In article ,
wrote:
I can't think of anyone's opinions and advice I respect more than yours, but...

"As I understand it, no business can get a ham license, because the use
of amateur radio for commercial purposes is forbidden. "

That makes sense. I have wondered about businesses owning vehicles, is
there a requirement there for at least one person to be in control and
put his name on the line, or can it be just in a company name. Same with
property. These are things I never found out because I never had any
reason to.

Depends on the type of business, I believe.

Corporations have standing to own property, as they are defined in law
as something on the order of "artifical persons". The business
can't hold a driver's license, though - the business itself can't
drive the car - the operator has to be a human who is individually
licensed. [And how this plays for "driverless cars" is complex,
varies from place to place, and is far from settled. :-) ]

The same is true of some sorts of non-incorporated associations.

In the case of "limited liability partnerships" I don't know whether
such a partnership owns property or not.

In the case of a "DBA" (Doing Business As, a.k.a. a "fictitious
business"), no, I don't think so. The property is owned by the
individual or family or other group who is doing business under a
fictitious business name - the name is just a branding, to help deal
with the public.


"I haven't yet heard of a case in which the
"Sovereign citizen" arguments have actually won out in court."

That is not how it's done. Being sovereign has very little meaning, when
you make well into six figures, being a non-taxpayer does have meaning.
there is a specific process, and then you can't engage in certain
contracts with the government. In fact you can't even sign a W-4 so you
will forever be self employed or find an employer who will operate in a
way that facilitates your wishes in the matter. I have found employers
who simply pay cash so it is a moot point then anyway. No paper trail,
nothing happens.

Well, this all falls into the category of what I was referring to as
"flying under the radar."

Yes, if you can arrange to work on a cash-only basis for your whole
life, and never file anything, you may escape notice. If you _do_ get
noticed, one way or another, they can still come after you for failing
to pay taxes, though. (As I understand it, the IRS doesn't get you
for "failing to file" - they get you for "failing to pay" or "filing a
false statement").

I have to say I'm sceptical about the idea of somebody being able to
earn six figures and evade detection through some sort of very
complicated process.

In
act, you can't be audited if you don't file.

You can't be audited (i.e. your filing can't be checked for errors,
because you didn't file), but you still _can_ be charged with failing to
pay the taxes you were due to pay. Different issue.

When you sign your name at the
bottom it is not s receipt, it is a contract and an acknowledgement of
jurisdiction to a private corporation, the IRS. Though chartered by the
government they are incorporated just like General Motors, no better no
worse.

This same "I didn't agree to it, I'm not bound by it, hence you don't
have jurisdiction" argument is at the base of a whole lot of the
Sovereign Citizen claims... and it keeps getting shot down.

The other thing about tax court, you won't hear about the people who
beat them, they do not like to publicize it. That is the same with any
court, if you make them fear public scrutiny on anything it works in
your favor.

That same argument can be made about almost _any_ claim... "they cover
it up and hide their losses". Taken to extremes, it's at the core of
about every crank conspiracy theory floating around the Net (or
anywhere) these days... "Sure, there's nothing about this in the
mainstream press... it's being covered up... see how effective the
conspirators are!". Absence of evidence for the claim, is taken as
proof of the claim.

Let's put it this way, if you get caught selling weed (marked money and
all) and they find your (expensive I personally know...) grow room,
weapons and all kind of ****, what do you expect ? Well with a lawyer he
lost, but operating pro se he won the appeal. But that should have
happened the first time because unbeknownst to most people, if you win
the appeal you are still convicted.

Cite, please?

There are bunch of different meanings to "win an appeal". The appeal
court may overturn the conviction entirely and dismiss the case, in
which case the conviction "never happened". The appeal court may rule
that the conviction was made in error, and remand the case back to the
lower court to correct the error (in which case the case must be
re-tried, or dismissed by the prosecution). The appeal court may rule
that the _sentence_ was in error, and either adjust the sentence
itself or remand the case back to the trial court for adjustment - in
which case the conviction remains.

In some cases, judges go so far as to overturn a conviction with a
"declaration of factual innocence", which is not just a "We don't
think he was proven guilty" but "we are declaring that he was _not_
guilty." This tends to occur in cases where there was a serious
miscarriage of justice in the prosecution of the original case.

Actually the same is true of a
presidential pardon.

In that you're quite correct... there's good legal precedent that
accepting a presidental (or governer's) pardon, consistitutes an
admission of guilt on your part.

A person who has been convicted is _not_ obligated to accept a
pardon. He/she can decline the pardon, and continue to pursue an
appeal to overturn the conviction or gain a new trial... and if he/she
has the conviction reversed on appeal, and isn't re-convicted in a
second trial, then the "innocent until proven guilty" rule applies.