Replies

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.

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.