Kansas ballot challenge

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1226

Post by Flatpointhigh » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:16 pm

drop a dime?

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me


User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1228

Post by Mark » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:53 pm

If Plaintiff Taitz is alleging that she is acting as the President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, not as an individual, then she is really stating that Defend Our Freedoms Foundation is the real party in interest in Kansas.





However, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, contrary to what she has alleged, is a not a valid "non-profit" foundation as it was never legally registered as such with the California Franchise Tax Board:





[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Exempt_organizations/Entity_list.shtml]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Exemp ... list.shtml


[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Exempt_organizations/Revoked_Exempt_Organizations.pdf]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Exemp ... ations.pdf





All unincorporated associations, even if organized on a nonprofit basis, are subject to California income taxes and, consequently, federal income taxes, until Franchise Tax Board grants tax-exempt status. I am certain that Orly Taitz's "foundation" never filled out the required form:





[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3500bk.pdf]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3500bk.pdf





I am no tax lawyer, but it would seem that any money donated to Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (c/o Dr. Orly Taitz Esq.) is really taxable income to Orly Taitz as an individual. Who wants to bet that Orly deducts all expenses for travel, lodging, court fees, etc. on her income taxes but never declares any income from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation? Certainly worth an audit by the IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board.





Back to Kansas, now:





"No foreign corporation shall do any business in this state, through or by branch offices, agents or representatives located in this state, until it has filed in the office of the secretary of state of this state an application for authority to engage in business in this state as a foreign corporation. Such application shall be filed in accordance with K.S.A. 17-6003 and amendments thereto..."





"...Activities of a foreign corporation which do not constitute doing business within the meaning of K.S.A. 17-7301, and amendments thereto, include: (1) Maintaining, defending or settling an action or proceeding..."





[/break1]lesterama.org/Chapter_17/Article_73/]http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Cha ... rticle_73/





Since Defend Our Freedoms Foundation cannot even be considered a "foreign corporation," it can certainly not avail itself of the exemption allowing for its involvement in legal proceedings. In fact, I doubt that Defend Our Freedom Foundation is a real entity at all, except in the imaginary world of Orlylaw. Therefore, her argument equating her "California foundation" to the NAACP is laughable. In NAACP v. Alabama, the NAACP was a valid New York corporation. Alabama conceived a strategy to expel the NAACP, one that relied on the state’s foreign corporation qualification law, similar to the Kansas statutes quoted above. I have not had time to look this up but I would wager that the Kansas (and other states') exemption from filing requirements for foreign corporations maintaining, defending or settling an action or proceeding might have arisen out the NAACP v. Alabama ruling.





In any event, it would seem that Defend Our Freedom Foundation has no legal status either in California or in any other state. Orly Taitz is the real party in interest and any argument that relies on NAACP v. Alabama is misleading and, quite honestly, offensive.





Nevertheless, since all of Orly's work in conjunction with Defend Our Freedom Foundation is of a legal nature, based on her status as a licensed attorney in California, wouldn't any argument she advances that she is acting in her capacity as "President" of this foundation dedicated to litigation be tantamount to an admission that she is practicing law without a license in Kansas? Finally, Orly has put aside the pretense that she is just another co-plaintiff and directly implicated her work as that of an attorney, albeit for a probably legally non-existent organization. This might be a very grey area argument but she has raised the issue in her complaint ([/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2012 ... ismiss.pdf]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/ ... ismiss.pdf) in which she accused the members of the Elections Commission, including the Attorney General of Kansas, of criminal fraud and other felonies. It is entirely possible that the Kansas AG may be so pissed off that he might try to go after Orly for any violations of Kansas laws.





I'm still trying to get the cob webs out of my brain from too much wine last night, so I hope the above makes sense. I'll repeat, once again, that I am no expert in tax, corporate, or civil litigation law so I may be shooting blanks. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know what people with a higher pay grade than mine think.
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1229

Post by raicha » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:05 pm

A corporation that is not-tax exempt is still a corporation and is treated as a taxable entity separate from its officers, directors or shareholders.However, this corporation, which is not tax-exempt, is also suspended. It may no longer contract, prosecute or defend a lawsuit in its own name.But its receipts are still taxable to the corporation.Unless...Orly Taitz has failed to maintain the corporation as an entity separate and apart from her own financial and legal interests. If DOFF is considered the "alter ego" of Orly Taitz, then Taitz may be liable for the debts (including the tax liabilities) of the corporation.Here's a good write-up of the concept from a friend of mine.[/break1]buschfirm.com/publications/corporate-and-business-law/keeping-your-corporate-shield/]http://www.buschfirm.com/publications/c ... te-shield/

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Kansas ballot challenge

#1230

Post by gatsby » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:10 pm

I believe these are the relevant California statutes:[/break1]justia.com/codes/california/2010/gov/12580-12599.7.html]http://law.justia.com/codes/california/ ... 599.7.htmlThey provide for $25/month penalties for late filings. And this:12591.1. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this articlewith intent to deceive or defraud any charity or individual is liablefor a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), any person who violatesany other provision of this article is liable for a civil penalty,as follows: (1) For the first offense, a fine not exceeding one thousanddollars ($1,000). (2) For any subsequent offense, a fine not exceeding two thousandfive hundred dollars ($2,500).

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1231

Post by Mark » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:22 pm

I leave it up to those who have followed DOFF and Orly's activities to figure out whether it's worth reporting any potentially abusive tax practices.[/break1]irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Referral/index.shtml]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Ref ... ndex.shtmlMeanwhile, despite Kobach's grandstanding on the birther issue, does anybody feel like helping the good tax paying citizens of Kansas by aiding the AG in making arguments for sanctions against Orly? Or forwarding any information regarding the true status of DOFF or Orly's UPL?
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Kansas ballot challenge

#1232

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:27 pm

Well, applying Stern's signature to Orly's business practices, it wouldn't be surprising if DOFF is a 501(c)(3). In a manner paralleling her legal research, Orly probably read the Internal Revenue Code on nonprofit organizations, found "private foundation" under 501(c)(3) organizations and quickly concluded that DOFF should be a 501(c)(3). :- Wiki has a short blurb on [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization]501(c) organizations. They show a total of 29 different types of 501(c) organizations.As Wiki points out, "Private foundations are defined in the Internal Revenue Code under section 509(a)". There are very well defined limits to what 501(c)(3) nonprofits can do. Except for "public charities", 501(c)(3) organizations cannot lobby for legislation. No 501(c)(3) organization can be involved in political activities.I learned a little about 501(c) organizations when I was employed by our state land surveying society, which is a 501(c)(6) organization.

TexasFilly
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1233

Post by TexasFilly » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:30 pm

I leave it up to those who have followed DOFF and Orly's activities to figure out whether it's worth reporting any potentially abusive tax practices.[/break1]irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Referral/index.shtml]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Ref ... ndex.shtmlMeanwhile, despite Kobach's grandstanding on the birther issue, does anybody feel like helping the good tax paying citizens of Kansas by aiding the AG in making arguments for sanctions against Orly? Or forwarding any information regarding the true status of DOFF or Orly's UPL?Why leave it to others?
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1234

Post by Mark » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:53 pm

I leave it up to those who have followed DOFF and Orly's activities to figure out whether it's worth reporting any potentially abusive tax practices.[/break1]irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf[/break1]ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Referral/index.shtml]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/online/Fraud_Ref ... ndex.shtmlMeanwhile, despite Kobach's grandstanding on the birther issue, does anybody feel like helping the good tax paying citizens of Kansas by aiding the AG in making arguments for sanctions against Orly? Or forwarding any information regarding the true status of DOFF or Orly's UPL?Why leave it to others?Not trying to pass the buck. I only joined the Fogbow in May of 2012 and, until a few minutes ago, I was not even aware that were was an existing thread on the subject of DOFF and, apparently, other members have access to documents of which I wasn't even aware (See Raicha's postings above with documentation about DOFF from 2009 and 2011). As I mentioned above, I am not an expert in tax law, so I think it would be speculative on my part whether Orly or DOFF violated any federal or state tax statutes.There are four separate issues here: (1) Helping the Kansas AG with rebutting the whole absurdity of Orly equating DOFF with the NAACP; (2) Helping the Kansas AG in drafting arguments which may lead to sanctions; (3) Informing the Kansas AG of my theory about Orly's unlawful practice of law in Kansas disguised as being a co-plaintiff or running DOFF; and (4) making a referral of DOFF and Orly's questionable practices to the IRS and SPB. To which one(s) were you referring when you suggested "Why leave it to others?"
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1235

Post by raicha » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:01 pm

Regarding 1 through 3, I think the Kansas AG has this well in hand. As for #4, Taitz is already on the CA AG radar, her corporation is suspended, the IRS is undoubtedly looking for tax returns, and who the heck is SPB?

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1236

Post by Mark » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:48 pm

Regarding 1 through 3, I think the Kansas AG has this well in hand. As for #4, Taitz is already on the CA AG radar, her corporation is suspended, the IRS is undoubtedly looking for tax returns, and who the heck is SPB?Sorry, I meant FTB (Franchise Tax Board) not SPB (State Personnel Board). There are attorneys in 82 agencies in California and, when I am tired, I get some of the acronyms confused.
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Kansas ballot challenge

#1237

Post by jtmunkus » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:52 am

What about Hiz Honor Gary KKKreep's US Justice Foundation?

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1238

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:39 am

Regarding 1 through 3, I think the Kansas AG has this well in hand. As for #4, Taitz is already on the CA AG radar, her corporation is suspended, the IRS is undoubtedly looking for tax returns, and who the heck is SPB?
Form 990.jpg
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1239

Post by Mark » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:08 am

Form 990: "Open to Public Inspection." I like that!
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1240

Post by raicha » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:19 am

Taitz never completed the tax exemption application process. At one point she complained about the questions the IRS was asking about the application and she never successfully obtained tax-exemption. DOFF is not eligible to file form 990 but owes 3 years worth of 1120s.Which are not open to inspection, should she ever actually complete them.

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Kansas ballot challenge

#1241

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:32 am

Two questions for those more on top of things. I know that in Orly's latest pile of poo for KS, referring to Arpaio's "criminal investigation" is laughable. Regardless of the lack of merit of anything Arpaio says, did the shuruff actually call HI official Onaka a "person of interest" in his fantasy investigation, as Orly states? Towards the end, Orly refers to Onaka as a "suspect in [a] criminal investigation." I realize this is inflammatory nonsense, but did Arpaio actually cast suspicion on Onaka?Second ... for the lawyers here. As usual, showing no restraint whatsoever, Orly attacks the KS SOS Kobach and accuses him of being bribed somehow, something she adds that can only be uncovered by a criminal investigation. :shock: We're used to it but she's pretty rough and personal, suggesting that as a Yale graduate he should but doesn't know what evidence is. :shock: As if that is not enough, she wanders off into totally irrelevant details about her personal hurt feelings, and a suggestion that Kobach damaged her all the more because he's part of the Tea Party, among other things. :shock: My question: Is this kind of trash-talking that is totally irrelevant to law, sanctionable?

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1242

Post by raicha » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:44 am

Arpaio has been extremely careful not to "name names" and to point out that he isn't accusing anyone specific of anything specific. He knows exactly what he is doing: using birtherism to his political advantage without getting sued for defamation.Taitz on the other hand is asking for a beat down. Any. Day. Now.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Kansas ballot challenge

#1243

Post by Suranis » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:57 am

Arpiao never mentioned Alvin Onaka afaik. Zullo has a different story for every day of the week to get attention so he might had mentioned him at some point, who knows.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

Kansas ballot challenge

#1244

Post by Roboe » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:04 am

[highlight]Arpaio has been extremely careful not to "name names" and to point out that he isn't accusing anyone specific of anything specific[/highlight]. He knows exactly what he is doing: using birtherism to his political advantage without getting sued for defamation.Since they have WND onboard, it's hardly a surprise. Weren't Pornstache or Corsi hinting at a name of the person who had 'created' the LFBC, only to back off when said person threatened then with one mother of a defamation lawsuit?

Tarrant
Posts: 1600
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1245

Post by Tarrant » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:26 pm

[highlight]Arpaio has been extremely careful not to "name names" and to point out that he isn't accusing anyone specific of anything specific[/highlight]. He knows exactly what he is doing: using birtherism to his political advantage without getting sued for defamation.Since they have WND onboard, it's hardly a surprise. Weren't Pornstache or Corsi hinting at a name of the person who had 'created' the LFBC, only to back off when said person threatened then with one mother of a defamation lawsuit?At one point over a year ago, well before the Cold Cut Posse was involved, Corsi dropped the line that the forger was named "Mike", and hinted, but did not say outright, that said Mike might be a particular journalist. Birthers reacted unsurprisingly by harassing said journalist, and said journalist responded by hinting in no uncertain terms that if Corsi even glanced at his direction again he and WND would be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. To my knowledge, Corsi dropped the "Mike" thing after that and while he (and now the Posse) have said many times since that they have identified and were going to publicly identify the forger, they have been quite careful never to actually name anybody.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1246

Post by bob » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:53 am

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for "misprision of felony?"Zach Scruggs.Nb. Scruggs pleaded guilty to misprision.





All the misprision convictions I've come across were from guilty pleas coupled with the dismissal of more serious charges.





Much in the same manner many DUI prosecutions end in the defendant pleading to some silly lesser charge, e.g., unsafe exhibition of speed, obstruction of a highway, etc.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1247

Post by AnitaMaria » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:05 pm

:evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=360755]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=360755 :evil: UPDATE I JUST SPOKE TO CAROL, CLERK TO JUDGE HENDRICKS IN KS. THE REPLY FROM THE SEC OF STATE AND OBJECTIONS BOARD IS DUE BY NOVEMBER 5TH. WE ARE HOPING FOR THE DECISION ON THE SAME DAY, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTIONI'm pretty sure she knows how this one is going to turn out. Nonetheless, she will probably be filing motions and appeals in this case for the next year. :yawn:

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1248

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:23 pm

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for "misprision of felony?"Zach Scruggs.Nb. Scruggs pleaded guilty to misprision.





All the misprision convictions I've come across were from guilty pleas coupled with the dismissal of more serious charges.





Much in the same manner many DUI prosecutions end in the defendant pleading to some silly lesser charge, e.g., unsafe exhibition of speed, obstruction of a highway, etc.

Case in point: [link]United States v. Adams,http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app ... 05/209083/[/link], 961 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1992).
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1249

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:47 pm

:evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=360755]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=360755 :evil: UPDATE I JUST SPOKE TO CAROL, CLERK TO JUDGE HENDRICKS IN KS. THE REPLY FROM THE SEC OF STATE AND OBJECTIONS BOARD IS DUE BY NOVEMBER 5TH. WE ARE HOPING FOR THE DECISION ON THE SAME DAY, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTIONI'm pretty sure she knows how this one is going to turn out. Nonetheless, she will probably be filing motions and appeals in this case for the next year. :yawn:Ya, but what if the SOS and Board file their reply after 5:00 PM?
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9763
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Kansas ballot challenge

#1250

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:36 am

I guess it could go here...





Does Lena know her Kansas client Montgomery Burns has made an endorsement?





[BBvideo 600,350:1ydjbzc4][/BBvideo]
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”