My name is Sherry Peel Jackson. I became a Certified Public Accountant in 1987, I was an Internal Revenue Agent in the Atlanta District for 7 years, and I became a Certified Fraud Examiner in 2001. I am here to summarize the tales of ignorance and deception that you have heard over the last two days and I am here to inform you of the state of the nation so that you may choose your next course of action.

You have heard the truth of how the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve and politicians have perpetuated this smoke and mirrors - dog and pony show on you the American people for over 88 years. You have heard of American families devastated by the invasion of privacy and unbridled fear placed upon them through threats of liens, levy's and even jail time. In my tenure as an IRS agent, I personally saw marriages broken, families torn apart, homes confiscated and businesses destroyed - all while my colleagues and I were out making unjust demands on the American people - without the proper authority. Now, you be the judge.

You have seen that Commissioner Charles Rosatti, Dan Bryant, the majority of our congressional delegation and other civil servants have refused to do their jobs. It would have been as simple as answering the questions of these well-educated researchers in a public forum, such as this one. But they have reneged, so you be the judge.

You have learned that the Constitution of the United States of America has been trampled on and ignored through allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve to create paper currency and charge you 47 million dollars in interest per hour - money coming from the mouths of your children and the college education funds of your grandchildren, all the while the children and grandchildren of the owners of the Federal Reserve will never have to work a day in their lives, and that is wrong, on so many different levels.

And let me tell you, that as a black woman I am keenly aware of the history of slavery. But do you understand that we are all slaves to this system? Do you understand that the media and Hollywood play a part keeping the American people so fixated on Alley McBeal, WWF Smackdown, Moeisha and the Practice that we don't take time to read the Creature from Jekyll Island, study the Internal Revenue Code and learn the Constitution?

Now, let me spend just a minute to address my culture. Do you realize that the so called black leaders make millions of dollars every year playing the "us against them" role - keeping blacks focused on the race card and away from the real issue - the theft of our future through taxation.

These publicity mongers are well aware of the oppression brought on by income taxation, they love to march on Washington about racial profiling and civil rights, not to say that these are not real problems, but these leaders have been too afraid to approach the powers that be and have a million man, woman, boy, girl march about economic freedom from income taxation and restoration of constitutional rights.

Also, there's been a lot of talk about reparations lately, but know this: If all Americans were able to keep the money withheld from their paychecks every year, that money would enable them to home school, start their own business and boost the economy, save for college and retirement, even buy that 40 acres and a mule. So, you be the judge.

You need to understand that with an Internal Revenue Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and other "official documents" spouting off several different definitions of United States, Internal Revenue Service and other important terms, this deception that keeps people ignorant is not a coincidence. The writers of the Code used semantics and legalese to make us think that we are required to pay the income tax and file an income tax return. Former IRS commissioner Shirley Peterson even stated that, and I quote, "Eight decades of amendments….to (the) code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze….The rules are unintelligible to most citizens….The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law." End quote.

This fraud was strung together by people like the former president that said "it depends on what your definition of is is" and "it depends on what your definition of sex is". This incident showed us that definitions are very important to politicians and lawyers, and no word is meaningless. For example, it does depend on what the definition of "source" is.

The opposition, in an attempt to keep the sheeple in the flock, will scoff at us and encourage unaware Americans to ridicule those of us who have been informed, saying, "these people just don't want to pay their fair share." We have already learned from a speech by former Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Rhuml that this country doesn't need income taxes for revenue. This money collected from our sweat and tears is used to perpetuate redistribution of wealth, among other things. But the powers that be keep beating the people over the head with this "fair share' garbage. Well, what is fair share? Haven't the families of the victims in New York City and the pentagon paid their fair share? Haven't the men and women that lost sons and daughters, husbands in wives in Vietnam, Korea and the other battles paid their fair share? So you see, this tactic to pit those that are uninformed of the income tax fraud against those who have seen the light is baseless and must be eliminated!

The opposition also uses our religious faith to twist the meaning of authority and to create unjust statutes. People, I know godly authority and our current system does not reflect godly authority. Many of our past and present religious leaders have been jailed for questioning authority. They have been beaten, starved and even killed for their faith and their defiance of injustice. People of America - is what you're living for worth dying for? Are you willing to take a stand? It's your choice.

The creators of this Creature called the income tax, engineered their system to manipulate you into staying in your comfort zones. With a little bit of patriotism and a little bit of fear tactic mixed into a pot of inflation and deflation, they have been able to keep the people confused, intimidated and obedient for over 88 years.

But now the truth about the fraudulent origin and operations of the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service have been revealed to the American people. You can no longer claim ignorance of the truth. You must acknowledge it or reject it. The choice is yours. And the consequences of your decision will rest on the shoulders of your children and future generations of Americans.

You can remain an informed slave or you can get off of the plantation. You can remain engrossed in fear, or you can take a stand like Patrick Henry who shouted "give me liberty or give me death." You can stay hypnotized by "As The World Turns" and "The Guiding Light", or you can turn off the bube tube and read the Constitution, then go ask your elected representatives why they refuse to follow it. Remember that those elected representatives have sworn to uphold and defend our constitution.

Remember that each of our elected representatives has pledged to serve our country first-not a political party, or certain privileged and special interests groups-but you, the American People. They are our public servants.

In closing, we have shown you the truth. Now, for the sake of our Country and our children, we ask you to choose justice over injustice, unity over division, courage over fear, truth over ignorance, and liberty over economic slavery.

We ask you to stand with us and let the voice of freedom be heard from every corner of our great country. It is time to end this long-standing injustice and tyranny over the American People.

Note: These comments were presented at the Close of the Citizens' Truth-In-Taxation Hearing. Washington D.C., February 27-28, 2002

That is a lie. Do me a favour and get off of this thread liar.

Can't stand the exposure to the truth I see.!

I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just because Schulz & Co. don't like the answer does not in anyway invalidate them.

Answers from the Founders:

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

"the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

"A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government"

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] sic Congress will have to REQUIRE them of individual citizens;"

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Consideration received in exchange for labor or product is commerce, subject to an indirect tax.

Answers from the Supreme Court:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."

"Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

"We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

"in the Pollock Case , in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

Answers from the Congress:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

[Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."

[Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.

[Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.

[Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

Answers from the Treasury Department & IRS:

26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861

NonFiler Enforcement Program

Answers from the Department of Justice & Jurys:

DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, TAX PROTESTERS.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??

CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

Answers from the Legal Community:

The Tax Protestor FAQ

Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery

Government has met its burden and answered the relavent questions as regards the income tax, officially and repeatedly.

It seems me Schulz & Company are more interested in a media event for his own agrandizement (promotion of his pocket book and political agenda) than listening or looking for real answers.

To the best of my knowledge Schultz has NEVER asked for money for the information that he has put out.

No just one continuous call for donations.

That of course doesn't even begin to cover the expections of those he front's for like, [ IRWIN SCHIFF ];

Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.

And one of IRWIN SCHIFF's super amazing "FREE" OFFERs on his Very Own Site:

("Free electricty for life")

"If you decide to keep the kit we thank you by registering you to receive all of your electricity for free forever at such time as we can accomplish this and deliver our machine to your home."

"Please send me the UCSA "Free Look Package"
For a security deposit of $ 100

I understand that I have two weeks to evaluate the materials and that you will return my check or will not charge my credit card, if I notify you to pickup the materials within two weeks from the day I receive it.

Name: ____________________________________________________________

Shipping Location: ______________________________________________________

City: ______________ State: Zip:

Phone (_) _______ Fax # (_)_________________________

Email Address: ________________________________________________

My Security Method is (Circle one): Cash, Check, Money Order, E-Gold (100761),

Visa, Master Card, Discover

Card# _______________________________ Exp. Date

Signature: "

The IRWIN SCIFF who used this Brown Case until it went totally belly up and defunct on him, because it no longer provided him with support for his GET A REFUND SCAM!! and still sell the documentation he wrote on it as being reasonable arguments in a courtroom

And John Kotmair with his organization for S.A.P's (how appropriately named)

A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:

"Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
(awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
(organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
(in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);

Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??

CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.

I know, he jess didn't follow your precise instructions!!

Or Bannister and Conklin who just never seem to really get it right, but it sure doesn't keep them from selling their books and material to the gullible as well:

We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education (Robert L. Schulz) ran the ad:

"Robert Schulz, chairman of the Foundation, and Joseph Banister, a former special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (accompanied by a videographer) delivered copies of the Remonstrance to designated officials of the three branches."

Robert L. Shultz is a pro-se litigant, who looses alot and apparently has no particular claim to fame other than he files frivolous civil rights cases and looses, one good example that is found on the web: http://law.touro.edu/2ndCircuit/December96/s96-76250.html.

The only case mentioned in the Shultz's ad was:

"The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the filing of an income tax return (Form 1040) and the information on the 1040 is not compelled, and, therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to waive their 5th amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not applicable to federal income tax returns.

"The [5th Amendment] privilege protects against compelled
testimonial communications?."

U.S. v Conklin (1994), WL 504211 (10th Cir. Colo)"

Since the ad, there does not appear to be much follow up, the ad itself appear to be more a leader into Shultz's organization which is hawking for "contributions" and selling Conklin's book.

What Conklin and "We The People Foundation" don't provide in this partial and out of context quote:

" Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him. "

Claiming a victory which did not occur, as is Conklin's normal condition and apparently Shultz's as well:

WILLIAM T. CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 89 N 1514
Filed May 2, 1994
Plaintiff William T. Conklin is a "known tax protestor like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington," to use the self-description contained in "PLaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Govt's [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment" (filed Dec. 11, 1989). He filed this action to get a refund of the $75 he paid towards a $500 penalty assessed by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return. His basic position appears to be two-fold. First, he claims, he did not sign the return because he was advised that he could not do so without waiving his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; rather, he gave the IRS a power of attorney to sign the return, if this could be accomplished without a waiver of such rights. See generally "Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded)" (filed Sept. 5, 1989). Second, since he "did not sign the return, [he] did not file it" and cannot, therefore, be penalized for "filing" a frivolous return. United States' Mem. in Supp. of the Renewed Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. E (letter from plaintiff to IRS dated Aug. 9, 1989) (filed Oct. 2, 1990). He also claims that numerous procedural gaffes on the part of the IRS preclude imposition of the penalty.

At the beginning, we see how this thing is going. Shall we continue? A little more ... [skipping some boring stuff]

With this general background in mind, I turn to plaintiff's specific contentions. He first asserts that his refusal to sign his 1987 Form 1040 is proper on the ground that his signature would amount to a waiver of his fifth amendment rights. This is not the law. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1985). In Betz, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Government where a taxpayer sought a refund of the "frivolous return" penalty in 26 U.S.C.A. section 6702 (West 1989), assessed against him after he filed a return without providing any information on which tax liability could be computed. Plaintiff's argument in Betz, like Conklin's argument in this case, was a general Fifth Amendment objection to the tax return. According to the Tenth Circuit, it is "well-settled that the Fifth Amendment general objection is not a valid claim of constitutional privilege." Betz, 753 F.2d at 835. Not only did the Tenth Circuit affirm summary judgment, but the court went on to award attorney fees and double costs against the plaintiff for filing a legally frivolous appeal."[T]his Court has imposed sanctions where this broad Fifth Amendment privilege has been asserted." Id.
Although Conklin did provide enough information to calculate his taxes (unlike Betz, who provided no information), another court has found that the deliberate failure to sign a return constitutes furnishing legally insufficient information under the frivolous return penalty provision. In Schneider v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 611 (E.D. Mich. 1984), the failure to sign a tax return, even though the return was accurate in all other respects, was held to warrant the imposition of the $500 penalty for a frivolous tax return.
Plaintiff argues that his classification by the IRS as an illegal tax protester justifies invocation of his fifth amendment privilege. This classification, he claims, is a clear signal that he is "confronted by substantial and `real', and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S. Ct. 697, 705 (1968). Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him.
Plaintiff's argument that there were no OMB numbers on the assessment forms, Compl. paragraph 18, is factually incorrect, and his later argument that OMB numbers were incorrect is legally irrelevant, as is his challenge to the assessment procedure. His argument that he was not mailed a copy of the assessment within sixty days is undercut by the fact that he attached a copy of the notice he alleges he never received as Exhibit 9 to the Complaint. See United States' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for an Order Deferring Consideration of the United States' Mot. for Summ. J. at 2. I have also reviewed all of plaintiff's other arguments. I do not believe that the case law supports those arguments. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:

1. The Government's motions for summary judgment filed August 31, 1990, and October 2, 1990, are GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed August 9, 1990, is DENIED.
3. All other motions are denied as moot.

Dated this 2nd day of May, 1994.
BY THE COURT:
EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM
United States District Judge

Found this at nettaxs.com, Under their FAQ page regarding Conklin

"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.
Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "

I Recommend reading Otto Skinner's research into Bannister, and Conklin. Gives a good summary of the Conklin cases and he will even send you copies of the case filings and judgements for your own review for the cost of printing and mailing them to you.

http://ottoskinner.com/a-banister.html

"Now let's get back to Banister's book. On page 8, he states:

In order to understand Conklin's victory, ...

Two paragraphs down, he states:

Conklin's victories focused my attention on the fact that American taxpayers, without realizing it, apparently waive their 5th Amendment rights every time they submit information on their federal tax returns.

What victory? What victories? I believe that what should be apparent to any CID agent, is that the Fifth Amendment argument as an excuse for not filing tax returns has been failing individuals since long before 1980.

On page 11, Banister discusses another Conklin case (not one of the cases listed above) where Conklin had filed unsigned returns and was hit with a $500 penalty for filing a frivolous return. (Study 26 U.S.C. 6702 and you will understand the reason for the $500 penalty.) Banister states:

Conklin even gave the Internal Revenue Service a power of attorney to sign the returns for him if they could do so without waiving his 5th Amendment rights.

This may sound impressive, but I do not believe any IRS person has the authority to sign a return that an individual submits; with or without a power of attorney. (In my opinion, to expect an IRS person to sign such a document is down right stupid.)

Banister goes on to say that Conklin sued in federal court, and that Judge Nottingham eventually ruled against him. This Conklin loss is apparently supposed to mean that Conklin proved his Fifth Amendment argument. Is the reader supposed to believe that a loss is a win? That a loss is a victory? I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of double speak within the patriot community.

In his book, Banister refers to Bill Conklin's book, Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. At page 38 of this book, Conklin is discussing Tavery v. United States, 32 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1994). Tavery (Conklin's spouse) was arguing that information on her tax return should not have been used in Conklin's contempt of court case regarding his eligibility for appointment of counsel. Both the district court and the appellate court ruled against her.

Still at page 38, Conklin states:

It is clear in this particular situation that Ms. Tavery waived her Fifth Amendment protected rights when she filed the tax return and disclosed the information that the government allowed into evidence. Could the government have used Ms. Tavery's tax return information against her if she had been compelled to submit it? Of course not, if the Fifth Amendment means anything.

Good grief! What kind of sophistry is this? The Fifth Amendment states:

No person shall be " compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

This means that no person can be required to provide evidence that would tend to incriminate him, and which could be used against him in a criminal case.

Hello. Anybody home? The information was used against Tavery in a civil case and not a criminal case. No information was being used against anyone in a criminal case. Certainly no information was being used against Tavery in any criminal case. And providing she had not supplied false information on her return, or supplied any self-incriminating evidence of some other kind of criminal act, she had not incriminated herself. Since she did not supply information that would tend to incriminate her (in other words, she did not provide information that might get her convicted for a crime), she did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights, contrary to what Conklin claims.

At page 31 of his book, Conklin states:

I am a Communication Expert and have made an extensive study of the morpho-syntax of English. I have a Master's Degree from the University of Colorado in Communications and I have over fourteen years of experience teaching English and Communications at the elementary, junior-high, high school, and college levels.

Give me a break! Does Conklin not understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? Does he not understand the difference between incriminating evidence and information that is not incriminating? (Maybe I should be glad that I only have a Bachelor of Science degree and actually struggled with English, my one and only language.)

I know a lot of people have been led to believe in this Fifth Amendment argument. But these people do not bother to actually study the cases upon which the promoters supposedly rely. By simply believing what someone says a case says has landed a lot of people in jail. Most of these promoters are quite clever at leading people down a primrose path to legally invalid conclusions.

Who are some of the other people who have not only promoted the same kind of flawed information about the Fifth Amendment that Conklin has, but who are also promoting Joe Banister as if he is a wonderful addition to the freedom movement?"

There is alot more but I'm sure you will get the picture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.