See other Resistance Articles
Title: Commenting on the IRS (while it's still legal)
Source:
LWAN: Life Without a Number
URL Source: http://www.cjmciver.org/cgi-bin/lwanread.cgi?2007-08-12
Published: Aug 12, 2007
Author: Neil McIver
Post Date: 2010-02-20 12:44:05 by Deasy
Ping List: *libertarians* Subscribe to *libertarians*
Keywords: irs, bor, constitution, federal
Views: 217
Comments: 13
August, 12, 2007 The title isn't factitious. The IRS/DOJ is seeking among other things to prohibit the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship and it's members from speaking out about the IRS and I'm a member. This is being done in the form of a civil injunction which is presently being litigated. Among the terms sought by the IRS is a prohibition of dispensing any kind of information in any form that might pursuade people to break any internal revenue laws, or selling any information about the IRS that basically just makes them look bad. As of this writing the injunction is not in place. I do not have any kind of tax license and I've never advised anyone not to file tax returns. So far as I know SAPF has never given such advice either as SAPF founder and fiduciary John Kotmair has always been up front about never doing such a thing in the 13 years I've been familiar with him. I understand it is illegal to give tax advice in this country without a license. From that we can certainly infer that we unlicensed are legally unqualified to understand what the tax laws really mean and say. In which case there's no way I can ever know if what I say or do violates some portion of this apparently nebulous tax code that is legally beyond my comprehension. I am therefore both legally unqualified to understand the tax laws and yet, with the injunction sought, required to know what requirements it makes so as to not advise people to break any of those laws. I'll try my best. But whatever the tax requirements may be for everyone, the IRS has butted heads with a number of those in the so-called "tax honesty movement" which certainly should be highlighted. First, the SAPF suit is being litigated now. SAPF has lost the initial lower court case as well as the initial appeal. Not all avenues have been exhausted and I know John Kotmair of SAPF will not concede an inch, taking advantage of every legal avenue available. It's important to note that being civil case, no criminal wrongdoing is alleged. The IRS already alleged criminal activity against SAPF back in 1993 when they raided the fellowship. They lost that case and had to return everything they took from the fellowship at the point of a gun. Lots of guns, actually. Having lost that case "with prejudice", they could not file the same criminal charges again. But where they failed criminally they can try civilly. It's easier to prove your case in a civil court since the evidence doesn't need to be as strong as per court rules. Second, Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire stopped filing tax returns after they concluded the law did not require them to file. They were charged with tax crimes but boycotted their own trial when they believed they were not permitted to give their honest defense. Court rules currently require the desired defense be approved by the judge before it can be presented to a jury. They were convicted and sentenced in abstencia, but Ed Brown's position is that he will not be taken quietly. The Browns have returned to their New Hampshire home to await whatever happens next. The federal response has been tempered thus far. The Browns' home is not barracaded, at least in any obvious manner, and friends just drive up his driveway and knock on the door when visiting, that in spite of media reports that his home is now a "compound". (Homes and churches are automatically converted to compounds when the feds train their sights on them, in case you didn't know). Certainly the feds have a political consideration with the Browns, as a raid that results in any deaths will be a replay of the stand off at Ruby Ridge where 2 family members of the (falsely) accused (via sting operation) were shot and killed along with one federal marshall, or more infamously, the Waco Texas tragedy in which 4 federal agents were killed and some 80 followers of David Koresh, including many children, were killed when the wooden church burned down in high winds during the final tank assault. (The sniper who killed Randy Weaver's wife at Ruby Ridge was exhonerated from state murder charges when the feds moved to have the case first transferred to federal court and then to have the charges dropped). Ruby Ridge and Waco have served as rallying cries for the modern militia movement who believe the federal government has become tyrannical, and the feds certainly know that if there are any deaths on the Brown's estate it will be a third log on the fire. There was a federal pseudo military operation undertaken against the Browns on June 7th, but it was aborted when they were discovered by a friend, Danny Riley, walking the Browns' dog during the early morning. He reported spotting an armed man in the woods near the end of the long driveway and was so oblivious to the prospect of a raid that he first assumed the camauflaged man was turkey hunting. He reported being fired upon (misses), tasered, and arrested but later released and warned not to return to the Browns or talk to the press. His video account can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3083052001159394679 A federal marshall gave a press release claiming they were there only to conduct surveillance but had to abort their operations after being discovered. No mention was made of whether shots were fired, and no explanation was made as to why mere surveillance required such secrecy. It's easy to believe the feds were there for the sole purpose of forcibly apprehending the Browns. That they aborted the operation seems evidence enough of that. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1490432427048704609 [missing] Third, Sherry Jackson, former IRS agent has been charged in April with 4 counts of willful failure to file tax returns. The award winning agent/CPA turned private tax consultant answered a challenge to find the law that made most Americans liable for the income tax and was unable to find one. She became outspoken about what she has NOT found, and, as the charges indicate, seems to have stopped filing herself. As is often the case with consciencious non-filers, greed is hardly a motive as they usually fair worse in taking such stands than those who just keep their jobs and file. Jackson reports the IRS demanded her tithing records from her church in order to ascertain how much she earned. The irony of a supposed tax evader tithing to a church seems lost on the IRS investigators. Jackson gives a brief history of her findings and experience with the IRS on these youtube links: http://youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k http://youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs Hopefully she will prevail against the IRS. Fourth, Louisiana attorney Tom Cryer was acquitted last month of 2 counts of willful failure to file after he, too, concluded that there was no law requiring him to do so. Victories for non-filers in court have been rare, mostly because the IRS gets to choose who to take to court. For obvious PR purposes, the IRS seems to only choose people whom they expect to have a high percentage chance of convicting, and leave the rest. High profile names also get added attention, again for PR purposes. Tom Cryer, the Hall of Fame attorney, and honor graduate of LSU Law School apparently beat those odds. Finally, Bill Benson. A gentleman who's being sued in civil court over his research involving the ratification of the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution, the so-called "income tax" amendment. The 16th Amendment is what most tax preparers and judges today consider to be the authority for the federal government to tax incomes. Benson's book "The Law that Never Was" makes a case that the 16th was never legally ratified, contrary to the claim by Secretary of State Philander Knox just before leaving office in 1913. While the 16th did not actually confer any new tax powers as per Supreme Court decisions shortly after ratification, for those who think otherwise Benson's research is quite significant. Benson visited all capitals of all states in existance in 1913 involved with the ratification of the 16th Amendment for the legislative archives of their discussion and vote on the amendment. He concluded that there were, in fact less than the Constutionally required 3/4's of the union states that had voted in favor of the amendment. It includes the states of Texas and Louisiana who's state constitutions prohibit voting in favor of any new taxing power for the federal government. Although, again, if the 16th doesn't actually confer any new taxing power that would be okay but since modern trial judges and the IRS keep saying it did confer new power.... the irony of the whole affair runs deep. But Bill Benson claims no more than 20 of the required 36 states actually formally or legally approved of the 16th Amendment. They are in court now to try to force Benson to not make his book available and to turn over the names of all past customers who have purchased it. Recently 3 interested anonymous parties came aboard for Benson's defense. Two of whom have purchased Benson's material and one who wants to but is afraid of IRS retributions if she buys it. These parties create a legal question that must be answered by that court as to the impact of the IRS suit against those innocent 3rd parties. The IRS has their hands full with these cases, but unlike those they attack, the IRS also has an unlimited budget. Bill Benson's web site is here: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp A summary of IRS activity isn't complete without mentioning Aaron Russo's film, "America: From Freedom to Fascism". Aaron Russo is a well know name in Hollywood circles. For anyone interested in federal income tax matters, it raises very good questions. The DVD can be found on the web at this link: The full length feature can also be seen on the web here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 Make of it what you will. Today, while I am still allowed to be, I'm just the messenger. Neil McIver For subscription changes, email lwan3@cjmciver.org with 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. Poster Comment: See also save-a-patriot.org.
Commenting on the IRS (while it's still legal)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#7. To: Deasy (#0)
Thanks, Deasy ! LWAN is me too ... hats off to you, sir. Hope you're doing well in Ecuador.
#8. To: noone222, Pinguinite (#7)
This must be for Neil.
I am. This place is growing on me. The mountains are beautiful and they are everywhere. The air is clean, and the food is fresh, cheap and good. Here is no doubt my best panoramic photo to date. This is not what I see out my window (wish it was) but rather an extremely good view even by Ecuador standards. It's from a small out-of-the-way 4 block village called Isinlivi which is hard to get too without so much as a hole in the wall eatery in it. It overlooks a river canyon sparsely populated with farmers. http://ecuadortreasures.ec/images/sigchos/5pan1280.jpg This is a 270 degree panoramic, as you can see both the rising sun and the shadow of a tree that's near me. That's the small 57K version. To get the full size 4 meg jpg version, take out the "1280" in the URL. I don't want to post the URL to the big one or spiders will download it, and it's a humdinger.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 7.
#10. To: noone222 (#7)
Hope you're doing well in Ecuador.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.