Robert Schulz: "No Answers, No Taxes."

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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."

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.

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:

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

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

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

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:

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

Federalist #45:

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

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.

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.

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:

"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."

"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

Affirmed."

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

"Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."

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."

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

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.

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.

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.