided sheep here at Quatloos a shout-out too, so there's that. Still a true believer though.

Quartermass wrote: This guy's tactic is to watch the cannon fodder get blown away in the minefield and then pick his safe way through the bodies.

Seems to be pretty much standard tactic with the guru crowd, the guy making the pronouncements stands back and watches other peoples lives fall apart, and then explains to them how they did it all wrong.

notorial dissent wrote:

Quartermass wrote: This guy's tactic is to watch the cannon fodder get blown away in the minefield and then pick his safe way through the bodies.

Seems to be pretty much standard tactic with the guru crowd, the guy making the pronouncements stands back and watches other peoples lives fall apart, and then explains to them how they did it all wrong.

And then he offers to show them the CORRECT way -- assuming that they survive -- if they will only shower him with more worthless FRNs.

The subject dimwit at "Lighthouse Law" wrote:

I’m just waiting for someone to tell me that they enjoy reading the I.R.C. more than they like watching ‘Dancing with the Stars’!

Here I am. I most definitely enjoy reading the Internal Revenue Code, and I would find "Dancing with the Stars" to be boring beyond toleration.

But, you're lookin' at a guy who always found "American Bandstand" with Dick Clark back in the 1960s to be boring (not the great music, but just the idea of watching people dance).

Famspear wrote: ... I most definitely enjoy reading the Internal Revenue Code, ...

You do realize they now have medications for such conditions, don't you?

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Famspear wrote: ... I most definitely enjoy reading the Internal Revenue Code, ...

You do realize they now have medications for such conditions, don't you?

When I read the words "Lighthouse Law", just now, I was thinking of a "lighthouse" in the former town of Prescott, Massachusetts. Prescott was a town which was a couple of miles west of Pottapaug Pond in the town of Dana; and those two towns, plus two others and sections of several more, were taken to create the Quabbin Reservoir as Boston's water supply. Prescott was located well over 70 miles inland; so when people found out that there was a "lighthouse" there, they couldn't understand why.

It turned out that the light in question hung by the front door, and was colored red. This makes me wonder if the people of Lighthouse Law are, figuratively, doing to their clients what the residents of the lighthouse were doing to theirs.

Pottapaug1938 wrote:This makes me wonder if the people of Lighthouse Law are, figuratively, doing to their clients what the residents of the lighthouse were doing to theirs.

Making them feel less lonely and more happy?

yeah, something like that....

On the topic of the section 83 argument. I have searched multiple times and as far as I can tell nobody has ever used the argument in court. Which is odd because Myrland claims to have been using or promoting the argument for decades yet there's not one recorded case of it being used.

Myrland seems to be aware of this and uses this as "proof" that it works.

I was going to sign up for Lighthouse Law Club Glad I didn't.
Mark Emery Founder LLC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEU0ItJw_U
Same person
Mark Boswell Founder of Panama Christian Foundation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlETUFDqpv0

Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:33 pm When I read the words "Lighthouse Law", just now, I was thinking of a "lighthouse" in the former town of Prescott, Massachusetts. Prescott was a town which was a couple of miles west of Pottapaug Pond in the town of Dana; and those two towns, plus two others and sections of several more, were taken to create the Quabbin Reservoir as Boston's water supply. Prescott was located well over 70 miles inland; so when people found out that there was a "lighthouse" there, they couldn't understand why.

It turned out that the light in question hung by the front door, and was colored red. This makes me wonder if the people of Lighthouse Law are, figuratively, doing to their clients what the residents of the lighthouse were doing to theirs.

This reminds me of a joke I heard years ago, before the breakup of AT&T.

In animal husbandry, when a bull performs the function for which he is allowed to keep what is rightfully his, he is said to be "servicing" the cow.

So, now you know what it means when the phone company says they've been servicing you for more than 100 years.

Jeffrey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:09 am On the topic of the section 83 argument. I have searched multiple times and as far as I can tell nobody has ever used the argument in court. Which is odd because Myrland claims to have been using or promoting the argument for decades yet there's not one recorded case of it being used.

Myrland seems to be aware of this and uses this as "proof" that it works.

I'm bumping this old thread for the purpose of noting what has previously been documented elsewhere in Quatloos: That not only had the frivolous section 83 argument been tried in court before, but Myrland himself had tried it years ago -- in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service in one of his own bankruptcy cases.

Of course, the court rejected Myrland's goofy argument.

See In re Myrland, 209 B.R. 524 (Bankr. W.D. Wash., May 15, 1997), at:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=6,44

Other cases where individuals have tried to use frivolous section 83 arguments include:

Santangelo v. Commissioner, 70 T.C.M. (CCH) 878, T.C. Memo 1995-468 (1995), aff’d without published opinion, 87 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1996).

Crow v. Commissioner, 70 T.C.M. (CCH) 1532, T.C. Memo 1995-584 (1995).

Gammon v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 1683, T.C. Memo 1996-4 (1996).

Talmage v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2370, T.C. Memo 1996-114 (1996), aff’d without published opinion, 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).

Bumgarner v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1841, T.C. Memo 1997-48 (1997).

Orth v. Commissioner, no. 018049-16, U.S. Tax Court (Oct. 12, 2017).

EDIT: Added more citations.

Here's the order from Orth; the others appear to be too old for PACER/RECAP/uscourts.gov retrieval.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=241413