Does any one have any dirt on DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA?

[Micheal360]

Now Famspear and other don't bash me, I am just asking about this guy.

DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA
Attorney and Counselor at Law
California Bar No. 52737
Admitted june 2, 1972

Have you guys bash this guy yet. You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws. Jameson pointed this out to me because he was trying to out info on the notice of levy notices and know he understands why his wages are not getting garnished after reading this. http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/instr ... ofLien.pdf

After he read that he visited this Rivera website: http://organiclaws.org/ Any dirt on this guy?

[NYGman]

Another Disbarred Tax Protester. Not a good resource for you to quote, or follow.
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/eduardo-rivera

Background

Eduardo M. Rivera was a lawyer who sold "reliance letters" that people could supposedly rely on to avoid criminal penalties for failing to file returns (which Rivera claimed that they were not required to file).

Theories Advocated/Promoted

Rivera appears to rely mainly on jurisdictional arguments, such as that Congress has no power to impose any tax outside of the District of Columbia and other "federal areas".

Court Actions

Rivera is no longer a lawyer because he was "ordered inactive" on 3/10/2006, and disbarred effective 8/17/2006. No. S143358 (Ca. Supreme Ct. 7/18/2006).

The United States also sued him in federal court over his sales of his "tax reliance" package, and he was permanently enjoined on July 21, 2003. United State v. Eduardo M. Rivera, No. 03-2520 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 7/21/2003). He didn't stop, however, and was found to be in criminal contempt on 12/20/2006 and sentenced to 60 days in prison. United States v. Eduardo Marmolejo Rivera, No. 2:06-cr-00624 (C.D. Ca. 3/26/2007), rev'd No. 07-50163 (9th Cir. 7/17/2008). Although Rivera's appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was successful, he was ordered to begin serving his sentence while his appeal was pending and was imprisoned from 4/26/2007 to 6/22/2007.

Students/Disciples

At the trial of Richard Simkanin, Rivera testified that Simkanin had consulted him in 1999, and that Rivera advised Simkanin that he was not legally required to withhold taxes from his employees, advice for which Rivera was paid $10,000. Despite (or perhaps because of) Rivera's advice and testimony, Simkanin was convicted of willfully failing to withhold taxes from his employees.

[wserra]

You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws.

Stupid strawman. Many people here "oppose the income tax laws", at least in part. I'm one of those. What we bash is mainly people who profit in others' misery, by selling them bullshit which blows up on them when they try to use it. On a somewhat lesser level, from time to time we bash those to whom we explain the law, but who are too dim or invested in their beliefs to listen.

And yes, Rivera is a charlatan.

[Hyrion]

don't bash me

I find it deliciously ironic that someone who resorted to name calling because he couldn't convince me of his position is now asking not to be bashed.

[Famspear]

Now Famspear and other don't bash me.....

Awww.... you never let me have any fun.....

[Pottapaug1938]

Anytime someone makes a "just asking" post on Quatloos, my immediate response is "why? What's it to you?"

Okay, Michison3171/Jameal360 -- we're waiting.

[Famspear]

....You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws.....

No, tax protesters, also known as tax deniers, are people who believe or claim to believe false theories about what the tax law is. You are one of those people. You are one of those people who is delusional about what the law is. Your motivation is related in part to the fact that you oppose the tax laws.

However, the vast majority of people who oppose tax laws do not hold delusional beliefs about the laws.

So, the problem is not opposing the law.

There is something in the psychological makeup of people like you that seems to impel you to go from opposition to the law to self-destructive beliefs and sometimes to self-destructive conduct. You show your affinity with these kinds of people in the way you keep bringing them up: people like Joe Banister, Tommy Cryer, Eduardo Rivera.

It is obvious that you have been searching out and reading the same tax protester literature that hundreds of other tax deniers have been reading for years. People like you are easy for us to spot. For example, the way you misunderstand the text of the Brushaber case is very common among tax protesters. It is obvious from the way you have been writing here at Quatloos that you feel a desperate psychological need or desire to believe that the tax law is something other than what it really is. You also use some of the "lingo" that is common to many tax protesters.

You even take legitimate tax scholars like Jensen and the late Professor Bittker -- people who would laugh at your delusional beliefs -- and you try to pretend that these individuals' writings agree with your nonsense (just as you cited Brushaber and other court opinions, none of which support your beliefs).

I have been studying people like you for about sixteen years.

Virtually everyone who holds the kinds of beliefs you claim to hold is aware of what the law actually is; these people simply refuse to accept that it is the law.

If you were to file a federal income tax return but refuse to report a material amount of income on that return based on the positions you have described in Quatloos, then would be committing a federal tax crime.

[notorial dissent]

You have more than enough fun without any encouragement from the chew toy du jour.

[JamesVincent]

You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws.

I don't know of a single taxpayer who doesn't oppose the tax laws in one way or another so your statement is asinine on many levels to start out with. If you had ever bothered to read any one of the many, many, many threads on under the Tax Practice section you would find that many times we have complained about the complexity of the IRC and why and how it should be changed. So your statement is asinine on that level also. The difference being that many of us dislike the law yet we adhere to the law since, well, it's the law. We don't waste our time researching magic words and paperwork to get out of it since they always fail. We use the system itself to pay as little as possible and go on with our happy lives, not sitting behind bars.

You're a dolt, deal with it.

[Famspear]

You have more than enough fun without any encouragement from the chew toy du jour.

You're absolutely right!

[Hyrion]

It is obvious from the way you have been writing here at Quatloos that you feel a desperate psychological need or desire to believe that the tax law is something other than what it really is.

Virtually everyone who holds the kinds of beliefs you claim to hold is aware of what the law actually is; these people simply refuse to accept that it is the law.

To that I would only add that such effort has been put in with regards trying to prove the theories is - likely - a desperate attempt at finding some coherent argument that might actually work in Court.

After all... if the argument will work against those here on Quatloos - it might work in Court. Obviously not a good line of reasoning as there is no requirement for Judges to "listen to what Quatloos advises". But... when have TP's shown good reasoning?

And why would the individual be making such an attempt? I'd deduce it's because things aren't going quite as planned - or even stated - with regards the IRS.

If it was simply a "stroke the ego, feel good" then the individual wouldn't stick around here for long. They wouldn't find what they're looking for and quickly move on to those TP sites that stroke egos agreeing with every perspective they have to share.

As a result, the individual is here because s/he's realized things aren't going as planned and they're trying to get information they can't from those other locations: how to get out of the hole they've dug themselves into. Sadly, they do not wish to accept the only rational choices:

• 1: accept the IRS decisions and pay what's owed

or

• 2: hire a competent Tax Attorney and accept said individuals advice

Note: never studied psychology so take my opinions with a huge grain of salt

***

On that note, a side question pertinent to recent claims for the Tax Practitioners.

I'd like to understand a bit of the relationship better. It was stated that some form of the Tax process has lead to a letter for garnishment of wages. Can the IRS (or others) actually proceed with that without at least one ruling in the appropriate Tax Court?

I'd have thought - given the "extreme" nature in garnishment - that would have to have been passed by a Judicial review of some type.

[LPC]

It was stated that some form of the Tax process has lead to a letter for garnishment of wages. Can the IRS (or others) actually proceed with that without at least one ruling in the appropriate Tax Court?

I'd have thought - given the "extreme" nature in garnishment - that would have to have been passed by a Judicial review of some type.

Briefly:

“The assessment [of tax] is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt.” Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 260 (1935).

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#c ... dueprocess and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#levy for other authorities and details.

[LPC]

Paul John Hansen (!) has written some critical things about Eduardo Rivera, and about how his "courses" aren't worth much.

What's this world coming to when one deluded nitwit doesn't trust the rantings of another deluded nitwit.

[Hyrion]

Thanks LPC. To add another clause from the citations for us laymen to help us understand better:

So, once a tax is assessed, the government can proceed to collect it without further judicial proceedings, just as a judgment creditor can proceed to collect a default judgment through Sheriff’s sales and other legal processes.

If I understand correctly: A person could file with the Tax Court - at which point the collection process is on hold. Either way though, the decision - whether done by the Tax Court or the IRS Assessment/Review section - is handled "with the force of a Judgement".

So yea.... once the IRS has completed it's review, it can proceed to garnish wages with the limitation that it would halt where the individual decides to initiate the process with the Tax Court.

To clarify:

If the IRS should determine that a different amount of tax is owed because the income and deductions to which the taxpayer is entitled are determined to be different from what is reported by the taxpayer (as the result of an audit, for example), then the IRS must first give the taxpayer a notice of the deficiency determined by the IRS and the taxpayer has 90 days within which to petition the Tax Court to challenge the deficiency.

Administrative levy [described in 26 U.S.C. section 6331(a)], unlike an ordinary lawsuit, and unlike the procedure described in 7403, does not require any judicial intervention, and it is up to the taxpayer, if he so chooses, to go to court if he claims that the assessed amount was not legally owing.

Sounds like if the IRS waits beyond the 90 days prior to starting to collect the garnishment (didn't jameson/michael indicate it hadn't been collected in 3 months?) and the person does not file with the Tax Court - CheckMate!

[Hyrion]

the taxpayer has 90 days within which to petition the Tax Court to challenge the deficiency

Given the venom Jameson3171/Michael360 has been want to release recently, I find it deliciously ironic that they chose to view "no garnishment in 90 days" as a "win" and - apparently - do nothing about petitioning the Tax Court to challenge the findings of the IRS.

If it's not too late already, if they don't do something soon, it looks like they'll be time barred from doing anything effective at all.

[Dezcad]

Paul John Hansen (!) has written some critical things about Eduardo Rivera, and about how his "courses" aren't worth much.

What's this world coming to when one deluded nitwit doesn't trust the rantings of another deluded nitwit.

Here's my favorite parts of that PJH post:

I’m an advanced lawyer

In what world?

It is not easy and they never give you a president,

Which president would you like? And how would a president help?

[Famspear]

It is not easy and they never give you a president,

What is he talking about? Is this the presidential analog to baseball trading cards?

I'll give him four Martin Van Burens for a Millard Fillmore, if he has one.....

[AndyK]

I think he might be talking about dead presidents on wrinkly green paper.

[fortinbras]

Eduardo Rivera (he sometimes calls himself Ed and sometimes uses the middle initial M and sometimes the middle initial A), having been disbarred AND instructed by a court to give no more tax advice, has built himself as the Professor of Law and Govt at the Ed Rivera Internet School of Law. I am sure you will be shocked to learn that this internet school is NOT accredited by the American Bar Association. On this internet website he posts the same sort advice he used to charge clients for individually; which includes his theory that if you don't submit any tax returns then the IRS will never notice you and you won't have any tax obligations. People who have acted on this advice have fallen into Very Serious trouble. It is not clear if Rivera himself is going to end up in more trouble.

[The Observer]

If I understand correctly: A person could file with the Tax Court - at which point the collection process is on hold. Either way though, the decision - whether done by the Tax Court or the IRS Assessment/Review section - is handled "with the force of a Judgement".

That is a rather simplistic summary, and I am a bit uncomfortable about it for several reasons, not the least that it leaves out a number of stages that the taxpayer has to proceed through before he or she can land in court.

(1) First, the IRS needs to have an assessment of the taxes that have gone unpaid after demand has been made for payment. The reason for all of this is so that the federal tax lien can arise and attach to the taxpayer's assets and income.

(2) There is no Assessment/Review section per se. There is a process where the assessment has to be validated by an assessment officer in the processing centers and a certificate of assessment is assigned. In terms of actually processing the collection of the tax, notices are first sent out. If the taxpayer does not pay, then the collection will be assigned to an Automated Collection Site where the taxpayer will be contacted by an IRS employee over the phone. If that fails to result in payment, the case will be queued to the field inventory for assignment to a Revenue Officer to resolve the account with the taxpayer directly.

(3) At some point, whether in ACS or in the field, the taxpayer could receive the Final Demand notice which essentially tells the taxpayer that the IRS will start taking enforcement action to collect the taxes after 30 days, that the taxpayer has that time to file a Collection Due Process appeal to contest the levy. If the taxpayer fails to file a timely CDP, they lose their right to pursue the matter into Tax Court, though they can puruse an Equivalent Hearing to the Appeals Division.

(4) It is up to the ACS or field employee to validate that there is a legitimate assessment that has not been paid before issuing the final notice and any levies if the taxpayer fails to file the CDP.

(5) A timely CDP will require that any levy action planned by the employee to be halted until the appeal has been heard. Since a CDP covers only the tax periods that the taxpayer timely filed for, there could be situations where the IRS could maintain a levy against non-CDP covered periods even though the taxpayer has other periods covered by the filed CDP. An EH does not require that a levy be released or held up, although in most cases the employee may decide to no enforce with a levy. However, if the IRS establishes that there are exigent circumstances, such as the taxpayer using the CDP to move assets out of the reach of the government, the CDP or EH will not prevent a levy from being issued.

(6) I am not in agreement with the judge's description of an “...[A]ssessment [of tax] is given the force of a judgment..." in that an assessment alone is not equivalent to a judgment. It has to be an unpaid assessment for which a demand was made, giving rise to the abstract tax lien. There are too many cases where IRS actions were reversed simply because one or more of those criteria were missing. It is the lien that give the assement the force of a judgment.

(7) A CDP must be heard in the Appeals Division first. So a taxpayer is not going to end up in Tax Court right away. Only when Appeals has issued its ruling will he get the letter advising him of his right to file for a Tax Court hearing, which again has to be done timely and the appropriate fees paid.

(8) Tax Court for nearly all protesters is just another step of failure that they started building back in Appeals. They typically refuse to provide the necessary information (a financial statement, verification of income and expenses, bank records, etc.) that Appeals is required to look at to determine if there is a better alternative to the government collecting the tax through levy. Examples would be going on an installment plan, filing an Offer in compromise, or establishing that the taxpayer has the inability to pay.

Of course the protester has failed to provide this information all along the way since he is trying to shield his income and assets. He refuses to understand the concept of the CDP process. It is not for the purpose of being able to declare that the levy was illegal or the taxes unlawful; we have already shown that the IRS has the legal right to levy at the point the taxes remained unpaid after demand. The purpose of the CDP process is to ensure that there are no other ways that the government can collect the tax in a less intrusive manner.