Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Tuesday
Mar 16, 2010
Clouds And Sun
Clouds And Sun 71° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


JOHN L. SMITH: Truth about payroll scam puts tax protester, partners in prison

When his lawyer called Robert Kahre a hero, the odor of something organic and overripe wafted into U.S. District Court.

When psychiatrist Karen Cruey diagnosed Kahre as delusional, she was onto something. When last week consummately compassionate U.S. District Judge David Ezra described Kahre's elaborate tax-evasion scheme "too clever by half," it was a sign the plain truth had finally sprouted from the pile of horse manure Kahre generated under the guise of something nobler.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Man arrested, pair shot in car incident
  2. Off-duty Las Vegas officer shoots armed suspect in Henderson home invasion
  3. Goodman ditches firing plan
  4. Ex-Green Valley Ranch manager arrested
  5. Arrest report details officers' actions to catch suspects
  6. Edwards mistress: 'We love each other very much'
  7. Anti-Reid ads draw criticism
  8. Las Vegas police officer who created 'One Cop's Journey' hangs up holster
  9. Galardi makes case for freedom
  10. Mom: Jogger hit by plane was excited to head home




At the end of Kahre's pathetic jousting with the tax man, after years of scheming while dreaming of the ultimate con, he was convicted on 57 felony counts, sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, and took some of his family down with him. While I'm certain some of those who get their information from the fuzzy end of the radio dial will cling to the thought Kahre was a patriot, tax protester, and constitutional scholar, the facts make it painfully clear he was a con man whose payroll scam not only laundered $120 million around the tax code, but also generated a substantial score for himself along the way.

Kahre's debts came due following a trial that, despite the best efforts of Texas accountant Wayne Paul, cut through the funky fog to reveal what IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents Jared Halper and Ryan Rickey called "a typical, under-the-table cash payroll" scheme. Judge Ezra said it was the most transparent tax scam he had ever witnessed.

Like most tax scammers, Kahre tried to exploit the IRS provision that enables filers to make sincere mistakes without triggering a criminal penalty. In other words, if you do some research and sincerely believe you've followed the rules, your error isn't a crime but can result in an administrative or civil penalty.

Kahre used the face value of gold and silver coins for tax dodge purposes, then peeled off cash to thousands of construction workers without deducting the proper Social Security and other payroll taxes. Bags of money were regularly sent by armored truck to Kahre's warehouse, where he played paymaster for dozens of construction outfits. His company essentially stuffed cash into envelopes and kept a whopping 15 to 20 percent off the top.

That's one pricey patriot.

It wasn't a tax protest. It was a racket.

The millions Kahre made paid for a luxurious Las Vegas home and a compound in Oregon with several houses, all purchased for cash under different names to obscure the source of the money.

For years Kahre worked angles to avoid paying taxes. He filed documents, got regularly rejected, and eventually resorted to harassing federal judges and IRS agents. He also picked up his share of followers.

When he crafted the gold and silver coin scam, he enlisted willing business partners. Perhaps some dreamed he would come up with the ultimate tax loophole, but plain greed motivated others.

In the end, thousands of construction workers' Social Security taxes weren't paid. They will pay the price for the Kahre scam.

Kahre's sister, Lori Kahre, was sentenced to six years. His co-defendant, promising law student Alex Loglia, was sentenced to 26 months. Kahre's wife, Danille Kahre, received five years probation. If not for Judge Ezra's compassionate hand, it might have been harsher.

If you want to change tax law, have at it. If you want support to lower the tax burden, count me in.

But if you still entertain the daffy notion you can avoid paying taxes by reinterpreting the Constitution, boycotting the Federal Reserve, beard-stroking about the face value of gold and silver coins, and calling the secretary of the Treasury a "foreign agent," there may be a prison cell waiting for you.

Make that a padded cell.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 13 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on November 23, 2009 10:50 PM: Gee, aren't we all convinced and impressed by the arguments of the wannabe professors of Constitutional law posting below?

I know I am.

While you guys are at it, in a nutshell (for you nuts) can you explain psychiatry to us, and after that, quantum physics?

Please be prepared to cite chapter and verse of MULTIPLE examples of case law precedents supporting your assertions, based upon your disciplined scholasticism, erudition and knowledge of the law.

Or are you merely talking out of your backsides?


Report abuse

Cons is so Stupid wrote on November 23, 2009 10:42 PM: "the [sic] supreme [sic] court [sic] has not yet allowed the consti [sic] wrote on November 22, 2009 09:33 PM: the [sic] supreme [sic] court [sic] has not yet heard the argument of the constitutionality of this whole mess.
lower [sic] courts cannot over rule [sic] the supreme [sic] court [sic]."

What makes you think there was any judicial error that would cause the Supreme Court to take the case. The Supreme Court hears very few of the cases presented to it.

"many [sic] corrupt lower court judges are culpable in the improper application of the private company's wirshes [sic] and the federal [sic] reserve [sic] and the private police agency the irs [sic].

Where do I begin? Any judge who disagrees with this moron who cannot communicate in written English is "corrupt".

Cons is so stupid.


Report abuse

links wrote on November 22, 2009 09:51 PM: http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/essays.htm


Report abuse

the supreme court has not yet allowed the consti wrote on November 22, 2009 09:33 PM: the supreme court has not yet heard the argument of the constitutionality of this whole mess.
lower courts cannot over rule the supreme court.
many corrupt lower court judges are culpable in the improper application of the private company's wirshes and the federal reserve and the private police agency the irs.


Report abuse

The Truth wrote on November 22, 2009 07:27 PM: In 1986, the Seventh Circuit observed:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. “Tax protesters” have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead — so tax protesters think — to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.[17]

Arguments made by tax protesters generally fall into several categories: that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income; that other provisions of the Constitution such as the First, Fifth, or a "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" eliminate an obligation to file a return; that citizens of the states are not also citizens of the United States; that the statutes enacted by the United States Congress pursuant to their constitutional taxing power are defective or invalid; and that the government and the courts engage in various conspiracies to conceal the above deficiencies.

Such arguments are usually summarily dispensed with when presented in federal court. For example, the Fifth Circuit once noted:

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established... [Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish.[18]

In that case, the court viewed the tax protester arguments as sufficiently frivolous to merit the imposition of sanctions--in this case twice the costs spent by the government in defending the litigation--for even bringing them up.


Report abuse

Too_much_government wrote on November 22, 2009 02:19 PM: I oppose BIG government and the high taxes necessary to pay for it. If we had small government in this country, wouldn't need income taxes or an IRS to collect them. But then, how would the Republicans ever control the economy if their favorite device for doing so -- the US Tax Code -- was demolished?


Report abuse

can it be ? wrote on November 22, 2009 11:50 AM: At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.



Report abuse

..................... wrote on November 22, 2009 11:36 AM: Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?



Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.



That so‑called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).



The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.



Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.


Report abuse

john l smith can easily publish the law........show the law in the newspaper wrote on November 22, 2009 11:34 AM: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm




2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?



Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.



When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.





3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?



Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.



Their presence within the 50 States appears to


Report abuse

john lsmith used a lie and filed bankruptcy to avoid and defend off adelson...In other words, if you do some research and sincerely believe you've followed the rules, your error isn't a crime but can result in an administrative or civil penalty. wrote on November 22, 2009 11:25 AM: john smith basically lying to fight off a more powerful opponent when in reality ,not actually out of a job and still collecting a paycheck from the las vegas review journal.


http://www.lvrj.com/news/10499382.html













Read All Comments