Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert Schulz: "No Answers, No Taxes."
Speech to the Freedom Drive 2002 Rally, the Mall in Washington, DC, November 14, 2002 ^ | November 14, 2002 | Robert Schulz

Posted on 11/19/2002 6:29:09 AM PST by TIIElniff

Freedom Drive 2002

Bob Schulz's Speech, DC, Nov. 14, 2002 "No Answers, NO Taxes"

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES BEFORE TAXES

Especially When The Taxes Are Used To Compound The Grievances

(No Answers, No Taxes) by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Congress

Presented at Freedom Drive 2002, The National Mall, Washington DC November 14, 2002

Acknowledgement: Bob Schulz wishes to acknowledge and thank Anthony Hargis for his fine research paper, "The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." (undated). Bob's speech draws heavily on that research and the underlying documents.

The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people . . . may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People's non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on -- or place their trust in -- the government's willingness to respond to the People's petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I'd like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

Under this heading, all officers of the government are liable, if they strayed from their oath of office.

If we are to secure our Rights, we must rely on the laws of nature and a reasoned sense of innovation. To rely on precedent is to oppress posterity with the ignorance or chains of their fathers. Being forced by the government to rely on precedent is, itself, a grievance.

The sequence of Redress Before Taxes was well established in English law at a time when great numbers of Englishmen traveled to America. They brought with them English history and English law: they brought with them the principle of "taxes with consent"; the unlawfulness of "troops quartered in private homes," of "cruel and unusual punishments," and a whole collection of Rights, such as Redress, Speech, Assembly and Trial by Jury.

Any notion, spurious act of Congress or opinion by a Court that taxes must by paid before Redress is a perversion of Natural Law, of modern English law, of the American Constitution and of Truth and Justice.

The reverse principle of "Taxes Before Redress" is based on the essence of monarchy and kingly power: the king owns everything under his domain. People possess property under a monarch by his grace alone. Since a king owns everything under his domain, he merely has to speak to lawfully dispose of his property. Thus, if a king imposed a tax on land he imposed it on his own land and whoever occupied the land was obligated to pay the tax to the king's treasury. A tax, then, being a part of the king's property, was legally presumed to be in the possession of the king before and after its assessment.

Since the landholder, or landless subject, enjoyed the privilege of tenancy on the land only by the will of the king, he could be required to pay over the tax before he could contest the assessment--or redress a grievance.

Thus, the theory that a tax must be paid before redress rests on the presumption that society is organized as a monarchy; that all people living therein exist by grace of an autocrat--whether one man or an assembly of men. This proposition was soundly rejected by the Founders in designing our unique system of governance.

In America, such presumptions constitute grievances. The first duty of any officer is to uphold the Constitution-- the entire Constitution, without reservation and without bribery or blackmail.

Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievance naturally includes the ability to compel admissions--the production of information and answers to questions.

Jefferson wrote, "The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, . . . has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."

According to the Right of Redress, as the Founders described it, we have a right to withhold taxes if government violates our rights. But, as American courts describe the Right, we must suffer the injury, pay the taxes, and only then, sue for Redress against an adversary with unlimited resources.

The idea that taxes are to be paid before redress is asserted by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code at Section 7241, which states, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person . . . ."

How repugnant! American government is supposed to be organized to protect American citizens; but section 7241 authorizes the IRS to destroy them with impunity and the judiciary is cooperating with the executive and legislative branches in a collective decision to deny the People their constitutional Rights. Such acts of government are unconstitutional and must be stopped.

In America, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances is the basis of our liberty. Our founders explicitly recognized this right in the first amendment to our constitution -- for they understood that without it, we could not have a servant government whose power is defined and limited by the consent of the people.

In America, the right to petition our government for a Redress of Grievances is an unalienable right. It derives from our faith in a supreme being - an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government's absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people's petition.

This is the essential cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty -- a government of the People, by the People and for the People.

In 1791, the right to petition became primary among the Rights of the People of the United States of America, as expressed in, and guaranteed by, the First Amendment.

Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech; that this vital constitutional protection - the very basis of our liberty - is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petitions -- or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that result in our petitions. Some would even go so far as to say it is merely a Right to complain, with no expectation of response.

This is nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We will not listen to those who would denigrate our Constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or "sharing bedrooms" with tyrants.

We must guard against this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. We must recognize that even in the long run government can never be rational, without a principled Constitution firmly rooted in Liberty. Government has but one legitimate purpose -- to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to the People.

The right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection -- the final, peaceful check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant.

The way the system is now working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. The servant is taking over the House: the government has brought us to the brink; the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Not only is the government neglecting its duties, it is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around its powers.

These are some of our grievances.

First: In violation of the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution, the President has colluded with the Congress to pass legislation that authorizes the President to apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities in Iraq without a congressional Declaration of War.

Second: In a hasty response to widespread fear and panic following 9/11, our elected representatives voted on the "U.S.A. Patriot Act" (with many having not read it), which by the plain language of the Act, violates and seizes a number of the unalienable rights of the People.

Third: Our government has relinquished direct control of the monetary system of this nation to a privately owned central bank and has transformed our money into nothing but limitless debt. And, a significant portion of the Federal Reserve stock is held by foreign entities.

And Fourth, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service reneged on their July 2001 agreement to appear at a public forum to answer the People's Remonstrance and well-documented legal charges directly asserting the lack of statutory or Constitutional authority for the federal income tax and the systemic abuses of our unalienable rights in the daily operations of the IRS.

These are tyrannical and despotic acts. Are they to be tolerated by the People?

Let us thank our forefathers for their vision, foresight and innate understanding of the nature of man, political power, and government corruption in recognizing the explicit right of the People to petition their government for redress.

On October 7, 2002, four Petitions for Redress of these grievances were posted on the internet. The four Petitions, signed by thousands of American citizens who reside in all 435 Congressional Districts, were hand delivered to the offices of each member of the House of Representatives and each member of the Senate (in Washington DC) on November 8, 2002 (last Friday). Then, the Petitions were each formally served on the President on the twelfth.

The Petitions address specific constitutional grievances relating to: 1) the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution; 2) the privacy, due process and free speech clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act; 3) the money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System; and 4) the tax-related clauses of the Constitution and the federal Income Tax system.

With the exception of the Income Tax Petition, the Petitions for Redress include specific questions, which We the People expected to be answered. The Petitions respectfully requested each congressperson and the President to send a representative to meet with the People at 2 P.M. today, right here on the National Mall, to either answer the questions OR tell the People when the questions will be answered.

With respect to the Income Tax Petition, we are further along. Those questions have already gone unanswered by the government following its receipt of an earlier Petition for Redress. The current, second, Petition on the Income Tax Grievances moved the petitioning process to the next level with its list of demands. There is more to the petitioning process than the mere submittal of the "despised" petitions.

With today's failure to respond, we can see a clear pattern. Our elected representatives do not feel compelled to respond to the People.

We must take the appropriate next step. As of two o'clock today, the government has left us no choice but to engage in civil action--a pro-active, non-violent mass movement, with the explicit goal of restoring the Republic by bringing the government back under the control of the People and our Rule Book--the Constitution of the United States of America.

This meeting here on the National Mall is the culmination of Freedom Drive 2002. On November 8, citizens from across the nation began driving in caravans toward Washington DC, to peaceably assemble here to await the government's response to their Petitions.

We appear to have reached the point where the institutions of the Court and the Congress and the Executive have failed in their Constitutional duty to protect the people from tyranny, The government is refusing to answer the People's allegations of governmental wrongdoing. Unless the People withhold their money from the government their grievances will fall on deaf ears and Liberty will give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary, economic servitude.

Every adult in this nation has a personal duty and a moral responsibility, that stem directly from our heritage, to repel the tyrannical acts of those to whom the People have granted well defined and limited powers.

The right to Petition is the foundation of Popular Sovereignty and is the direct vehicle for the peaceful, non-violent resolution of matters involving errant government. This right is the procedural mechanism that enables the People to call any branch of their servant government before them.

In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny -- our Constitution, and our will as a free people to protect and defend it.

These petitions are about us -- We the People. They are proof of our resolve to correct our government?s abusive and unlawful behavior.

As a People, who are we? And who do we want to be? What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and future generations of Americans?

Will we tolerate tyranny merely to be comfortable?

Again, we ask: What does a free People do when confronted with a government that refuses to honor, and systemically schemes to evade, the boundaries and limitations established for it by We the People?

We stand at the brink of a Constitutionally unauthorized war and the meltdown of a monetary system based on the endless conjuring of debt. Under the guise of "protecting" us from terrorists, our government is attempting to seize our most fundamental rights and deprive us of their protections. To finance it all, the IRS and the Department of Justice use intimidation by, and the power of, the police state to enforce and prosecute offenses of tax "laws" --- yet they continue to refuse to cite the specific legal authority that purportedly allows them to enforce those laws.

If the People fail to act, we will end forever the chapter in human history when a People reigned sovereign, and the chains of a written constitution limited and bound their government to their service.

We have a choice. YOU have a choice.

We came for answers, but we did not get them. Now we demand that our government obey the Constitution, which, after all is a strongly worded set of principles to govern the government, not the people.

By the terms and provisions of the Constitution the People have not only formed their government and enabled the government to act in certain ways, they have purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain other ways.

The nature of our resistance is clear. It is not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it is an act of resistance to a government that is violating the purposes for which the Creator -- through the People and the Constitution -- has ordained civil government.

We are not "anti-war." We are not "anti-tax." We are "pro-constitution" and "anti-fraud."

Thus far we have pursued peaceful reconciliation and petition. It is the President and the Congress who have refused to respond to our Petitions for Redress of Grievances, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

We did not initiate this conflict. We have been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and have pursued that course for decades.

We have no desire for resistance or violence of any kind. However, in the People's peaceful reconciliation attempts, the People's petitions and appeals have been met with force, and in some instances with near- military force.

The defense of our homes, families, properties and possessions is a most important point to us. It is our heritage. It is our Right.

There is not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of America, but of defending our personal Rights, Freedoms and Liberties from unjust encroachment.

There was not the least desire of withdrawing our allegiance from the leaders of the branches until it became absolutely necessary -- and, indeed, it has been their own choice.

Our political leaders know that our cause is just.

They know that we, the People, struggle for that freedom to which all men are entitled -- that we struggle against oppression, seizure, plunder, extortion and more than savage barbarity.

We are not moved by any light or hasty suggestion of anger or revenge. Through every possible change of fortune we adhere peaceably to this determination.

Our property and happiness have been attacked. Our self-defense against an aggressor government is righteous.

Our civil action is for the cause of civil justice -- a righteous struggle, undertaken in defense of our property, our happiness and our families. It is to oppose the invasions of usurped power. We will bravely suffer present hardships and face future dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom for generations yet unborn.

It is our obligation, as responsible citizens of this country, to set a proper value upon, and to defend to the utmost, our just rights and the blessings of Life and Liberty. Without this personal commitment, a few unprincipled individuals would tyrannize the People, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that civil action is not only justifiable, but an indispensable duty to correct these wrongs.

It is upon these principles that we are resisting the government and will oppose force with force.

How?

Any wage earner who gives money to the federal government and any employer who withholds money from the paychecks of working Americans is undermining the People's Rights, Freedoms and Liberties. Under the present circumstances, their behavior must be considered to be un-American.

As our Founders said so clearly: "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

How?

We the People must get Redress of Grievances before payment of taxes.

No Answers. No Taxes!


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: bobschulz; freedomdrive; givemeliberty; incometax; redress; robertschulz; schulz; taxhonesty; taxprotest; taxreform; wethepeople
I'll bet you didn't see this in the mainstream press!
1 posted on 11/19/2002 6:29:10 AM PST by TIIElniff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Taxreform
indexing
2 posted on 11/19/2002 6:32:55 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
This whole tax mess can be cleaned up by instituting
a federal sales tax. This would meet constitutional
criteria and destroy the power of the IRS!
3 posted on 11/19/2002 7:21:59 AM PST by upcountryhorseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TIIElniff
No, this may not be chosen for the mainstream, but it sure is appropriate on Free Republic! Thanks Jim, and lets talk about the real issues now.
4 posted on 11/19/2002 7:48:24 AM PST by citizenx7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TIIElniff

No Answers, No Taxes

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

Answers from the Founders:

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

James Madison, Federalist #39:

James Madison, Federalist #45:

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.

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:

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)

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

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

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

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

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


    Answers from the Congress:

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


    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.

    5 posted on 11/19/2002 8:08:20 AM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Geezer: The legal community has NOT answered the questions, and more importantly, the government, which is at the center of this controversy, has NOT, and WILLNOT answer the questions. You can find them at www.givemeliberty org .

    Incidentally geezer, if you are watching carefully, WTP is NOT doing anything but asking for a honest response from the government, to questions. A serious petition for redress of grievance.

    It is not a question of Taxes, taxes are provided for in the Constitution. It is a question of the government doing what they do in a proper, constitutional way. That is at the heart of the matter. So far, they have not been willing to answer a careful, legitimate inquiry from the people, which they must answer according to that document. It may, somehow, be painful, but this is a necessary and proper process. Also, its not something that they have just been made aware of, this immediate process has been going on for at least 3 1/2 years. It is throughly documented that some people within our government don't even wish to answer, clearly and on the record, questions of this nature.

    Incidentally, while this is much bigger, and more important than just taxes, your responses in bringing out some of the cites, and quotes from the code, do not answer the questions that the government has been asked, and will not answer. Many professional people from the field have documented this, including forensic accountants, and ex-IRS people, amoung others. Believe me, they are serious questions, NOT answered solely in the IRS Code! These are questions that the Congress, and the Executive branch must look at for resolution. Look into it further.
    6 posted on 11/19/2002 8:30:33 AM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    You can find them

    I've seen the list, and analyzed their basis. They boil down to nothing at all, that is not answered above.

    The bottom line, the income tax as it is applied to wages & salaries is not dependant upon the 16th Amendment.

    The tax on occupations, trades, professions and employments, is and always has been within the power of Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution to lay and collect duties and excises uniform among the United States since the writing of the Constitution of 1887, as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation of 1776.

    The entire premise of Schulz and his cohort of scammers is destroyed by the Constitution, the words of its chief proponents and the meaning of the language of the period:

    Constitution for the United States of America:

     

    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.

    Federalist #21:

    Federalist #39:

    Federalist #45:

    James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:


    7 posted on 11/19/2002 9:00:40 AM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    Believe me, they are serious questions, NOT answered solely in the IRS Code!

    You don't read other's responses very well do you. Only Congress replies with Public Law, (i.e. IRS Code). I have answered in the Founder's words, the Constitution, the Courts of the period, and have provided the governments aswers to Schulz as well.

    The questions Schulz & Company lay are carefully crafted to support a specific inference leaving out aspects contrary to their agenda. They however do not reflect anything that, in reality, supports their position that American citizens are not subject to the income tax law and thus, may have a defense against prosecution in the courts.

    If you want to get rid of the income tax, then work for the repeal of statutes and constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits the levy of taxes with regard to income as oppossed to expenditure of the individual.

    Ignoring the statutes as Schulz & company advocate, is just a quick way to add fines and possibly jail time to the tax bill already owed.

    My premise and answers lay with the Constitution, the language of the era in which it was written, the authors and proponents of the Constitution, and the Courts of the period(mainly made up of Judges who participated in the written of the that Consitution).

    The Anti-Federalists (and consequently Schulz') lost the debate with the ratification of the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation. That debate over the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes from the individyal citizen is long lost, though some seem never to get the message.

    8 posted on 11/19/2002 9:22:33 AM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Excellent post, as usual, Geezer.

    You saved me a lot of typing.  You also covered the bases much better than I would have had time to do.  Unfortunately, as you alluded to, the TP'ers choose to ignore answers that they don't like and in the end, will continue in their foolish pursuits.

    At least, if they continue to be an embarrassment to the tax reform movement, we can take comfort that within a few more years, most of them will be behind bars, where they can no longer be an embarrassment and we can move forward with real tax reform, without their antics reflecting badly on us.  There is another advantage to this.  Since they can't reproduce while they're behind bars, it will serve to cull the gene pool.  :^)

     

    9 posted on 11/19/2002 9:45:45 AM PST by Action-America
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Sorry if I have not addressed all you have submitted for discussion my friend. I'll be honest with you, when I see about a foot or two of your cites, I do tend to flash by them, because it will take quite some time to go to the source and read it all. I don't have the time to do that now, but perhaps later.

    I would like to request that you speak with a little more respect, when discussing the alternatives. You may not like what Mr. Schulz is saying, but it is worthy of discussion. There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that he is in this for the money! In fact, it has obviously cost a lot of money and time/effort. There are many people who believe that there are questions which need to be answered. FIRST, and foremost, an answer to the formal petitions. The government has already said they would, and then reneged.

    There are answers one way, and the other, in the historical record. There is confusion in the record. I guess thats what lawyers are paid to do. But, I, for one, would like to see the answers from the government that is paid to do that.

    Ultimately, I think I deserve that. I'm a citizen, I am a veteran, etc.

    Again, from reading your posts, I have no doubt in your sincerity, or in your ability to marshall massive amounts of data. But, somehow, you are missing the ultimate questions, having to do with freedom, and the Constitution. Look around you, do we still live under the Constitution or not? Those are the questions which must be answered here. These are the matters that belong on Free Republic. These are the matters that should be discussed by all free citizen's of our Republic.

    I'll try to get back on, later tonite, and hopefully there will be a civil discussion here, of the beauty of our form of servant government. The problems and solutions, many of which are addressed by the We The People Foundation for Constituitional Education.
    10 posted on 11/19/2002 9:53:36 AM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    But, I, for one, would like to see the answers from the government that is paid to do that.

    Who in Government are are looking for answers from? Schulz looks to get answers from bureaucrats who cannot authoratatively answer his questions nor are the paid to answer is questions any other way than they have, for they are only minions and spokesman of the real culprits, Congress and the American People who elect Congresses.

    I don't see Schulz addressing his complaints of high and abusive taxation to either.

    What answers are you looking for that have not already been answered and you should be able to answer for yourself?

    Has there been an assult on our liberties as we compare to what we had even 50 years ago?

    Yes.

    Has State and National government attempted to extend it exercise of power to the boundries of what that the Constitution enumerates and tested the limits of its authority therein?

    Yes

    Have the American People allowed even encourage this testing of Constitutional limits?

    Yes

    Has State and National government gone beyond any reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause in extending authority over the individual at the insistence of the American People?

    Yes.

    Has State and National government gone beyond what I consider to be the boundries of the Bill of Rights in its quest for control, and the quest for security by the American People?

    Yes.

    What is your responsibility to answer Schulz' questions?

    Total! You are a soveriegn citizen, or so Schulz & company claim. It is you the citizen that must be the basis of change, for you make the Congress, and demand the services the bureaucracies are tasked to administer.

    Do any of those questions, say anything about abuse of the enumerated power of Congress to lay and collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

    No! For the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes from the individual as opposed to the state is the 1st enumerated power in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is one of the primary reasons the Constitution was written and ratified by the people of the founding of our nation.

    Three of the Five Judges of the first Supreme Court were proponents of the Constitution and delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and had this to say about the enumerated power to tax given to Congress under the Constitution:

    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,"
  • Furthermore the Court has made it very clear as to who ultimately hold the responsibility to change things that are not right.

    McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

    For,

    LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

    PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

    Lane Co. v. Oregon (1868), 74 U.S. [7 Wall.] 71:

    Thus:

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

  • "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 [income] 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."
  • "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."
  •  

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

    Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321


    I suggest that Schulz and folks are barking up the wrong tree, if they want answers to their tax questions.

    I submit Schulz & Company are asking the wrong questions if they figure on addressing the fundamental problems regarding impositions on individual liberty in this republic.

    11 posted on 11/19/2002 11:01:24 AM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer; Marine Inspector; Ajnin; agitator; Sabertooth; backhoe; Carry_Okie; Helix; ...
    What about the question of protecting our borders?
    12 posted on 11/19/2002 12:30:00 PM PST by madfly
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

    To: american_ranger; engrpat; LADY J; Ahban; shiva; Nebr FAL owner; isee; KingKongCobra; wonders; ...
    ping
    13 posted on 11/19/2002 12:30:59 PM PST by madfly
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

    To: Action-America
    I like humor as much as anyone, but it would be well to be careful here, Action. Lets just talk about the issues in a calm, colected manner.

    You and I, lets call us We The People (part), have some part to play in our government. Don't believe everything that is written, out of context. I think that we are in concert on most issues, and in time, you will be thinking exactly as I do!

    For instance, Geezer recognizes that government has gone far beyond their charter, the Constitution of the United States. That's a good starting point.
    14 posted on 11/19/2002 12:52:15 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    So far, they have not been willing to answer a careful, legitimate inquiry from the people, which they must answer according to that document.

    Actually, as Geezer pointed out above, they have gone to great length to answer far more than a reasonable number of variants of the same questions.

    The problem is that when the TPers don't like the answer, they rephrase the question over and over.  If they were to ask the government the color the sky, the conversation might go like this.

    TPer:  What color is the sky?

    Govt:  Blue.

    TPer:  No.  Exactly what color is the sky?

    Govt:  Sky Blue.

    TPer:  No.  Be more specific.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  Red = 210, Green = 210, Blue = 255

    TPer:  No.  RGB isn't acceptable.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  Cyan = 15%, Magenta = 15%, Yellow = 0%, Black = 0%

    TPer:  No.  CMYK isn't acceptable.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  Hue = 240, Saturation = 18%, Brightness = 100%

    TPer:  No.  HSB isn't acceptable.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  Lightness = 85, a Axis = 7, b Axis = -22

    TPer:  No.  Lab color isn't acceptable.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  Focoltone 4035

    TPer:  No.  Focoltone isn't acceptable.  What is the exact color of the sky?

    Govt:  You've been given the answer numerous times and in numerous manners.
              Any further questions like this are frivolous.  Deal with it!

    TPer:  See!  See!  The government isn't answering our question!  See!  See!  We told you so!

    Sure, the government isn't answering the TPer's questions anymore.  That's because they have already been more than patient and answered an absurdly large number of variants of those same questions.  There is a point, when faced by such lunacy, that you have to accept that the people continuously rephrasing the same questions over and over again are either fools or they just don't want to hear the answer.  Either way, the government has better things to do with our money than waste more time playing their ridiculous games.

    The TPer's questions have been thourghly addressed by the courts and Congress and it's now time for the TPers to just DEAL WITH IT!

     

    15 posted on 11/19/2002 1:10:04 PM PST by Action-America
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: madfly
    As much as I detest taxes Shultz is off base.
    16 posted on 11/19/2002 1:10:58 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7; Action-America
    A better starting point would be to determine first just what the founders actually said and expressed in the Constitution, as oppose to what many may pretend or wish it says.

    I find there is too much myth and wishfull thinking out there with a pretense of being fact.

    17 posted on 11/19/2002 1:14:03 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

    To: Action-America
    There you go again, being funny!

    We're still speaking in generalities, but it seems to me that the government has never answered a formal petition for redress (in our lifetime), because no one has presented it, that is what fascinates me about Bob Schulz. He has done what should have been done a long time ago.

    Up until now, people have been bumping around, in the legal system, many making mistakes, but learning never the less. As I mentioned earlier, the legal system is very clever (for the most part). You can read many interpretations out of many of the code books. You can also read many different interpretations out of court rulings. That's because of the confusing manner in which much of our law is cobled together.

    It seems to me that finally, the people are beginning to see how to address the problem, and get the necessary changes. It STARTS with the government answering some questions put to them in a formal, and constitutional manner. That has been done. And, I remind you that they already accepted this responsibility (although later changing their mind). This is the start of a reasonable dialog. I think we would probably all agree, that it is not good to continue in this mode, with government doing whatever they want to do, and the people having no way to correct the course, except an occassional opportunity to vote for the lesser of two evils! The government needs to level with us, and no, that hasn't been done yet.

    Again, the IRS, and the income tax is only part of the problem. The Federal Reserve is a much larger problem, and is being addressed as well. In fact, as you know, a former lawyer, working with the Fed, was in Washington, speaking to the group there.

    This problem is not a Democrat, or Republican problem. Its not a Liberal or Conservative problem. Its a problem that all of us must face. And I believe that the time is now, not later after government gets bigger, and more and more of us, who someway offend it are labeled by groups such as the ADL, and other quasi-governmental organizations as somehow "un-american"! That should be of concern to all true and patriotic American's. It shouldn't be that way.
    Because we actually could end up as a small part of some kind of International World Government, if we don't put an end to this madness.
    18 posted on 11/19/2002 2:17:27 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Yes, Geezer, its easy to be in a mode that wishes for the plain definitions and words of the Constitution were adhered to. But wait a minute, anything legislated after the Constitution, but contrary to the Constitution - is null and void. There is no statute of limitations that apply.

    Well, with that in mind, I don't seem to notice anything in Mr. Schulz's speech, that I find a problem with. Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there? What is there that is contrary to what the founders said, or that is laid down in the Constitution? I would appreciate your insight.
    19 posted on 11/19/2002 4:30:05 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7
    We're still speaking in generalities, but it seems to me that the government has never answered a formal petition for redress (in our lifetime), because no one has presented it, that is what fascinates me about Bob Schulz. He has done what should have been done a long time ago.

    It's been done numerous times. Schulz et al merely dislike the answers.

    20 posted on 11/19/2002 4:36:24 PM PST by Poohbah
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

    To: Poohbah
    I disagree Poohbah, there have been individuals, and a few groups of individuals that have had some correspondence about their concerns. Some have done so in a legal framework, in court. They may, or may not have received some answers along the way. Some have won in court, some have lost. But, they did not go with a formal, legal, constitutional petition for redress of grievance. That is a necessarily formal, first amendment process. I don't believe it has ever been done before.

    One of the reasons that it has not been done thoroughly before is that it costs a lot of money, and it takes a great deal of tenacity. The We The People Foundation, has that. Perhaps part of the reason is that Bob is a Engineer by background, and he is very thorough. Also, he has engaged many people to assist him in this effort.

    It may have something to do with the fact, that Bob is willing to listen to people of all political persuasions. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a problem for ALL Americans.
    21 posted on 11/19/2002 4:53:02 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7
    I disagree Poohbah, there have been individuals, and a few groups of individuals that have had some correspondence about their concerns. Some have done so in a legal framework, in court. They may, or may not have received some answers along the way.

    They most assuredly DID receive answers. Again, they didn't like those answers. I'm sure that murderers dislike the laws prohibiting murder with the same sort of ferocity as the TPers hate the Internal Revenue Code.

    Some have won in court, some have lost.

    You are mistaken--none have won.

    But, they did not go with a formal, legal, constitutional petition for redress of grievance.

    Interesting. You attach such meaning to this concept of a "formal, legal constitutional petition for redress of grievance," but there is no definition of such a process in the Constiution.

    That is a necessarily formal, first amendment process.

    No, it isn't, because the process isn't defined in the document. We have a process for amending the Constitution; we have a process for electing Representatives and Senators; we have a process for electing the electoral college, which in turn elects the President; but we don't have a process for a "formal, legal, constitutional redress of grievance."

    I don't believe it has ever been done before.

    You can't do what isn't defined. So Schulz's action is semantically void.

    One of the reasons that it has not been done thoroughly before is that it costs a lot of money, and it takes a great deal of tenacity.

    In other words, it's too much like work for most of the fringe whackos dodging taxes.

    22 posted on 11/19/2002 5:01:31 PM PST by Poohbah
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there?

    I start with the founders, and the Constitution if you don't mind. Then I'll evaluate the claims of Mr/ Schulz and his cronies.

     

    Constitution for the United States of America:

     

    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.

    Seems pretty clear, only point left is who do the tax laws of the National government apply too?

    Federalist #39:

    Federalist #45:

     

    Now to look at your link for further information about what "wethepeople.org" stands for:

    OOP's password and membership is required.

    Well there is good ole FR, to help us out.

    Bob Schulz Hunger Strike Day Thread 1:

    " There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings "

    I don't need to look any further to see that Schulz & Friends claims concerning the tax laws of the nation are a pile of Bovine Excretement, and the rest is merely window dressing to dress it up abit. You see FR has been exposed to Bob Schulz' progressions through the past many months trying to legitimize his base message. Don't pay taxes. I don't buy this iteration of the same message any more that his first more blatant expositions.

    I just found his original approach was insupportable is all. His credibility is nil and his agenda has not changed in the least. He just tries to put a different approach to it and hide his underlying motivation. Not Pay Taxes.

    23 posted on 11/19/2002 5:22:32 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

    To: Poohbah
    Poohbah: I find it interesting that you are so desirous of upholding the line that, the popular understanding that whatever the government has done is okay! Surely, there must be something that they may have done wrong, isn't there?

    It is totally unfair to compare a person who wishes to stand up for what he considers his rights, and a murderer who would rather not go through a trial! Certainly, you don't think of them as being comparable?

    The fact of the matter is, our Constitution is a unique document in all of history. The people, as the Creators, have all the rights, most importantly, the basic rights of freedom, that many take for granted, are considered to predate the Constitution, and are from our beneficent God, and are not subject, at any time to restrictive legislation.

    The States, as created entities, were given a number of responsibilites, and the central government, which could get into the most mischief, was highly restricted, put into a box, so to speak. Its power was strictly limited.

    There have in fact been victories in court, by those 'protesting' the income tax. I'm not prepared to document those at this moment. Some were not published, which is the courts perogative. But I am not saying that the courts have been friendly to citizen's concerns since the 1930's or so. There are reasons for this, which are beyond the scope of our discussion.

    But, I do not concede that this means that the income tax system is okay, and beyond legal reproach! And I don't understand anyone that has looked into the system, saying that.

    Perhaps the word 'formal' redress is misunderstood. I mean by that, that we are talking about something which is not casual, an event which is not entered into without knowing what you are doing, from a legal standpoint. In other words, we are talking about something basic to our Bill Of Rights: The First Amendment: ..."or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This is something that Bob Schulz refers to written by Anthony Hargis: ""The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." It is truly a process that has been forgotten, or assumed (improperly), as the right to tell government what you think. Its much more than that!

    So, to say that it isn't defined, and therefore, we can't do it, is obviously, on its face, misconstruction of the clear meaning of the first amendment. While this was probably unintentional, its important to clarify that.
    24 posted on 11/19/2002 6:41:00 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Geezer: There is much more to the WTP effort than, simply the Income Tax. I know that is a particular interest to you. Incidentally, I think that it is great that you are working for alternatives. Just make sure that it is constitutional. And thats the problem with the Income Tax. No one is saying that the government doesn't have the right to tax, that right was given to them. But, it is not a unrestricted right! There are certain methods of taxation which are not constitutional. Even if the 16th amendment was ratified.

    For instance, you still have the right of the fifth amendment, not to incriminate yourself. That is, you do if you do not sign away that right. There is something terribly wrong with this system, and We The People, have the right and the obligation to make it right.

    I say bravo to any individual, or group, that move that process forward.
    25 posted on 11/19/2002 9:22:00 PM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7

    There are certain methods of taxation which are not constitutional. Even if the 16th amendment was ratified.

    Three federal restrictions,

    1) Federal gov can not impose tariffs between the states.

    2) Federal gov can not tax foreign exports from any state, and

    2) Federal gov can not tax the functions of any state.

    Two requirements,

    1) direct(e.g. property) and Capitation taxes must be apportioned among the states in accord with state population and,

    2) indirect(i.e. on activities, events or exchanges) taxes must be laid by a uniform law among the states.

    That's it.

    For instance, you still have the right of the fifth amendment, not to incriminate yourself. That is, you do if you do not sign away that right.

     

    Merely giving truthful general information concerning income which is not specific to a committed crime does not infringe upon the 5th amendment. If a question is asked that relates to a crime you have committed, you are free to challenge the specific question or answer it in general terms.

    You must be able to demonstrate a "real danger of incrimination" to avoid answer a specific question on the 1040 form.

    Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
    Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.

    It is well-settled that a taxpayer may not assert a blanket claim of Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid providing any financial information on an income tax return. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1985); Heitman v. United States, 753 F.2d 33 (6th Cir.1984); Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir.1984); Martinez v. I.R.S., 744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir.1984); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.1984). While the privilege can be invoked in response to particular questions--in proper circumstances where the taxpayer can demonstrate a real danger of incrimination--it cannot be used, in effect, to excuse filing of a return.

    United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
    Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

    The gravamen of this appeal is Heise's argument that he is protected by the fifth amendment from disclosing the information requested and may not be subjected to prosecution for the exercise of that right. The Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, if validly exercised, is a defense to a s 7203 prosecution. Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 662, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).

    The court also has held that the privilege does not justify an outright refusal to file an income tax return. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927).

    In the present case, Heise asserted the privilege in response to each specific question; however, he did so on such a wholesale basis as to deny the Internal Revenue Service any information with respect to his income for the years 1976 and 1977. This Circuit has held that a tax return which contains no information from which tax liability can be calculated does not constitute a tax return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. See [cites ommitted].

    Other circuits also have held that the failure to provide any information in a tax return is tantamount to failure to file any return at all. See, [cites ommitted]. Therefore, Heise's failure to provide the proper financial data on his tax returns amounted to a total failure to file a return. This cannot be justified under the fifth amendment.

    United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
    Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

    Drefke argues that 26 U.S.C. ss 7203 and 7205 giving rise to his conviction constitute punishment for failure to give self-incriminating information. Both the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not authorize individuals to refuse to disclose information concerning their income. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927); United States v. Russell, 585 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1978).

     

    GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)

    "In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:

    "In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. 21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.

    The judgment is

    UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)

    "As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 , 43 S. Ct. 511. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [274 U.S. 259, 264]   of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 , 37 S. Ct. 621; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration ( January 3, 1927) , 47 S. Ct. 302. In this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith (1927) A. C. 193.

     


    There is something terribly wrong with this system, and We The People, have the right and the obligation to make it right.

    Then I suggest addressing the Congress where the problem lay instead of beating your brains out against their minions in the bureaucracy.

    PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

    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


     

    Until you address and impress a change in Congress, you are bound to failure.

    26 posted on 11/19/2002 9:42:38 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

    To: citizenx7; ancient_geezer; Principled; Bigun; pigdog
    I must agree with the last paragraph of your post #18.  In fact, I even agree with a significant part of that upon which Shultz bases his schemes.  If the Court still based their rulings on "original intent", then Shultz's arguments might stand some very small chance.  If that were the case, I might even join you guys.  But I know and Shultz knows that decades of case law is working against him and, as such, his schemes can't possibly work.  The primary difference between you and me is that I realize that Shultz's crazy schemes are only designed to enrich Shultz.  But the real problem is that the more people who promote his schemes, the less likely we are to avoid the outcome that you so understandably predicted in that last paragraph.

    Much of what Shultz bases his wacky schemes on is the "original intent" of the Constitution.  Would that the courts based their rulings on "original intent", this would be a much better world.  However, it has been many generations since either Congress, the Whitehouse or the Court has paid any attention to "original intent".  Therefore, any attempt to use the "original intent" of the Constitution as an argument to eliminate the income tax, is doomed to certain failure.

    And, as Geezer has so well pointed out, even if you should somehow get the Court to consider "original intent", even that weighs heavily against your position.  But, if you look at many of the rulings that Geezer cites in more recent times, you will see that over the years, the Court (and Congress) have moved farther and farther from "original intent".  Decades of incremental usurpations of Constitutional guarantees, both in Congress and in the Courts, has made it impossible to use "original intent" as a successful defense in income tax cases (among many others).  In particular, the various branches of government will always defer to the Court, since they know that in recent years, the Court has refused to hear such claims, citing the "Enrolled Bill Rule", among other weak justifications.

    Petitions for redress, will ultimately end up back in the Court, where they will be dismissed.

    That isn't right.  It isn't Constitutional.  But it is FACT and we have to deal with it.

    The ONLY chance of eliminating the income tax has nothing to do with raising even more futile Constitutional arguments, that will only be ignored by a Court that no longer recognizes the "original intent" of the Constitution, since such arguments just waste valuable time and allows income tax supporters to paint the legitimate tax reform movement with the same broad brush of foolishness.  Instead, we should all concentrate on the time tested method of voting in Congressional representation that will eliminate the income tax through legislation.  Every time any movement gets enough support in Congress, they achieve a large measure of success.  It's the one method that has a proven positive track record.  That's how we got to where we are.  That's how we can get back.

    The real problem with people like Shultz, is that his wacky antics make headlines that the opposition (mostly our current lawmakers) quite effectively use to paint not only his supporters, but all people interested in legitimate tax reform, as the same kind of fool that he is, which makes it extremely difficult to get the ballot box support required to put reform minded legislators in office.  The warped, though effectve, logic goes like this.  Shultz is opposed to the income tax.  Shultz is an idiot.  Therefore, any candidate who is opposed to the income tax is an idiot.  If you vote for an idiot, you are an idiot, by association.

    You and I can see the flaw in that logic.  But, many uninformed voters think exactly that way.  Shultz is seriously hurting the legitimate tax reform movement.  Only by distancing ourselves from him and denying him any support, making him look like a lone fool, can we remove his stigma from the legitimate tax reform movement and move forward.

    Even if I could make a bjillion dollars, I would never do anything that would bring discredit to the tax reform movement.  But, I can understand how a man with no moral conscience might do just that, for much less.  In fact, Shultz makes a healthy living by playing the idiot, at the expense of legitimate tax reform.  What amazes me is that so many other people, who don't make anything off of it, are so willing to follow his lead.

     

    27 posted on 11/20/2002 2:41:53 AM PST by Action-America
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

    To: Action-America
    We have a GREAT deal in common at this point. I certainly agree that the courts don't believe in original intent, except in a academic sense. Of course, that doesn't make their position right (as you say).

    As a matter of fact, the consequences you refered to, for continuing on this unconstitutional road to perdition, are very close. You need look no further than the vote yesterday, authorizing the Homeland Security reorganization. I'm not sure that it isn't more surreal to think that you can oppose the direction and velocity of our nation, by tax reform. Bob Schulz is not a fool my friend. You may want to go in another direction, and thats okay. But Bob is no fool, and I would challenge you to show how he is doing this for any other reason than that stated. To revitalize the American people, in their great heritage, the Constitution. I had the chance to meet Bob, and talk with him at some length, during his recent tour through the SouthEast. I believe he is at least as dedicated to tax reform, or as he would call it: Tax Honesty...as you and Geezer. I absolutely believe that. In fact, I am more sure of Bob's agenda, than you, as I was able to interface with him over several days, and get a sense of his mind, and 'guts', his reasoning powers.

    Have you done this? He has travelled widely, have you met him? My caution to you would be this...don't be so quick to condemn a fellow citizen who sees the problems, as you do, and has decided to work toward resolution in a different manner than you.

    Frankly, I don't think that you will ever be able to get really meaningful reform, to a totally constitutional system, by any method other than a appeal to the people, and their being made aware of the incredible unconstitutional construction of our governmental system. As I continually remind you, this is not just a IRS problem, its much bigger than that!

    The problems we all face are not unexpected. Thomas Jefferson and others of our founders told us that we would have to be prepared to defend freedom, or that we would lose it. My appeal to you is this: Get serious about our Constitution, the rule book for the Nation, or prepare for serious consequences of losing our Republic! Welcome every fellow American to that righteous cause.
    28 posted on 11/20/2002 6:29:27 AM PST by citizenx7
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

    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.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson