Quatlosers > Bill Conklin

Quatlosers Hall of Shame

Bill Conklin

These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors.

100 Q
Bill Conklin

Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate infamous tax scam artists. We almost hate to write about this one because he is so slick.

Of all the tax scam artists, the most impressive is Bill Conklin, who claims to be a paralegal and tax consultant with 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, who has published "Why No One Is Required To File Tax Returns", and who runs an interesting website at http://www.anti-irs.com Bill seems to spend most of his time bashing in his Hall of Shame other tax protestors as out-and-out scam artists, mostly Irwin Schiff, Peymon Mottahedeh (who, interestingly enough, sells Conklins' book over his website), and (small claims) "Judge" John Rizzo, plus he takes a lot of shots at the Global Prosperity folks. Conklin doesn't pull any punches either, referring to Mottahedeh and Rizzo as "I don't know which is worse: a former legal eagle scamming people (Rizzo) or a wanna be legal eagle scamming people (Mottahedeh). "

OK, we'll admit it -- Anybody who takes shots at Schiff, Mottahedeh, Rizzo, and Global Prosperity, which is perhaps the worst scam ever, can't be all bad. Conklin's Weasel Droppings page which rails on John Rizzo is priceless.

But on the other hand, there is a lot of pot-kettle-black going on here and it is all too easy to overlook the fact that Conklin is just another tax scammer himself. In many ways, Conklin is an Irwin Schiff wannabee who asserts an old argument that Schiff lost on and then was smart enough to go on to something else, and Conklin has also copied Schiff's "challenge" and then exactly as Schiff did welched on the challenge.

The premise of Conklin's book is that "an American citizen cannot be compelled to file a tax return because the return can be used against the filer in violation of the Fifth Amendment" -- a claim which has been exploded time after time by the courts and which has NEVER WON (see below). Curiously, although Conklin shamelessly bashes Irwin Schiff, Conklin's argument is a take-off an argument that Schiff himself once asserted -- and lost. Conklin has also held himself out to be the "Reverend Conklin" and sometimes "Archbishop Conklin" with the "Church of World Peace".

Like any scam artist, Conklin is also much-less-than-truthful about his claims of defeating the IRS in "6 published wins" against the IRS. Let's take a look at these cases:

Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus. Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched. The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch -- exactly like Irwin Schiff had welched in the case of Newman vs. Schiff (more pot-kettle-black). This opinion does not mention the Fifth Amendment except in the context of Conklin welching on his bet.

Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492 -- This is a LOSS by the Church against the IRS. The 10th Circuit AFFIRMED the IRS's revocation of the Church's 501(c)(3) exempt status.

United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265 -- This case set aside the IRS's attempts to get the books and records of Conklin's church as overbroad. This case doesn't mention the Fifth Amendment at all. The IRS merely toned down it's request and tried again, the next time successfully.

United States v Church of World Peace, 878 F2d 1281 -- This is the case after the IRS got the documents relating to the Church. The 10th Circuit dismissed both the IRS's appeals as to limitations on its request and also as to Conklin's attempt to get all the evidence thrown out. Again, no mention of the Fifth Amendment.

Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318 -- Conklin sued the IRS for a whopping $152 for responding to an IRS summons. Conklin lost before the District Court, and awarded the IRS $356.29 in costs. Conklin appealed, and was able to avoid paying the IRS the $356.92. (Wow -- What a case!)

Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032 -- In Conklin's dispute over deductions for contributions to his Church of World Peace, Conklin voluntarily entered into a stipulation where the IRS conceded some items as to Conklin's wife which released both of them after she paid the IRS. However, after the IRS won against Conklin in tax court (91 T.C. 41 (1988) which of course he isn't going to tell you about), the IRS went back and tried to undo the stipulation. The 10th Circuit held that the IRS had to honor Conklin's stipulation which included paying the IRS.

Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027 -- This is the case against Conklin's wife, which was reversed because Conklin had entered into the stipulation and she had already paid the IRS.

As you can see, despite Conklin's claims he has NEVER defeated the IRS by asserting his Fifth Amendment arguments. Atlhough Conklin has a couple of times won minor procedure victories on technicalities, he has always ended up having to pay the IRS.

_________________________________________

Conklin's Premise Exploded

There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return on the ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer "could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law." The failure to comply with the filing and reporting requirements of the federal tax laws will not be excused based upon blanket assertions of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2 d Cir. 1979) - the court said that "the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected . . . . [T]he questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face . . . [h]ence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return."

United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979) - noting that the Supreme Court had established "that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from disclosing the amount of his income," the court said Brown made "an illegal effort to stretch the Fifth Amendment to include a taxpayer who wishes to avoid filing a return.

United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9 th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980) - the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, noting that the taxpayer "did not show that his response to the tax form questions would have been self-incriminating. He cannot, therefore, prevail on his Fifth Amendment claim.

United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment claim because of his "error in . . . his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses.

Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995) - the court affirmed tax assessments and penalties for failure to file returns, failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court also imposed sanctions for pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had failed to provide any information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each line calling for financial information.

Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further exposed as scam artists at http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html

Otto Skinner says that Conklin and Bannister are just flat wrong, see http://www.buildfreedom.com/ fiscal/ fifth_amendment.html

Thurston Bell says Bill Conklin is a Scam Artist

from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm

Notice of Academic Deficiency

5.12.2001

There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.

I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over the World Wide Web.

When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.

A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;

B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.

C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues.

So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails.

If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem.

This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.

Thurston P. Bell
Founder

PLEASE NOTE:

NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:

Al Adask;
Al Beyer;
Al Thompson;
American Rights Litigators;
American Tax Consultants;
Barry Konicov;
Big Al;
Bill Benson;
Bill "William" Conklin;
Bill Drexler;
Bob Schulz;
Brad Barnhill;
Bruce Hatcher;
Chad Prater;
Christopher H. Hansen;
Christopher M. Hansen;
Dale Livingston;
Dan Meador;
Dave Bosset;
Dave Champion;
Dennis MacPhaeddon ;
Devvy Kidd;
Dick Simkanin;
Don Proctor;
Ed Akehurst;
Eddie Kahn;
Ed "Eduardo" Rivera;
Edmund Fitzsimmons;
Erwin Rommel School of Law;
Fairtax;
Financial Fortress;
Financial Prosperity;
Freedom Above Fortune;
Freedom Hall;
Freedom Law School;
Free Enterprise Society;
Gordon Phillips;
Howard Freeman;
Inform America;
Institute of Global Prosperity;
IRS Decoder;
Inhabitant;
Irwin Schiff;
Jeff Dickstein;
Jack Cohen;
Jim Deal;
John Feld;
John Gliha;
John Hecht;
John B. Kotmair;
Joseph Banister;
Joy Foundation;
Justin Garriott;
Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
Lamar Hardy, Hawaii;
Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
Law Research Registry;
Les Hollingshead;
Lynda Wahl;
Lynn Meridith;
Marcia Doerr;
Mel Stamper;
Pat Patton;
Paul Lienthall;
PreferredServices;
Richard Cornforth;
Richard Standring;
Right Way Law;
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
Sean O'Hara;
Solutions Group;
Steve DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other alisases)
Steven Swan;
Steven Beresford;
Supreme Law Firm;
Tax Ax;
Taxgate.com (NOT Tax-Gate.com);
Tax Statement;
The Informer;
Tom Scambos;
Tom Smith (Alleged Doctor);
Treasury Tax Secrets;
Virginia Cropsey a/k/a Little Red Hen
Wallace Institute ( A Disgrace to William Wallace and Clan Wallace);
Wayne C. Bentson
"We The People Foundation"

Review Pending
Paul Sulla, Attorney

People who do not seem to understand have not seen as many people as Mr. Bell has seen, get hurt. They lose their property, jobs, paychecks, and / or families. They obviously do not have the discernment to understand how vitally important this issue is, and how we MUST stay on point or lose.

There is no room for those who claim it is their 1st Amendment Right for supporting people who are espousing such res judicata arguments. The courts and the Kotmair case made it clear. Guilt by association is NOW supported by CASE LAW.

Comment on this!

Back to Quatlosers Exhibit