REBUTTAL: Strongsville dentist, a ‘sovereign citizen’ who argued at trial he was exempt from paying taxes, found guilty of tax evasion
10/20/2022, Cleveland.com
1. Specific false or slanderous statements about us or sovereignty generally
In the above article, the following false statements are made about sovereignty:
1. “Smith said he sought information about sovereign citizens from the Sovereign Education Defense Ministry”
We searched our member database and he does NOT exist. He was not a member, probably because he was clearly not compliant with our Member Agreement in many obvious ways. None of our members are allowed to call themselves “sovereign citizens” as he did, or to claim tax “exemptions”.
2. “Sovereign Education Defense Ministry, a website that offers advice, for a fee, to people about their perceived legality of taxes and other issues.”
2.1 Our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, specifically says we don’t give legal advice. Section 1.1 says:
” I understand that it is the policy of the ministry not to provide legal advice or representation, but instead to teach and empower the sovereign people themselves to manage their own legal affairs without the involvement of either the ministry or a corrupted legal profession (Form #05.047).”
2.2 Our Terms of Use and Service, Form #01.016, Section 4, items 4 and 20 specific prohibit the giving of legal advice.
2.3 Most of our materials are free.
3. “Proceeding pro se is always dangerous.”.
Proceeding with court-appointed counsel that is paid by the court is even MORE dangerous and even criminal. Attorneys are officers of the court and their first allegiance is to the court, and not the litigant they are assisting. See: Why you DON’T want an attorney-amazing. Right out of the Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia.
The attorney was obviously “marketing” his services and perpetuating his monopoly. No surprise there.
4. The title of the hit piece says Smith “argued at trial he was exempt from paying taxes”.
Our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.1, Item 13 says members do not seek to “exempt” any of their earnings, but rather to lawfully EXCLUDE them:
“13. By seeking the information and services of SEDM, I do not seek to “exempt” my earnings from taxation or to reduce my existing tax liability as a “taxpayer” through deductions or exemptions, but rather to EXCLUDE earnings that never were subject to taxation to begin with under 26 U.S.C. §872(b). In that sense, I am not seeking a “tax shelter“, which is a device used by a statutory “taxpayer” to REDUCE an existing liability. Pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §1.6662-4(2)(ii), neither SEDM nor I can therefore be subject to accuracy related penalties for tax shelters.
“Initially, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a tax exclusion and a tax exemption. Tax exemptions are items which the tax payer is entitled to excuse from the operation of a tax and, as such, are to be strictly construed against the tax payer. Tax exclusions, on the other hand, are items which were not intended to be taxed in the first place and, thus, to the extent there is any doubt about the meaning of the statutory language, exclusionary provisions are to be strictly construed against the taxing body. In fact, tax laws in general (with the exception of exemption clauses) are construed in favor of the tax payer and against imposition of the tax unless the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous.”[In re Twisteroo Soft Pretzel Bakeries, Inc., 21 B.R. 665, 667 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982)]”
5. “Smith argued that he followed Hansen’s advice and theories, which included that a person must “elect” to be a citizen.”
That’s the WRONG argument. The real argument is that slavery, peonage, and human trafficking are criminal offenses. Therefore, anything that comes with a civil statutory legal obligation must be voluntary. Whatever civil status the obligation attaches to, INCLUDING STATUTORY “citizen” in the Internal Revenue Code, must therefore be voluntary and avoidable. That’s the nature of all excise taxes, including the Internal Revenue Code: they are avoidable by avoiding the activity or the civil status that engages in the activity.
Further, Paul Hansen created confusion by not clarifying WHICH type of “citizen” he was talking about. He was obviously trying to say that being a STATUTORY citizen requires an election. You can’t choose whether you want to be a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AT BIRTH. An act of birth does not require consent. More at:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
2. Judicial Corruption
1. Report about Paul Hansen on the Witness Stand:
“He [Paul Hansen] sometimes sparred with Polster, who told him to limit his answers to the questions Smith asked.
“Are you going to refuse me the opportunity to tell the truth here?” Hansen shot back.
We know Paul and he is a wonderful Christian man. Bravo that he was the only witness. He is good. You can read about him at:
Who’s Who in the Freedom Community, Form #08.009, Section 3.24
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf
The judge was obviously committing subornation of perjury and tampering with the witness. This happens when you limit the testimony of the witness. The witness oath requires that he or she tell “the whole truth”, but the judge didn’t want that in the record.
2. The indictment below lists the defendant as a “resident of Ohio”. The only “residents” in the Internal Revenue Code are ALIENS and he is NOT an alien. The judge should have dismissed the case because of misrepresentation of the status of the defendant.
3. On a more positive note
1. The article said “[Douglas Smith] . ..grew up in Cleveland, went to Miami University and Case Western Reserve University’s School of Dental Medicine.”
We are encouraged that well-educated professional Americans like him are paying attention to the law and the truth for themselves.
2. Douglas Smith acted as his own attorney. We’re glad he understood the corruption in the legal profession.
4. Conclusion
If you would like to investigate this case further, see:
United States v. Smith, Case No. 1:21 CR 0520, Cleveland Federal Court
Below is the indictment: