Freedom Law School Victories

Introduction to round 1 of “Law Professor failure to win FLS” $300,000 Income Tax Reward

On April 28, 2016, Jonathan Siegel a law professor with George Washington University of Law made a claim against Freedom Law School’s $300,000 Income Tax Reward that has been made public since 1999. Professor Siegel lost his claim. Below is part 1 of the 3 part documentation of how Professor Siegel and Peymon Mottahedeh, President of Freedom Law School (Peymon) came into contact with each other which led to the reward claim by Professor Siegel and its denial by Freedom law School. In part one, listed below, you will see the email exchange of Peymon and Siegel (from oldest to newest), as well as the reward claim of Professor Siegel, as well as denial of the first $100,000 Income Tax Reward claim. ALL of the legal authorities mentioned by Peymon are hyperlinked to the actual Court case, IRS Code or direct source of law. This will allow you to read the actual law that Peymon refers to, so that you can read the law and judge for yourself if Professor Siegel or Freedom Law School are correct

Law Professor FAILS to collect Freedom Law Schools Income Tax Reward - Round 1 of 3

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peymon <peymon@livefreenow.org> wrote:

Dear Professor Johnathan Siegel,

I know you must be a very busy professor of law at George Washington University Law School and I do not wish to take too much of your time.

Someone led me to your post at http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm which had part of IRS Code Section 61 listed, which describes gross income which left me perplexed!

I found it odd that section 61 specifically lists a few forms of income that very few people have (and are usually in very small amounts), such as royalties and fringe benefits, but does NOT list the most common and largest forms of income that most Americans have, namely wages and salaries!?

Did I miss something here? How could Congressmen and their teams of lawyers forget about wages and salaries, but remembered to list royalties and fringe benefits?

Thank you for taking your time to review and reply to my question.

Peymon Mottahedeh

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan Siegel [mailto:jsiegel@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:44 AM
To: Peymon <peymon@livefreenow.org>
Cc: JB <joe@npn.net>
Subject: Re: Why section 61 of the code is missing wages and salaries!

Mr. Mottahedeh,

Thanks for your message.  Wages and salaries are covered under section 61's first item, as they are part of the "compensation for services" listed in that item.

Jon Siegel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peymon [mailto:peymon@livefreenow.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:43 PM
To: 'Jonathan Siegel' <jsiegel@law.gwu.edu>
Cc: 'JB' <joe@npn.net>
Subject: RE: Why section 61 of the code is missing wages and salaries!

Dear Professor Siegel,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I apologize for not making my question clear to you.

Item 1, Compensation for services, list fees, commissions, which are far less common form of compensation of most Americans and in far less total Dollars. Item 1 even lists fringe benefit. A fringe benefit is usually an extra small item  that a salaried employee or an hourly wage earner is given.

Fringe benefit, but it’s definition is a “fringe”, an “extra”, the icing on the cake. The cake is the salaried or wage earning income.

My question is, how could Congress and their team of layers, remember to list fees and commissions which are less common forms of compensation, and most particularly, how could Congress remembered to list fringe benefits in item, 1, which is the icing on the cake, but forgot to list wages and salaries, which is the cake itself, the most common form of compensation that most American receive and is the highest total Dollar compensation received in America by Americans?

Thank you for taking your time to review my email question and enlightening me.

Peymon Mottahedeh

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Peymon <peymon@livefreenow.org> wrote:

Dear Professor Siegel,

I sent you the email below 6 days ago, but had not heard back from you. I wondered if my email had not reached you for various technical reasons that exist. So I am resending the email below again, in the hope that it will reach you this time.

Thank you,
Peymon Mottahedeh

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan Siegel [mailto:jsiegel@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Peymon <peymon@livefreenow.org>
Subject: Re: Why section 61 of the code is missing wages and salaries!

Mr. Mottahedeh,

A likely motive for the phrasing of section 61(a)(1) is that Congress saw no need to specify that "compensation for services" includes wages and salaries because, as you say, those are the most common and obvious forms of compensation for services, whereas the other items are listed because, as you say, they are less common and obvious and Congress therefore wanted to make sure it was understood that those items were included.

Now here are some questions for you:  Are you the Peymon Mottahedeh associated with "Freedom Law School"?  Has anyone claimed the reward you offer at this page?  If so, what happened to those claims?

Jon Siegel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Peymon <peymon@livefreenow.org> wrote:

Yes Professor Siegel,

I am the Founder and President of Freedom Law School www.LIveFreeNow.Org . Very few people have attempted to claim any of the $300,000 Income tax reward that I have offered since 1999. I review and evaluate each claim personally and adjudicate them. You certainly seem most qualified to make such a claim, if you disagree with Freedom Law School’s position on these issues.

On your reasoning below, there are 2 problems with that logic:

1)      Why would Congress take the time to define income, if it is all income from all sources anyway? With that logic, Section 61 is superfluous. It is well settled that the law is never superfluous.

2)      The argument you forward that salaries and wages must be implied because obviously Congress intended it, but did not specifically list wages and salaries cannot be the reason, because the U.S. Supreme Court in the unanimous decision of Gould v. Gould  245 U.S. 151 (1917) stated the obvious that “In the interpretation of taxing statutes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. Doubts are resolved against the government.” Congress is not stupid and totally ignorant of well settled principles of taxation as spelled out in Gould, Supra.

If you have another explanation, I would happily give it my most serious consideration, legal research and analysis and be most thankful for you enlightening me.

Your's in freedom and justice,

Peymon Mottahedeh, President

Freedom Law School

www.LiveFreeNow.org (813)444-4800

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREE Weekly Conference Calls Click Here To Learn More!