Main Menu

Defend our Freedoms Foundation update

While it sounds dodgy, the term “fictitious business” is a normal classification in California. Taitz’ DOFF fictitious business registration with Orange County expired at the end of last year. This may be intentional because the significance of a “fictitious business” is that the name of the business is not reflected in its articles of incorporation. The Defend Our Freedoms Foundations (sic) was registered as a corporation after the fictitious business filing.

image

Taitz has (at least) two corporations in California. The earlier one (entity number C1871559) is from 1994.

imageThe second, for DOFF (entity number C3189036), is from 2009:

image

It appears that Taitz did not follow through with her registration of the DOFF as a California charity (screen shot taken today):

image

The 3189036 number appears to be a Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board Number.

According to the Second Notice to Register (dated December 19, 2011):

PLEASE REPLY WITHIN 30 DAYS TO AVOID LOSING YOUR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS WITH THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.

I had reported in my prior article that some reports appeared on the Internet that the DOFF had a federal employer ID number (FEIN) of 26-4328440. The charities registration site used to retrieve the record preceding also allows for a search by FEIN, and that number did not return a record.

A search of charitable organizations with the IRS does not list the DOFF, neither by name nor EIN. (I suggest searching for the word “Defend” within the state of California to return a manageable number of results.)

The Defend our Freedoms Foundation web domains are owned owned by a Taitz detractor (who I presume is Lisa Ostella, Taitz’ former webmaster).

The lack of a determination by the IRS that the DOFF is tax exempt does not necessarily mean that the organization is not tax exempt; however, anyone taking a tax deduction for an organization for a donation to an organization without a determination is taking a risk. Charitable organizations, whether recognized or not, are required to file IRS Form 990 or one of its variants.

Print Friendly

, , ,

17 Responses to Defend our Freedoms Foundation update

  1. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2014 at 2:23 am #

    Her silly foundation is not a 501(c)(3). She tried to get this designation years ago, but she gave up because they wanted information about the lawsuits Defend our Freedoms was engaged in. Of course, those would show that her foundation was purely political and not eligible for a 501(c)(3) designation.

    Fred Flintstone:
    She’s trying to milk this for donations (as she does everything) and she has yet to disclose where or how much or who she spends her money from her “foundation” which does no charitable work but is charteredas a 501(c)(3).

  2. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 30, 2014 at 2:52 am #

    Thinker:
    Her silly foundation is not a 501(c)(3). She tried to get this designation years ago, but she gave up because they wanted information about the lawsuits Defend our Freedoms was engaged in. Of course, those would show that her foundation was purely political and not eligible for a 501(c)(3) designation.

    When did she try to get the tax exempt designation, do you know?

    The California Attorney General wrote her a couple of letters about the status of Defend Our Freedom Foundations (plural there is correct) in 2009 and 2011 with no indication of any response from her and nothing further from the state after 2011 that I can find.

    The corporation is listed as active and, apparently, in good standing.

    I wonder how many people realize donations to her are not tax deductible?

  3. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2014 at 3:41 am #

    I believe it was 2009, but she made the comment about the lawsuits in 2011 when she came to believe that someone who posts at the Fogbow works for the IRS. For a couple of years, her web site said that her foundation was a non-profit and that donations were tax deductible. I recall when she was running for Secretary of State that she posted that if people who donate to her want their donation to be tax deductible, they should donate to her foundation instead of her campaign, since campaign donations were not tax deductible. I don’t know what caused her to drop the claim that donations were tax deductible, but I know that it wasn’t because of a change in her foundation’s tax status since donations were never tax deductible.

    CarlOrcas: When did she try to get the tax exempt designation, do you know?

  4. avatar
    Keith January 30, 2014 at 6:10 am #

    Thinker: I don’t know what caused her to drop the claim that donations were tax deductible, but I know that it wasn’t because of a change in her foundation’s tax status since donations were never tax deductible.

    Perhaps someone actually tried to claim the deduction and the IRS checked up on it?

  5. avatar
    Fred Flinstone January 30, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    This is what she posted on her filing with Colorado Courts last month. It’s in her pleading:

    2. Plaintiff herein, Attorney Orly Taitz, is a president of a not for profit foundation, “Defend our Freedoms Foundation”, which has multiple members in the state of Colorado.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2014 at 11:44 am #

    The preceding comments move here from another thread.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    See my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/nonprofit-v-charity/

    Fred Flinstone: 2. Plaintiff herein, Attorney Orly Taitz, is a president of a not for profit foundation, “Defend

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    I have updated the two prior articles on DOFF to include links to the Web Archive version of her site showing the FEIN number:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090324054542/http://www.defendourfreedoms.us/

  9. avatar
    JPotter January 30, 2014 at 12:01 pm #

    Clearly, yet another case of IRS targeting. ;)

  10. avatar
    J.D. Reed January 30, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    Thinker: I. I recall when she was running for Secretary of State that she posted that if people who donate to her want their donation to be tax deductible, they should donate to her foundation instead of her campaign, since campaign donations were not tax deductible. .

    Well, this at least implies that Orly was trying to circumvent campaign finance law by funneling donations through her foundation to her campaign. She really ought to check with Dinesh D’Souza about the downside of laundering campaign contributuions!

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    I’m still looking for that. Here’s one article talking about the run for Senate and contributions to the two entities:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27620

    Thinker: I recall when she was running for Secretary of State that she posted that if people who donate to her want their donation to be tax deductible, they should donate to her foundation instead of her campaign, since campaign donations were not tax deductible.

  12. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2014 at 3:03 pm #

    I don’t know if “not for profit foundation” necessarily means 501(c)(3). As Doc’s article makes clear, her silly foundation is not a 501(c)(3), nor could it ever be because it’s purely political. But, she’s a chronic liar. I wouldn’t take anything she says at face value.

    Fred Flinstone:
    This is what she posted on her filing with Colorado Courts last month. It’s in her pleading:

    2. Plaintiff herein, Attorney Orly Taitz, is a president of a not for profit foundation, “Defend our Freedoms Foundation”, which has multiple members in the state of Colorado.

  13. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

    The story behind the “Defend our Freedoms Foundations” (plural) name: Before Taitz and Lisa Ostella had their falling out, Lisa Ostella filled out all the paperwork in California for the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (singular) in her own name on Taitz’s behalf. When they broke up, Lisa kept the foundation in her name. So Taitz chose Defend Our Freedoms Foundations (plural) as the new name for her foundation, which she registered in her own name.

  14. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Here is the quote from her blog http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=8610

    Posted on | March 5, 2010 | No Comments
    From: Bill Zarkos
    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:20 AM
    Subject: Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
    [...]
    Note: Donations to the Defend our Freedoms Foundation ARE STILL Tax Deductable – Donations to her Political Campaign are not. If you need the writeoff – donate to the Foundation; if you don’t need (or can’t use) the deductions, donate to the Campaign…. Bill Z

    Thinker: I recall when she was running for Secretary of State that she posted that if people who donate to her want their donation to be tax deductible, they should donate to her foundation instead of her campaign, since campaign donations were not tax deductible.

  15. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 30, 2014 at 3:51 pm #

    Thinker:
    The story behind the “Defend our Freedoms Foundations” (plural) name: Before Taitz and Lisa Ostella had their falling out, Lisa Ostella filled out all the paperwork in California for the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (singular) in her own name on Taitz’s behalf. When they broke up, Lisa kept the foundation in her name. So Taitz chose Defend Our Freedoms Foundations (plural) as the new name for her foundation, which she registered in her own name.

    That makes sense…..such as it is with lawyer Taitz.

    Speaking of which (and slightly off topic but good for a laugh) check out this thread on her site: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=446006#comments

    Orly is crowd sourcing her computer support. It appears she does not have a firewall (seems improbable) and doesn’t run an anti-virus (entirely possible) but is absolutely sure any problems she has are the result of tampering…cyber attacks. Personally handled by the usurper himself, I am sure.

    Just noticed that the last post on her site is from Sunday, the 26th. Very suspicious!!

  16. avatar
    Bob January 30, 2014 at 6:06 pm #

    I wonder if Orly lists her occupation as “comedian” on her taxes?

  17. avatar
    John Reilly January 31, 2014 at 12:43 am #

    So if I understand it correctly, her foundation failed e-verify, right?