Are you truly sovereign?

[Ralph]

Department of Correction v. Bey et al., OATH Index No. 1481-98/98 (Nov. 30, 1998)


Subsequent history: Hassan Abdallah Bey, OATH Index No. 1482/98, appeal dismissed, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm'n Item No. CD 00-002 (Jan. 24, 2000)(CSC holds there is no appeal from a default)


Topic(s): Filing false tax documents for the purpose of evading income tax liability

Judge: RM


Disposition: Termination



Discussion of Listed Topics:

Respondents, seventeen African-American correction officers, filed W-4 forms, W-8 forms and IT-2104 forms falsely claiming that they were exempt from income tax withholding. Respondents based this exemption on their identification as Free Moorish Nationals and the theory that the income tax system is purely voluntary in nature. Both arguments have no merit and have been explicitly rejected by federal courts. Although respondents' beliefs that they are entitled to this exemption may be sincere, their unilateral insistence on filing tax documents with false tax information is inconsistent with city employment. After all, respondents' salary is derived from the very taxes which they seek to evade. Accordingly, termination was warranted.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS

AND HEARINGS


In the Matter of


DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

Petitioner,

-against-

DUNCAN KEIZER, ET AL.,


Respondents.
REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Index Nos.

1481-98/98




P R E S E N T :





T O :







A P P E A R A N C E S :










































































ROSEMARIE MALDONADO

Administrative Law Judge



BERNARD B. KERIK

Commissioner

Department of Correction



NICHOLAS A. KAISER, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner

Department of Correction

60 Hudson Street - 7th Floor

New York, New York 10013



DAVID KLOPMAN, ESQ.
Supervising Attorney

Department of Correction

60 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10013



JAWAN AKIL BEY

Respondent Pro Se



OBA HASSAN WAT BEY AJAMU JABAR BEY

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



WAYNE BOLLIN BEY EDWARDS EBANKS

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



MICHAEL FLYNN HERBERT HINNANT

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



ZAIMAH EL NTCHWAIDUMELA BEY

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



MICHAEL NICHOLS PEDRO RIVERA, Sr.

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



WAYNE BOLLIN BEY NUBA SAABIRAH EL

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



HARLISE WATSON AGNES BEY

Respondent Pro Se Respondent Pro Se



FARUQ NOBLE BEY

Respondent Pro Se




This is a disciplinary proceeding referred by the petitioner, the Department of Correction, pursuant to section 75 of the New York State Civil Service Law. Each of the seventeen correction officers who are respondents in this case were served with charges alleging that they engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department. Specifications 1 through 3 allege that respondents knowingly submitted state and federal tax forms in which they falsely claimed to be exempt from withholding. Specification 4 charges respondents with submitting false tax information with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its subdivisions. Specification 5 charges respondents with violating their oaths of office by submitting documents which disclaim their United States citizenship.

A hearing was held before me on July 27, 28, 30 and August 10, 1998. Post-hearing submissions were filed on or before October 2, 1998. Fourteen respondents were present at the hearing and appeared pro se. Three named respondents defaulted. The Department presented the testimony of three witnesses. Twelve respondents testified on their own behalf; two respondents were present but declined to testify. After evaluating the testimony, documentary evidence and post-hearing submissions, and assessing the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, I find that the Department has sustained its burden of proof with respect to specifications 1, 2,(1) 3 and 4. The preponderance of the evidence did not support the charges contained in specification 5. Accordingly, I recommend that specification 5 be dismissed.(2)

The first section of this report and recommendation includes a broad discussion of the evidence relevant to all respondents and sets forth the general legal principles guiding this tribunal's determination. The second section discusses the individual misconduct of each respondent and the third section recommends the penalty.

[Ralph]

ANALYSIS

Respondents are Black correction officers who identify themselves as Free Moorish American Nationals ("Moors"), affiliated with the Moorish Science Temple of America, and as such consider themselves to be nonresident aliens of the "corporate" United States (Resp. Ex. 11). The "Zodiac Constitution" on which they rely, prohibits Moors from paying taxes based on the theory that Blacks are not full citizens of the "corporate" United States (Resp. Ex. 12). Temple doctrine teaches that America's first Blacks were not brought to the United States as slaves. It concludes that Blacks are "the most aboriginal inhabitants of North, South and Central America" -- decedents of the Moab tribe and ancestors of all Native American Indians. As such, Moors believe that they are entitled to the same tax exemption granted Native Americans. Respondents expressed pride in reclaiming this ancient heritage and new found nationality.

It is undisputed that pursuant to their beliefs, all 17 respondents filed federal W-4 forms, and 15 filed state forms, claiming exemption from income tax withholdings. In addition, five respondents filed IRS W-8 forms for nonresident aliens and six respondents filed self-made W-8 forms called "Certificates of Foreign Status for Moorish Americans." In sum, it is uncontested that all respondents filed documents certifying that they were exempt from income taxation. Moreover, no one at the hearing claimed that these submissions were made in error. On the contrary, each respondent who testified made it very clear that it was his or her intention not to pay income taxes.

There is, however, no credible evidence to support respondents' assertions that they are entitled to the exemption they claim. Respondents' beliefs, as sincere as they may be, do not present colorable legal claims. For example, it is undisputed that, on its face, the federal W-4 form provides for an exemption from withholding only if an employee can satisfy this two-pronged test:

I meet BOTH of the following conditions for exemption:

Last year I had a right to a refund of ALL Federal income tax withheld because I had NO tax liability; AND

This year I expect a refund of ALL Federal income tax withheld because I expect to have NO tax liability.

If you meet both conditions, enter EXEMPT here . . . (Resp. Ex. 4).

The W-4 form explicitly requires that employees only write the number of exemptions to which they are actually entitled (Tr. 139, 140-141). See also 26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a); United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8 (10th Cir. 1973) (taxpayer who claimed 10 exemptions on withholding statement, but knew that he was only entitled to 2 exemptions, willfully supplied false information). The state IT-2104 form contains similar requirements.

The record is devoid of any evidence that respondents qualified for the exemptions they claimed on official forms. The Department proved its prima facie case against all seventeen respondents by producing their pay summaries for 1995, 1996 and 1997. These summaries prove that respondents all earned taxable income during each of these years (Tr. 248-255; Pet. Ex. 19). Inasmuch as it is uncontested that respondents held paying jobs with the Department during the period in question, it is reasonable to infer that they would have had income tax liability. The payroll summaries amply demonstrate that respondents' assertions to the contrary on official documents were patently false. In sum, given respondents' employment and expectation of receiving income, it was untruthful to certify that they would not be liable for income taxes that year.

After the Department established its prima facie case, respondents were given an opportunity to present their defense. They made countless arguments, both at the hearing and in post-hearing submissions, rationalizing their attempts to evade income tax withholdings. Respondents' primary defense theory is twofold: (1) the Internal Revenue Code establishes a voluntary income tax system in which no individual is obligated to pay income taxes unless they voluntarily exercise their option to make payments and expressly consent to withholding; and (2) as Moorish nonresident aliens of the "corporate" United States they are entitled to tax exemption. Notwithstanding the virtual deluge of statutes and legal precedent cited by respondents allegedly in support of their position -- including the Moroccan Treaty of 1787, the Magna Carta, the Dred Scott decision and the Internal Revenue Code -- respondents' arguments are devoid of merit.

Respondents describe the Internal Revenue Code as "a masterpiece of deception designed to mislead citizens into believing that individuals are subject to federal income taxation." (Post-Hearing Submission filed by Oba Hassan Wat Bey at 9.) It is their position that workers paying income taxes do so out of ignorance because only corporations and associations organized for profit, as opposed to "free born natural" human beings, can be required to pay taxes. In coming to this conclusion respondents have strung together unrelated ideas taken from a wide array of cases, definitions, government regulations and textbooks. They ignore, however, basic facts and well established legal principles. For example, respondents make no mention that, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, Congress has had the power to tax individuals as well as corporations.

In addition, federal judges have already rejected respondents' position that contributing to the public fisc through income tax payments is purely voluntary. Several respondents have already pursued this claim in Bey v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 4866 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The Court not only dismissed respondents' complaint, it cited to cases describing similar claims as being "totally without arguable merit." Id. at 4.

Given this legal precedent, limited analysis is required here. Suffice it to say that respondents are not alone in their assertion that the tax system is voluntary. Tens of thousands of tax protesters attempt to avoid their tax obligations by making similar arguments.(3) Federal courts, however, have consistently rejected this theory. Language in the tax code referring to the system's "voluntary" nature refers to each taxpayer's responsibility to assess their liability and file returns and underscores the system's dependance on honest self-reporting. Our taxation system is "voluntary" only in comparison with "compulsory" systems where the taxpayer plays no role and the government unilaterally makes individual tax assessments and appropriates predetermined sums from wages. In short, a taxpayer's legal obligation to comply with tax laws is as "voluntary" as a driver's legal obligation to stop at a red light. Although in both cases enforcement depends on the "voluntary" actions of individuals, compliance with the law is not optional and all violators are on notice that noncompliance will be punished.

As succinctly stated by the Second Circuit in United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 1989), "The payment of income taxes is not voluntary." All citizens and resident aliens who receive income in the United States are subject to withholding, must file tax returns, and if their net income is sufficient, pay taxes. See Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 832-833 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983); 26 U.S.C.A. sec. 1, 1441(a) & (b) (West Supp. 1997). Arguments to the contrary are so baseless that federal courts routinely impose sanctions on litigants who assert it as a defense. See Birth v. United States, 958 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1992). Not surprisingly, respondents totally ignore the wealth of precedent rejecting their legally unsupportable claim.

Equally without merit is the argument that those who identify themselves as Moors can legally avoid paying income taxes based on their nationality. As early as 1993, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York dismissed the argument that Moors are exempt from taxation by virtue of their ethnicity or nationality. The People Ali Kaeem Bey v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 92 Civ. 6354 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). In United States v. Daniel-Bey, No. 97 Civ. 6052 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit affirmed that no legal tax exemption has been created for Moors. In fact, the judge in respondents' federal case, Bey v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 4866 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), emphasized that ethnic identification is "irrelevant" to the obligation to pay income taxes. Furthermore, even if ethnicity was a relevant factor, the Second Circuit "does not recognize the 'Free and Sovereign Moorish Nation' or the 'Free Moorish National Zodiac Constitution' . . ." Asim El v. Riverside Maintenance Corp., No. 95 Civ. 1204 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). In short, federal courts are unanimous in their conclusion that no legal exemption exists for this group. The strength of respondents' beliefs to the contrary does not change this objective reality. Based on the foregoing, this tribunal finds that respondents knowingly filed false state and federal tax exemption forms and recommends that charges 1, 2 and 3 be sustained.

[Ralph]

Sufficient evidence also exists to sustain specification 4, which alleges that respondents submitted false tax information with "intent to defraud" the state. The case law rejecting respondents' positions as frivolous is overwhelming. As discussed above, these cases not only address similar claims made by tax protestors, they also address prior claims made by Moors. There is no ambivalence with respect to this area of the law. It is quite telling that in the hundreds of pages submitted to this tribunal, virtually all respondents chose to ignore any case that specifically rejects similar claims. In sum, respondents' arguments are so bogus that I have no option but to infer that they knowingly made these submissions with an intent to defraud. The law in this area has been settled for too long for respondents to think seriously that their far-fetched arguments would change the result. Accordingly, I recommend that specification 4 be sustained.(4)

Specification 5 charges respondents with violating their oath of office by "disclaiming" their citizenship and asserting in documents that they are nonresident aliens of the "corporate" United States. It is undisputed that correction officers must be citizens of the United States and reside within the New York metropolitan area (Tr. 258). See Public Officer's Law, sec. 3. It is also undisputed that the W-8 form is for nonresident aliens. The form itself defines this category of individuals as those who are "neither a U.S. citizen nor resident" (Resp. Ex. 2). Despite this evidence, I do not find that respondents "disclaimed" their United States citizenship.

Respondents' submission of federal W-8 forms was based on an erroneous and artificial distinction between what they call the United States of America and the "corporate" United States. Their reasoning for making such a distinction is, at best, convoluted, and at worst, utterly specious. For example, respondents cite to the following definitions from Black's Law Dictionary and American Jurisprudence 2d (Resp. Exs. 1, 7) in support of their reasoning:

United States. This term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

The plain language of this definition lends no support to the distinctions respondents wish to make. Furthermore, the argument that the Internal Revenue Act of 1913 establishes this distinction is also a fabrication. The Act defined the words "state" and "United States" to "include" United States territories and the District of Columbia. Respondents wrongly assert that "include" is a term of limitation rather than of definition. From there they leap to the unfounded conclusion that the term "individual" within the Internal Revenue Code only applies to persons within those jurisdictions.

Although respondents' submission of documents stating that they are nonresident aliens contained information that was patently false, and therefore chargeable under specification 3, it is clear from their testimony that it was not their intent to "disclaim" their United States citizenship. Many respondents were credible as they proudly discussed their military service, displayed American flags and declared faithful allegiance to the United States of America. In short, despite the illogical nature of their assertion, this tribunal believes that the submission of the W-8 forms and substitutes were no more than misguided attempts to reclaim what they believe is their "true Moorish nationality." Respondents had no intent to "disclaim" their United States citizenship. As such, I cannot find that respondents engaged in the misconduct described in specification 5 and recommend that it be dismissed.

At the hearing and in hundreds of pages of post-hearing submissions, respondents released a plethora of frivolous arguments in their defense. Many rationalizations are based on quotations taken out of context. This tribunal has reviewed and rejected all of these arguments.(5) Although meritless, a few warrant brief discussion. First, contrary to respondents' assertions, 26 U.S.C.A. section 3403 requires municipal agencies to deduct and withhold federal payroll taxes from their employees' pay. See Bey v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 4866 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Accordingly, respondents' arguments that the Department is not authorized to process federal W-4 forms is incorrect.

Second, the premise that compensation for contracted labor is not income as described by the Internal Revenue Code is specious. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived" and includes compensation for services. 26 U.S.C.A. sec. 61(a). The argument that wages are not income because the value of the labor performed equals the value of the payment received, and therefore no gain is realized, has been repeatedly rejected by federal courts. See Schaut v. Untied States, 585 F. Supp. 137 (N.D. Ill. 1984); Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985).

Third, federal courts have also rejected respondents' claim that the federal W-4 form is invalid because it does not have an OMB control number and expiration number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In Woods v. Commissioner, 8 F. Supp.2d 1357 (M.D. Fla. 1998), the court held that this omission does not allow taxpayers to ignore their own obligations to comply with tax laws.

Fourth, respondents' assertion that this is a criminal proceeding is incorrect. The sole question before this tribunal is whether respondents engaged in misconduct. There are no findings regarding alleged criminal behavior. See Board of Education v. Forde, OATH Index No. 491/95 (Mar. 29, 1995). I must also add that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on respondents' claim of selective prosecution. See Department of Sanitation v. Yovino, OATH Index No. 1209/96 (Oct. 9, 1996), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, N.Y.C. Civ. Serv. Comm'n Item No. CD 97-109-0 (Dec. 4, 1997); Department of Correction v. Mercer, OATH Index No. 1638/95 (Sept. 13, 1995).

[Ralph]

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Jawan Akil Bey:


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated January 18, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,127 in 1995 and $43,349 in 1996 (Tr. 554, 560-561; Pet. Exs. 1C, H, L, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104-E form dated January 18, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Tr. 554; Pet. Ex. 1J, 19).


c. Respondent submitted a "Certificate of Foreign Status for a Moorish-American Nonresident Alien Outside the District of Columbia" (Pet. Ex. 1A, D), a "Commercial Affidavit" (Pet. Ex. J), as well as the documents set forth above, which included false information.

d. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions (Tr. 527, 554).

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



2. Wayne Bollin Bey:


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a self-made "Withholding Exemption Certificate" in 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,837 in 1995 and $43,411 in 1996 (Tr. 688; Pet. Exs. 2B, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting an undated state IT-2104-E form falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Ex. 2B).


c. Respondent submitted false tax documents with the Department claiming that he is exempt and a nonresident alien (Pet. Exs. 2A, B; Tr. 685-689).


d. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions (Tr. 687-688).


e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



3. Agnes Bey:


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated September 10, 1996 falsely claiming that she was exempt from withholding when she earned $45,837 in 1995 and $43,411 in 1996 (Tr. 663; Pet. Exs. 3B, C, H, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated September 10, 1996 falsely claiming that she was exempt from withholding (Tr. 662; Pet. Exs. 3H, 19).



c. Respondent submitted false tax documents to the Department (Tr. 668; Pet. Ex. 3E).


d. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.


e. The charge that respondent violated her oath of office by disclaiming her citizenship was not supported by the record (Tr. 648-649).



4. Edward Ebanks:

a. Respondent was present at the hearing but refused to testify (Tr. 707).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a W-4 form dated May 22, 1995 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $39, 650 in 1995 (Pet. Exs. 4B, E, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


c. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting an undated state IT-2104 form dated February 11, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $43,411 in 1996 and $42, 049 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 4A, 19).


d. Respondent submitted false tax documents, including a "Declaration of Status," with the Department claiming that he is a nonresident alien (Pet. Ex. 4C).


e. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.


f. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.

[Ralph]

5. Michael Flynn El-Bey:


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a W-4 form dated August 21, 1996 claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,837 in 1995 (Tr. 743; Pet. Exs. 5C, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated August 21, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Tr. 744; Pet. Ex. 5C).


c. Respondent submitted false tax documents with the Department claiming that he is exempt and a nonresident alien (Tr. 744, 757).


d. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions (Tr. 738, 741, 747).


e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



6. Hassan Abdallah Bey

a. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. Proper proof of service of the charges and notice of the hearing was submitted. Department's Post-Hearing Brief, Ex. C. Such evidence established the jurisdictional prerequisite for finding respondent in default.


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting two W-4 forms dated August 12, 1996 and February 23, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $43,411 in 1996 and 42,405 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 6C, F, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


c. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting two state IT-2104 forms dated August 12, 1996 and February 2, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Exs. 6B, F, 19).


d. Respondent submitted false tax documents as set forth above.


e. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.


f. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



7. Kashiff Bey


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting three "In Lieu of W-4 Forms" dated October 12, 1995, December 22, 1995 and December 11, 1996 claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $34,896 in 1995 and $34,123 in 1996 (Tr. 774, 776; Pet. Exs. 7C, I, J, K, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated February 11, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Tr. 771; Pet. Ex. 7B).


c. Respondent submitted false tax documents, including a "Certificate of Foreign Status for a Moorish-American, Nonresident Alien," claiming that he is exempt and a nonresident alien (Tr. 769-771; Pet. Ex. 7E).


d. Respondent submitted the above-referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions (Tr. 738, 741, 747).


e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record



8. Faruq Noble Bey


a. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. Proper proof of service of the charges and notice of the hearing was submitted. Department's Post-Hearing Brief, Ex. C. Such evidence established the jurisdictional prerequisite for finding respondent in default.


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting two self-made "In Lieu of W-4" forms dated January 1, 1996 and January 2, 1996 and a federal W-4 form dated August 31, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $42,837 in 1996 and $34,326 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. , B2, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).

c. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104-E form dated January 22, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Exs. 8, E1, 19).

d. Respondent submitted the documents set forth above which included false information.

e. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

f. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



9. Duncan Keizer


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated June 29, 1995 and by submitting two "In Lieu of W-4" forms dated September 27, 1995 and April 18, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,656 in 1995; $41,276 in 1996; and $42,227 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 9K, M, D, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).

b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104-E form dated December 21, 1995 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Exs. 9I, 19).

c. Respondent submitted a "Certificate of Foreign Status for a Moorish-American Nonresident Alien Outside the District of Columbia" (Pet. Ex. 9P), as well as the documents set forth above which included false information.

d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



10. Michael Nichols Bey

a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting two federal W-4 form dated June 7, 1995 and February 7, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,694 in 1995, $43,411 in 1996 and $42,049 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 11H, D, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated February 7, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Ex. 11B).

c. Respondent submitted the above false tax documents to the Department.

d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.

[Ralph]

11. Zaimah El

a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting an "In Lieu of W-4 form" dated December 11, 1996 falsely claiming that she was exempt from withholding when she earned $45,835 in 1995 and $43,411 in 1996. (Tr. 390; Pet. Exs. 12B, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).

b. Respondent submitted the above tax document which included false information.


c. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

d. The charge that respondent violated her oath of office by disclaiming her citizenship was not supported by the record.



12. Nuba Saabirah El

a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting three federal W-4 forms dated January 16, 1995, August 2, 1996 and February 13, 1997 falsely claiming that she was exempt from withholding when she earned $45,837 in 1995, $43,411 in 1996 and $42,405 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 13K, E, C, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).

b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated August 12, 1996 falsely claiming that she had "99" allowances, which respondent testified was a code for claiming exempt (Tr. 394; Pet. Exs. 13F, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).

c. Respondent submitted the above tax documents containing false information to the Department (Tr. 358-359, 394; Pet. Exs. 13A, G, H).

d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated her oath of office by disclaiming her citizenship was not supported by the record.



13. Pedro Rivera

a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting four federal W-4 forms dated June 12, 1995, August 9, 1996 February 24, 1997; and March 6, 1997 falsely claiming that he had "99" allowances and was exempt from withholding when he earned $45,837 in 1995; $43,411 in 1996; and $42,227 in 1997 (Tr. 802; Pet. Exs. 14D, F, G, H, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated August 9, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Tr. 802; Pet. Ex. 14 D).

c. Respondent submitted the above tax documents containing false information to the Department (Tr. 802).

d. Respondent submitted the above reference documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



14. Ntchwaidumela Bey

a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated November 29, 1996 falsely claiming that he had "99" allowances and had no-tax liability when he earned $45, 712 in 1995 and $43,411 in 1996 (Tr. 430; Pet. Exs. 15C, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated November 29, 1996 falsely claiming "99" allowances (Pet. Exs. 15C, 19).

c. Respondent submitted the above tax documents containing false information to the Department (Tr. 435).

d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions, and respondent testified that he was aware that he was supposed to pay federal and state taxes as a member of the Department of Corrections (Tr. 435).

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



15. Oba Hassan Wat Bey


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting two W-4 forms dated January 27, 1997 and February 11, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $43,388 in 1996 and $44,547 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 16D, C, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent submitted a "Certificate of Foreign Status for a Moorish-American Nonresident Alien Outside the District of Columbia" (Pet. Exs. 16 E, F), as well as the tax documents set forth above, all of which contained false information.


c. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.


d. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



16. Harlise Watson


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated January 31, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding when he earned $43,411 in 1996 and $42,583 in 1997 (Pet. Exs. 17C, 19; Resp. Ex. 4). Additionally, respondent submitted an "In Lieu of W-4" dated 10, 1996 falsely claiming that he was exempt (Tr. 846, 869; Pet. Ex. 17D).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated January 31, 1997 falsely claiming that he was exempt from withholding (Pet. Ex. 17B).

c. Respondent submitted the above tax documents containing false information to the Department (Tr. 847, 852; Pet. Ex. 17F).


d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.

[Ralph]

17. Ajamu Jabari Bey


a. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a federal W-4 form dated August 7, 1996 falsely claiming that he has "99" allowances and no tax liability when he earned $48,992 in 1995 and $47,458 in 1996 (Tr. 617-618; Pet. Exs. 18E, 19; Resp. Ex. 4).


b. Respondent engaged in unbecoming conduct which brought discredit to the Department by submitting a state IT-2104 form dated August 7, 1996 falsely claiming that he has "99" allowances, which respondent testified was a code meaning exempt (Tr. 617-618; Pet. Exs. 18F, 19).


c. Respondent submitted a "Certificate of Foreign Status for a Moorish-American Nonresident Alien Outside the District of Columbia" (Pet. Ex. 18, D), as well as the tax documents set forth above which included false information.

d. Respondent submitted the above referenced documents with the intent to defraud the State of New York and its political subdivisions.

e. The charge that respondent violated his oath of office by disclaiming his citizenship was not supported by the record.



RECOMMENDATION(6)

I have found that respondents willfully filed false tax documents with the intent to defraud the City and State of their income tax contributions. Absent compelling circumstances, such actions constitute grave misconduct which warrants termination of employment. See Human Resources Administration v. Mays, OATH Index No. 1095/98 (June 9, 1998). This case does not merit mitigation of the penalty. Compare Department of Health v. Protzel, OATH Index No. 613/98 (July 15, 1998).

Religion and ethnicity are irrelevant to our obligation to comply with well-established tax laws. Respondents, however, refuse to acknowledge this basic fact and insist on fabricating a basis for evading their obligations. At both the hearing and in post-hearing submissions, respondents unapologetically reassert that as Moors they are exempt from income taxation. The source of this belief is the Moor's Zodiac Constitution. However sincere respondents' beliefs may be, acting on them by filing false tax documents is inconsistent with City employment. After all, the income respondents derive as correction officers with the Department, and to which they claim entitlement in this case, is made up of the very taxes they have wilfully attempted to evade. Accordingly, I recommend termination.



Rosemarie Maldonado

Administrative Law Judge



November 30, 1998

1. Respondents Zaimah El and Oba Hassan Wat Bey were not charged with filing false state tax forms. Accordingly, this finding does not apply to them.

2. For respondents Zaimah El and Oba Hassan Wat Bey this is specification number 4.

3. See Ronald I. Mirvis, Tax Protester's Failure to Submit, or Submission of Erroneous or Incomplete, Federal Income Tax Returns as Violative of Sec. 7203 of Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Prohibiting Willful Failure to File Return of Supply Information, 60 A.L.R. Fed. 158 (1982).

4. As discussed in more detail below, respondents' submission of federal W-8 forms for nonresident aliens was also misconduct.

5. A synopsis of the arguments presented, and the legal precedent rejecting them, are discussed in Christopher S. Jackson's law review article, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar -- Whatever His Demands, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 291 (1996).

6. I recommend no penalty for Duncan Keizer, whose disability pension was approved on July 27, 1998.

[Ralph]

Baal_Zzz_Bug said:

Those who are members of the MST are law abiding citizens. Those who follow the splinter groups have been known to say that they are sovereign. Use it wisely my brother!

[kAHANyAH]

Ah yes! thnx for the headz up on that.

Ralph said:

Those who are members of the MST are law abiding citizens. Those who follow the splinter groups have been known to say that they are sovereign. Use it wisely my brother!

[mateenel7]

Baal_Zzz_Bug said:

this is a gem Ralph! Thnx! Now I got me some real live case law to show those who embark upon the moorish pseudo law trac and prove once and for all its a SHAM just like KNOW TO BULL, DREW A LIE [Noble Drew Ali]

Greetings,

Your above statement Kahanyah, just goes to prove that you are of the highest idiots that visits this web board. Your lack of understanding of the Moorish Situation is born out in your premature understanding of the posting by the previous Brother. As you can see, in that case file, it is never mentioned that they are members of the Moorish Science Temple of America. Prophet Drew Ali never taught these scams that those ones who are likened to yourself, adopted from their European Gods. Think and be wiser next time foolish one.

[SatiyaH]

The MisUnderStanding comes in because most are unaware that 'MST' is the religious body is. It's Political body is called Moorish National and Divine Movement. MST confers degrees but you are not a True Moorish National until they join Moorish National and Divine Movement. Lack of many of it's members understanding of what is taught, that the organization itself is sovereign, not the individuals. Community living, sovereignty and salvation are traps of the Devil. These organizations oriented for blacks never plan to socially and economically liberate black people. How their orgainzations is setup socially isolates and economically deprives a person from recongizing individual sovereignty.

[kAHANyAH]

A'ight I was wrong for knocking Noble Drew Ali . It was immature on my part, no excuse. I apologize. My initial posting is deleted

Peace.

mateenel7 said:

Greetings,

Your above statement Kahanyah, just goes to prove that you are of the highest idiots that visits this web board. Your lack of understanding of the Moorish Situation is born out in your premature understanding of the posting by the previous Brother. As you can see, in that case file, it is never mentioned that they are members of the Moorish Science Temple of America. Prophet Drew Ali never taught these scams that those ones who are likened to yourself, adopted from their European Gods. Think and be wiser next time foolish one.

[mateenel7]

SatiyaH said:

The MisUnderStanding comes in because most are unaware that 'MST' is the religious body is. It's Political body is called Moorish National and Divine Movement. MST confers degrees but you are not a True Moorish National until they join Moorish National and Divine Movement. Lack of many of it's members understanding of what is taught, that the organization itself is sovereign, not the individuals. Community living, sovereignty and salvation are traps of the Devil. These organizations oriented for blacks never plan to socially and economically liberate black people. How their orgainzations is setup socially isolates and economically deprives a person from recongizing individual sovereignty.

Greetings

Please elaborate on how your response pertains to the Moorish Movement? And what is your stand on "Individual Sovereignty"?

[DenhamEL]

Islamism!

Ralph just showed and proved tat there is a diference between a "faithful" card carrying dues paying member(citizen) and those who wear "Moorish American" for the sake of exploitation. Those cats are followers of C.M. Bey and The Clock of Destiny Club. C.M. Bey was thrown out of the temple by The Prophet Drew ALI. Many of those brothers and sisters cannot even tell you who Prophet Drew ALI is. C.M. Bey even went as far as to say that he rejects his faith of islam as a "sham". How can he even call himself Bey or El and for that matter even Moorish American as he put The Prophet behind himself. We are sovereigns inside of the Moorish Nation, there is no "sovereign man" that's funny! How can you claim sovereignty and many are still claiming that they are BLACK, COLORED, NEGROES,AFRO AND AFRICAN AMERICANS. Many still are chasing and straying after the false gods and idols of the europeans, and for this ALLAH has cast his will for those who will continuly violate divine law. The MSTA is a two fold demonstration, it religious and jural. The MSTA is the reiligious side and the Moorish Divine National Movement (there is no "and") is the Jural, there are only two sociites in the world set up as a functioning government. They are the Vatican and The MSTA which is set up the very same way. Many are trying to do what Prophet Drew ALI already did, many do not know because we have a problem dealing with Free National Standards and Principles, because blacks, coloreds, negroes never had those because those same people do have a free national name but the european had a different plan. We do not know what Nationality is! And for the record Blacks will never recieve reparations because ALLAH never created blacks, coloreds or negroes. Only Nations get reparations! Mateeneel7 keep teaching!

Peace
Denham-El
quote author=Ralph link=board=moorish&thread=1088439915&start=7#0 date=1088454030]
Those who are members of the MST are law abiding citizens. Those who follow the splinter groups have been known to say that they are sovereign. Use it wisely my brother![/quote]

[nuwaubianhotep]

mateenel7 said:

Greetings,

Your above statement Kahanyah, just goes to prove that you are of the highest idiots that visits this web board. Your lack of understanding of the Moorish Situation is born out in your premature understanding of the posting by the previous Brother. As you can see, in that case file, it is never mentioned that they are members of the Moorish Science Temple of America. Prophet Drew Ali never taught these scams that those ones who are likened to yourself, adopted from their European Gods. Think and be wiser next time foolish one.

LOL....

I agree with the highest idiot part..