Anti-Tax Group Makes 'Final Warning' to Federal Government

CNSNews.com ^ | November 15, 2002 | Michael L. Betsch

[lawdog]

The ADL is a liberal pro-statist entity. It is a private self-appointed organization. They are bucking for Propaganda Ministry. These folks are the liberal jewish establishment that supports the Hillary Klintoon's of the world.The ADL has this site flagged as pro-militia and yes, they mean it in a negative ominous way.

[GregoryFul]

My paper shredder is (8) a destructive device. Does that mean that the Secretary must maintain a central registry of my paper shredder.

What penalties does the Secretary face, if he does not comply with the law?

[IronJack]

"It's also a movement that has been linked strongly to violence; to attacks on IRS agents; to blowing up IRS offices, as well as many other crimes," he said. "There's a great deal of criminal activity associated with the movement."

Of course, he offers no proof of any of this "criminal activity," just a lot of inflammatory and paranoid rhetoric.

And in any case, it's got to be less criminal than a government that enslaves its own citizens, steals their property, and murders the dissenters.

[Lancey Howard]

uh lemme see, no women's vote. slavery. no drunk driving laws... yep! that's what we need /sarcasm

Well, you have to admit, that "women's vote" thing turned out to be

Oh nevermind.

[Poohbah]

You are still confused. There are a few state militias, such as the Mississippi State Guard. But generally the National Guard serves as the state "militia". National Guard officers are U.S. Army Officers and are not appointed by the states.

I'm not confused at all. Senior National Guard officers do serve at the pleasure of the governor (several adjutants general have had to resign over hustling their subordinates for gubenatorial campaign donations). Additionally, I am referring to the state militia. Joe Six-Pack does not have the authority to commission himself a militia officer.

[Poohbah]

I suspect that most who speak losely of such, have no concept of the consequences. Speaking is easy, action of statement is an entirely other matter. Before speaking, they should spend a GREAT deal of time contemplating the gravity, and reality of that road.

Well said.

[GOP_1900AD]

Indeed, a most interesting observation. And now the follow on question, which might have Leftists infiltrated the well meaning group and hijacked them? Were they domestic ones, or, ones from another country who want to divide and conquer the US? Another observation - I have seen screeds similar to those issued by these folks.... on PRAVDA!

[GOP_1900AD]

Moreover, thinking through the harsh realities of this sort of armed rebellion, any putsch, coming from any quarter, would play quite handily into the plans of a number of other nation-states, or nation-state sponsored terror groups, to bring down the USA and either weaken or destroy our geopolitical influence. You can pretty much count on multiple attempts by our enemies to trigger a putsch in the near future. I hope they are all as pathetic and weak as this one appears to be.

[lavaroise]

Those who won WWII are taxing us, namely our US armed forces. As G Gordon Liddy said, taxes are useless in peace times, but they saved our necks for WWII.

Tax protesters work hand in hand with war mongers and starters, dishonoring those who ended the wars, the soldiers, and who have every interest in not having to fight the war, since they were the ones in the line of fire.

[Poohbah]

Indeed. Someone looking to get Uncle less interested in his WMD program might fund these groups, or slip them some toys.

The nightmare scenario: Kim Jong-Il or Saddam Hussein gives a nuclear bomb to someone as sure of his absolute morality as Stanley, but is also completely unknowing of his own human frailties. (Stanley may not understand his own weaknesses and foibles, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.)

Kiss Washington, DC good-bye. Kiss freedom good-bye right after that.

[verity]

These libertarian whack jobs are too funny!

[Middle Man]

The situation is really so simple. There's no need for all these endless citations of case law. Congress and the courts have shown us the way with startling clarity and consistency. Just use this easy-to-follow guide in deciding if you are liable for this...tax:

• Depending on where you live, 16 state appellate courts have ruled that the income tax is a "direct tax"; 20 other state appellate courts have ruled that the income tax is an "indirect, excise tax".

Still unclear? No problem, we'll just go to the federal level:

• Some U.S. circuit courts of appeal agree with some of the states that the income-tax is a "direct-tax". Other federal judges agree with those states that have ruled that it is an "indirect, excise tax".

• The First Circuit says that it doesn't make any difference WHAT kind of tax it is.

• The Second Circuit says that the income tax is "direct" in some cases, and "indirect" in others.

• The Third Circuit has ruled in some cases that "all income taxes are direct taxes", but ruled in other cases that "only some income taxes are 'direct taxes'".

• The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have ruled that the income tax is "indirect".

The tax laws were codified in 1939. In 1954, however, Congress suddenly -- after 15 years -- realized that language in the '39 code was inconsistent with what the courts had ruled the income tax was -- an indirect tax -- and so did a massive overhaul. That didn't clear up the situation either, so in 1986 Congress again rewrote the code, not shrinking but doubling its size.

Constituent complaints weren't stemmed by any of these noble efforts, so Congress stepped up to the plate again in 1998 and passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act.

That didn't do the trick either, so Congress tried again with a misnamed "Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002", but it failed in a voice vote earlier this year.

Moral of the story: Nobody, not judges, Congress or crusty old posters to this egroup, has any idea what the income tax is or how to administer it. That is one of the many reasons why past commissioners like Margaret Milner Richardson and Charles Rossotti have left the service in disgust. Heading the IRS in this day and age is tantamount to taking on the captaincy of the Titanic after it struck the iceberg.

[mvpel]

You're catching on to the "source" issue in the income tax and Section 861.

When a term, such as "destructive device," is defined in the law and regulations, it means exactly what the law or regulations say it means, not the conventional understanding of its meaning. Even though if you would get affirmative replies if you asked random people on the street if a paper shredder is a destructive device, that's not what matters when it comes to the law.

What matters is the following:

18 USC 921(a)(4) The term ''destructive device'' means -

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and

(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

So, your paper shredder is not a "destructive device," at least when it comes to the tax code for firearms.

[wita]

One of very few who know mr *hitcavage for what he really is. He and mr dees are both on my list.