===========================================================================
Hon. Jim DeMint
Federal Bldg.
300 East Washington St.
Greenville, SC 29601
Via Certified U.S.P.S. Mail
P *** *** ***
April 20, 2001
Dear Congressman DeMint:
Thank you for taking a stand on term limits that has, to date, been responsible and consistent with your original platform. I need your help on an issue that falls within your purview as a United States Congressman and the public servant of the people of your district.
For a number of years I have been reviewing information which suggests that the income of U.S. citizens who live and work exclusively within the United States is not subject to the federal "income tax" imposed by 26 USC § 1. This, of course, goes completely against the "conventional wisdom" about the income tax. However, the claim is backed by extensive citations from the actual federal statutes and regulations. I know you have a keen interest in the issue of taxation as witnessed by your balloon event at Greenville Tech last year.
If the claim is correct, the ramifications are enormous, and you have a duty to correct a serious injustice. If the claim is not correct, then I believe you should set the record straight by giving specific answers to the attached questions, so that I (and others) can be certain of what the law requires.
I am not "protesting" any law. I am not interested in any response which does not specifically address the questions below. I am, as your constituent, formally requesting that you, as my "representative," assist in helping me to understand and comply with the laws passed by Congress. (Please do not refer my inquiry to the IRS as they have been non-responsive on this and a number of issues that I have raised) And if my conclusions are correct, I demand that you immediately let your constituents know, before this fraud is allowed to continue one more day.
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Citizen X
The other part of this letter will take longer to format.
I don't get your point. I am not advocating anything to anyone; simply posting information.
Fine, then consider my reply as a counterpoint to the ad calling for support by Veterans and Military persons of an organization principly led and formed by several scam artists and and convicted felons advocating and selling invalid, disasterous and many times failed arguments as defenses to tax prosecutions.
I behooves one to investigate articles and such advertisements and point out to the reader potential pitfalls of such ads.
Unless of course your intent was to promote the organization the material came from. Under that condition I would expect you to defend your advocacy.
Schulz, Schiff, Conklin, Bannister, Kotmair and Kidd are all well known operaters of web sites and organizations advocating selling many times failed and irresponsible legal arguments as rationalizations for non-payment and non-filing of the indivdual income tax.
Their claims quite frankly have zero basis and even less applicability in any courtroom should their customers attempt to put such "information" and beliefs into actual practice.
It is guaranteed said persons are not the ones who end up at the wrong end of the judicial club.
The government has answered the Schulz & Co. challenge repeatedly and in no uncertain terms through Congress, the IRS, DOJ and the Courts.
Here's IRS written positions and answers
FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861
Here's the Department of Justice's written position on 16th amendment and other common tax protest positions:
DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS
And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above.
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
And the standard you must meet to have a successful court case as regards arguments of Tax Law constitutionality:
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
And finally, for a blow by blow of the judgements of more current cases:
Study the losses, find out why they occurred then build a strategy around something new instead of repeating the same old tired and dead as a door nail tactics. Judges get bored too, and when a Judge gets bored he throws the argument out as frivolous (we heard it before and weren't impressed) and tacks on a few more $K (FRNs acceptable but they will take payment in gold if you insist) on top of whatever else has been laid on you.
Better yet, pound on Congress Critters, and get the law changed. A much more likely scenario than using the same old arguments that have failed hundreds of times.
But then there are those who insist on doing it the hard way:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.
- KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
I'll point out once again, just incase you overlooked it the first time:
The, New American, the house publication of the John Birch Society sees things pretty much as I do.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
I suggest you click on the above link and read the article.