See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: U.S. to turn up heat on tax protesters
Source:
chron.com
URL Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5557039.html
Published: Feb 22, 2008
Author: By ROBERT SCHMIDT-Bloomberg News
Post Date: 2008-02-22 02:24:01 by HOUNDDAWG
Keywords: really, REALLY, SCAREY-ooooh
Views: 208
Comments: 13
The Justice Department, on the heels of a split verdict in its tax evasion prosecution of actor Wesley Snipes, is planning a crackdown on the so-called tax protester movement. The protesters, or tax deniers, assert a constitutional right to avoid federal taxes, relying in part on century-old Supreme Court decisions. Their ranks are growing to include white-collar professionals, and they are costing the government millions in revenue, officials say. "Too many people succumb to the fallacy, the illusion, that you don't have to pay any tax under any set of conditions," said Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman, the new head of the Justice Department's tax division. "That is a growing problem." The movement has been given a boost by the faltering economy and politicians' vilification of the Internal Revenue Service. The Snipes verdict may also have helped. The actor, best known for starring in action movies like Blade and U.S. Marshals, was acquitted on Feb. 1 by a federal jury in Ocala, Fla., of felony fraud and conspiracy charges. He was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of failing to pay income taxes, and he faces up to three years in prison at his sentencing in April. He could also be forced to pay millions in back taxes and penalties. Hochman declined to comment on the case, which was filed in 2006 and predated the department's new initiative. Snipes' attorney didn't return a call seeking comment. Internet inspires growth The Internet has also spurred interest in the tax protest movement as firms sell strategies online and believers encourage others to sign on. "Any kooky tax protester can put up their theories," said Jonathan Siegel, a professor at George Washington University's law school who has a Web site that debunks tax denier arguments. "It is much easier to get their message before a mass audience." Tax protesters rely on a range of legal arguments, including that the Constitution's 16th Amendment giving Congress power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes" wasn't properly ratified. Among other Supreme Court decisions, they cite an 1895 opinion that struck down a federal tax — a ruling that predated the 16th amendment. The protesters also claim that wages aren't legal income, that only residents of the District of Columbia, U.S. territories or federal workers must pay income tax or that foreign, but not domestic, income is taxable. Those arguments, though rejected by courts, are presented by tax deniers with legal citations and other historical evidence. The advice is "easy to believe" and is often followed by the naive, Hochman said. "These cases pop up in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States." New cases coming The Justice Department plans to announce its stepped-up enforcement program next month. Officials will bring many new criminal and civil cases against promoters of the illegal schemes and their clients, Hochman said. The details are still being worked out, he said, though it will involve working with U.S. attorneys' offices and the IRS. Enforcement "is going to be amped up," he said. The agency already has had success in civil cases. Since 2001 it has obtained orders from judges barring more than 300 individuals from preparing tax returns for others or promoting illegal tax strategies. In prosecuting criminal cases, the Justice Department must prove someone "knowingly and willfully" broke the law. Defendants can win acquittal by arguing they didn't know what they were doing was illegal. Still, according to agency statistics, prosecutors have a 97 percent conviction rate in tax denier cases. In civil and criminal cases, protesters can be ordered to pay back taxes, plus penalties and interest. Shared beliefs According to court documents, Snipes subscribed to some of the theories espoused by protesters. Two others charged in the case, Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas Rosile, promoted a tax denial strategy known as the 861 argument, prosecutors said. Protesters say that section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code only requires Americans to pay taxes on some kinds of foreign income. Snipes also allegedly tried to pay some of his taxes with fake checks, labeled "bill of exchange," a common tax denier tactic. The government said Kahn and Rosile prepared and filed two amended tax returns for Snipes using the 861 theory and requesting almost $12 million in refunds. The IRS never paid. Snipes also failed to file his 1999 through 2004 federal returns as he made more than $38 million in income, prosecutors said. Kahn and Rosile, an accountant whose license had been revoked, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the IRS and face up to 10 years in prison. Michael Minns, an attorney in Houston who has represented defendants in tax cases, said tax deniers tend to fall into two categories: "con artists" or "crooks" who market the bogus strategies, and "idealists" who believe the schemes are valid. The Justice Department crackdown, Minns said, is going to "put a lot of nuts in jail" without addressing larger concerns such as corporations using illegal tax shelters or wealthy people moving money overseas to avoid taxes. "What they are really doing is going after the victims and leaving the billionaires alone," he said.
Poster Comment: "Michael Minns, an attorney in Houston who has represented defendants in tax cases, said tax deniers tend to fall into two categories: "con artists" or "crooks" who market the bogus strategies, and "idealists" who believe the schemes are valid." ______________________________ And, lawyers fall into one of two categories-those who get caught and those who don't!" Take heart my fellow countrymen, for this is not without precedent. The enforcement of the onerous Volstead Act, the criminal enabling statutes to the 18th amendment (Prohibition) was at its all time worst immediately before repeal. One day Eliot Ness and his Tommy gun-toting, anti-liquor religious zealots were hosing down bootleggers and busting oak barrels, and the next they were out of work with no references! Although Ness wound up as the public safety bureaucrat for Cleveland, OH, (and his career there was marred by scandal) the rest of his guys simply faded away and were buried in forgotten graves. Have you ever read a book by a former UNTOUCHABLE? Mee neether. And, so it will go with the asshole revenoors and their evil income tax. Obviously, the banks are in trouble and they can't fund them and perpetual warfare without the tax, but, they can't convict anyone without complicit juries and the feds are finding it ever more difficult to stack and/or fool juries! History books don't mention this little tidbit because the govt doesn't ever want the people to realize our power, but it was juries that killed Prohibition. Many of the same congressmen who passed the 18th amendment repealed it with the 21st, and, they were no more prone to admitting error then than they are now. SO, why did they permanently enshrine this stupidity in the constitution in the form of two amendments? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT AMERICANS TO GROW ACCUSTOMED TO CHECKING BAD LAWS AT THE JURY LEVEL, AND THE ONLY WAY TO BRING PEOPLE BACK UNDER THE MIND CONTROLLERS' AND MASTER PLANNERS' INFLUENCE WAS TO REMOVE THE OFFENDING AMENDMENT! Yes, things will get worse before they get better, but they can't WIN! The IRS has even floated regular stories about their plan to collect taxes in the event of a nuclear strike, but this was media theater to convince us of the inevitably of death and taxes. They will find that on US Property, i.e. military bases, territories, etc., they can outlaw booze and enforce Prohibition and enforce the income tax against military and civil servants if they wish. But, the rest of us will ignore them, and this will be especially true for the millions of Mexican immigrants here. They don't protest bad laws, they ignore them! Let's tear a page from their book. Since it's now impossible to avoid confrontation with govt agents, what do we have to lose? Sure, there was a time when peaceful, law abiding, folks could be relatively sure that they'd be left alone, but no longer. If you fly and some negro who wants a little payback decides to single you out, he'll fondle your (or your pregnant wife's) breasts or, dozens of other things they do to set people off. And, there is no way to file a tax return and be absolutely sure it will pass legal muster, unless you take zero deductions and pay the max, and who can afford that? Don't let up. We owe it to our children and to our martyrs to keep the pressure on until the bastards finally give in. And, then not only will it be BOOMTOWN, USA like we've never seen, but we'll all be able to hire cheap, unskilled laborers to rake our yards, put in our gardens, clean out our basements and garages, and we can make jokes about their former "profession" as tax preparers and IRS agents while they learn honest trades for the first time! Notice how the above article dismissed previous supreme court cases and other supporting evidence by claiming that courts have ruled against it. We demand to see the law and they show us court decisions where someone else was jailed for asking! Sorry Feds, the game is over. Now that juries are wising up to the swindle, judges and US Attorneys are gnashing their teeth as more and more defendants skate away from the govt's grasp. COURAGEOUS AMERICANS AS THE NEW UNTOUCHABLES! An idea whose time has come.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
Jury nullification....or armed revolt. It's your choice, Uncle Scam.....
"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto von Bismarck
Right. Although I mentioned "precedent" earlier, when it comes to trying to overthrow a constitution in a country whose citizens are the largest, best armed standing army in the world well, for that there is no precedent. And, if they try and fail, well, there is ample precedent for that. They can be executed humanely, or, with low regard for their comfort such as standing them on fences and tossing nooses over tree limbs. Without the calculated drop to snap their necks they would slowly strangle, and that's not as humane as a drop through a trap door. I'd hate to see that. For some reason lynch mobs tend to lose their enthusiasm after the main event, and nobody ever bothers to go back and cut them down or bury the dead. So, we could end up with unsightly, rotting bureaucrats, tyrants, politicians, lawyers, newsmen, academics, etc, who just hang there until the clean up crews (vultures, crows, magpies, insects, etc.,) finish their jobs, and, it could look like Halloween everywhere with the skeletons dangling for a couple of years. I mean, I get sick of a Christmas tree by the end of January. I can't imagine what the year 'round "el dia de los muertos" ambiance would be like.
I didn't used to support Halloween ... but if we are able to attract this distinguished group to "hang-out" ... shit, let the games begin !!!
"If, however, a government refrains from regulations and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer." John Maynard Keynes
$#it, let the games begin. I have been telling people for almost 25 years that the government/IRS is stealing from them and I have told lots of people about their right to nullify bad law when they serve on a jury (did that myself one time on a speeding case). I have never been lucky enough to be called to serve on one of these bogus tax cases where they are trying to make an example of someone to keep the rest of the sheeple in line although I have often wished I could be on one of those juries. The defendant would get an acquittal or, at worst, a hung jury. The "Willful Failure to File" Scam! How many times have you read articles [usually around the first quarter of the year!] concerning people being convicted of Willful Failure to File charges? Over the years, we'd guess you've read quite a few such articles. If you're a member of the Patriot community, you've probably read a lot more of these articles than the average American. These articles are part of an annual publicity ritual of the IRS and the media intended to intimidate Citizens into filing income tax returns. The fact that most Citizens don't actually owe any income tax is a matter of complete indifference to both the government and the media. How many Americans do you suppose file their income tax returns each year out of nothing more than the fear of being incarcerated if they don't? Out of roughly 100 million potential taxpayers, we suspect that quite a few fall into that category. If only 5% of the public falls into that category, that's 5,000,000 people filing returns out of fear of going to jail. Many Americans erroneously believe that the government will only prosecute them if they've broken a law. That belief is completely false. The US government will prosecute you for any number of reasons; you having actually committed a crime is only one possible reason, and is not an essential reason in the eyes of government prosecutors. Attaining the goals handed down by their political masters, and maintaining the power base of those in control are far more essential elements to a US Attorney than whether or not you've actually committed a crime. "Americans are no longer secure in law - the justice system no longer seeks truth and prosecutors are untroubled by wrongful convictions." Paul Craig Roberts (former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury) Willful Failure to File is a perfect example of a charge that the government brings against a private Citizens even though the US Attorney knows that in most cases the Citizen is not guilty of the charge. 26 USC §7203 [Willful Failure to File]: Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both A fine of $25,000 or a jail sentence of not more than a year! Scary stuff! Of course the question is, can the US Attorney prosecute you for such a thing? Let's find out! You will note that the section begins with the words, "Any person required under this title…". We've highlighted "person", and underlined "required", because they are the key elements of the charge. As we've discussed in other parts of this site, the term "person" can be defined in various ways; each definition suitable for the specific purpose of the statute in which it is employed. Before we can determine if you are subject to prosecution for Willful Failure to File, we need to know if you fall within the definition of "person" as defined for use in §7203. Additionally, because it is the "person required" to file, the definition will need to include the exact nature of who is "required" to file returns under the internal revenue laws of the United States. §7203 is a part of Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). While most IRC chapters contain between 3 and 10 sections, Chapter 75 [entitled, "Crimes, Other Offenses, & Forfeiture"] has 59 sections! §7203 is the third section of the chapter - right up at the front. So where might we find the definition of "person" as used within the third section of the chapter? Where else - in the 58th section of the chapter - 55 sections after the offense statute! Isn't it grand how the government does everything it possibly can to keep you from knowing the truth and being able to defend yourself from an unlawful attack? And to be perfectly clear, there are many statutes wherein pivotal definitions are provided right in the body of the statute so that people will not be confused. But those are places where it serves the interest of the government that you not be confused. When it comes to Willful Failure to File, the government will go to great lengths to make sure you are as confused and ill-informed as possible. It's much easier for the government to unlawfully prosecute you when you don't really understand what's going on. So why would the government bury the definition of "person" (as used within §7203) 55 sections after the offense statute? Let's look and see what they're hiding! 26 USC §7343 [Definition of the term "Person"]: The term ''person'' as used in this chapter [chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. Whoa! Did you get that?! The term "person" is defined as "an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership". How many people have gone to jail for Willful Failure to File when they were just regular old folks working for an ordinary living and were not officers or employees of a corporation or partnership? The answer is, thousands. But wait...there's more! Even if one is an officer or employee of a corporation or partnership, such person must still be "under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs". In other words, that officer or employee must hold a position within the company in which he is tasked with overseeing and completing the company's obligations under the internal revenue laws of the United States. This can be seen in the plain language of the definition wherein it states, "...who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act". Further, such a person must be aware that he has been tasked with such a responsibility (either by operation of law or by appointment) and he must have a belief [Cheeks doctrine] that he is "required", on behalf of the company, to perform certain acts under the law. If he has such a belief, and fails to carry out his lawful responsibilities, only then is he liable for prosecution under §7203. Let's take a moment and discuss the use of the word, "includes" in the definition of "person" at §7343. The federal courts have consistently held that "includes" (as used within the IRC) is a term of "limited expansion". [See 26 USC §7701(c) for the specific definition of "includes".] As such, the definition of "person" can "include" people who are within the same legal parameters, even though they are not specifically named in the definition. An example of this might be the trustee of a statutory trust that has incurred income tax liability. [See the Trusts section within this site to understand the meaning of a "statutory trust".] In that circumstance, the trustee would be the equivalent of a corporate officer because he would be the person "under a duty to act" on behalf of the statutory fiction, and thus would be included in the meaning of "person", as defined at §7343. The definition of "includes" (as defined within the IRC) allows the government to use "definitions" not so much to define what a thing is, but rather to establish a "category" of things that can be embraced by the term. As an example, let's look at a fictitious definition: 51 USC §1: Food - The term "food" as used within this section includes peaches, pears, and apples. Under the IRC definition of "includes", the term "food" could also embrace nectarines, persimmons, guavas, etc. However, the term "food" (as defined) could not be construed to embrace a steak, or asparagus, because the category clearly established by language of the definition is "fruit". Meat and vegetables cannot be a part of the term "food", because they fall outside the "category" established by the definition. To bring this discussion back to "person" (as defined at §7343), we find the "category" established is: An individual who holds a position within a statutory fiction of law (e.g. corporations, LLPs, etc.), and that position imposes a duty upon him to conduct certain acts, on behalf of the fiction, in accordance with the internal revenue laws of the United States. Based on this definition, an ordinary American Citizen who is under no duty to perform any act on behalf of another, under the internal revenue laws of the United States, is not a "person" for the purposes of Willful Failure to File [§7203]. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. the problem is, most people who serve on juries are dumber than rocks. all they need to hear is someone's not paying their fare share when they themselves have to. immediate guilty verdict.
Two wings of the same bird. Vote all you want, the flight plan doesn't change.
True, that is why you have to use a mental reservation and lie if you are ever called to serve on one. It is sad that you have to do that because, not knowing your intent, the defense could boot you from the jury when you answer in a way that the persecutor would pick you. Still, if you know the truth about the tax scam and make it obvious that you know the defense will never get the chance to exercise one of their strikes; the judge will get rid of you if the other agent of the government doesn't do it first.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Very good. Most folks have a bit of trouble getting their minds around the idea that each tribe has its superstitions including ours. So, to underscore the point I ask them what the widely accepted first aid treatment for venomous snake bite is, and I usually get "cutting and sucking" in response. Well, the National Snake Bite Center (a subsidiary of Poison Control and CDC) has known for over thirty years that statistically, incising the bite wound and sucking the venom out does absolutely nothing to increase the survivability of a venomous snake bite. All it does is increase the trauma and possibly the shock which can be deadly even with an otherwise survivable bite. And, yet, every hardware and outdoor supply store (where one can purchase Welsbach mantles for Coleman lanterns and other camping gear) sells those little first aid kits with the razor blade, string tourniquet and rubber suction cups for treatment of venomous snake bite! Once I move self assured folks out of their comfort zones I can then begin to explain how the greatest hoax of the 20th century was perpetrated, and hopefully enlist them to free a patriot if called for jury duty. The feds are finding it harder to stack juries now, even when they use the tried and true methods of summoning jurors who convicted before (most of whom are secretly proud of their "service" and are predisposed to do it again) and by using municipal, county and even state employees, insurance people, retirees, etc, and others who are beholden to (and grateful for) the US Govt's wealth-transfer-at-gunpoint-if-necessary-scheme. When I ask how it benefits America to put a widow out of her home to collect her late husband's "death taxes" in order to subsidize millionaires (Bush's buddies), well, sooner or later I trigger a pre-programmed response and their eyes roll back in their heads and they change the subject to football. ("How about them EAGLES, huh?") The govt has warned folks that crazy, dangerous people (like me) who believe they are "free and sovereign citizens" will often use radical language and cite the constitution, former supreme court decisions, The Bible, The Magna Carta, etc., and it's best to distance from us and to call someone and report suspicious "persons of interest". I made enemies on a gun chat board years ago when I suggested that someday, seniors will be asked to surrender their guns AND MINE in exchange for their checks. I said that most oldsters will rationalize it this way: "Hell, I don't hunt no more with that rusty old shotgun and I need my gummint check, and what the Hell does HE need them dam, ugly black military weapons for, anyway?" And then they'll call the snitch line.... Mark my words. It's closer than you think.
Even if the govt succeeded "97%" of the time (pure bull dookey, BTW) they only bring about 50 cases per year to trial nationwide. So, any threat to increase criminal and/or civil sanctions is the equivalent of an IRS agent pointing a six-shot .38 spl Model 10 S&W at a million "taxpayers"! :) And, the more tyrannical the bankster-controlled govt becomes the more they will educate the people. When folks see decent folks, friends and neighbors being sacrificed, then the people will start doing the same thing that killed Prohibition-refusing to convict, unless the criminal conduct is particularly egregious. So, a lawyer or govt comptroller who swindles will be convicted, but friendly Joe Schmoe who runs the neighborhood diner and who didn't ring up all his sales will probably skate! HAH!
Very good. And, remember, my fellow anti govt "slackers" if you hang the jury don't say "I don't believe the tax is constitutional" because the judge will boot you and put a dutiful alternate in your seat. And, if the jury has plants on it don't mention FIJA, either. Just hang it, all by your loneseome! You say, "I can't convict because I believe that IRS agent/investigator lied!" Whenever possible you should pick the witness that the govt believes has the most credibility, i.e. the IRS-friendly priest or pastor or former IRS Commissioner or former Chief Justice of The United States if they have one testify and say, "I believe that he lied!' They will believe that you're lying, (but they can't do dookey about it) and that will make you even! HAH! "EAT LEAD, SLACKERS!"___Mr. Strickland from BACK TO THE FUTURE
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Mark my words. It's closer than you think. I posted on a gun board a little bit too and you would think that they would be right in the forefront of people who respected liberty and wanted to be free. But I found out that most of the people who posted on it were cops and government agents of one kind or another and most of them couldn't care less, at least not about your liberty or mine. I guess it has been four years since I posted a word to that board.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I would never say that I believe the tax is unconstitutional per se, because it is not. It is in the way it is applied--to those who don't fall into the category of "taxpayer" and upon that which it was never intended to reach (compensation)--that makes it wrong. It just doesn't apply to most people--I am sure you already know that from your posts.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Right.
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
Jury nullification....or armed revolt. It's your choice, Uncle Scam.....
#3. To: HOUNDDAWG, X-15 (#2)
So, we could end up with unsightly, rotting bureaucrats, tyrants, politicians, lawyers, newsmen, academics, etc, who just hang there until the clean up crews (vultures, crows, magpies, insects, etc.,) finish their jobs, and, it could look like Halloween everywhere with the skeletons dangling for a couple of years.
#4. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
Lord Acton
#5. To: James Deffenbach, HOUNDDAWG (#4)
#6. To: christine (#5)
Lord Acton
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#4)
(Edited)
#8. To: christine (#5)
the problem is, most people who serve on juries are dumber than rocks. all they need to hear is someone's not paying their fare share when they themselves have to. immediate guilty verdict.
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#6)
True, that is why you have to use a mental reservation and lie if you are ever called to serve on one. It is sad that you have to do that because, not knowing your intent, the defense could boot you from the jury when you answer in a way that the persecutor would pick you. Still, if you know the truth about the tax scam and make it obvious that you know the defense will never get the chance to exercise one of their strikes; the judge will get rid of you if the other agent of the government doesn't do it first.
#10. To: HOUNDDAWG, *LWAN* (#0)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#11. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
I made enemies on a gun chat board years ago when I suggested that someday, seniors will be asked to surrender their guns AND MINE in exchange for their checks. I said that most oldsters will rationalize it this way: "Hell, I don't hunt no more with that rusty old shotgun and I need my gummint check, and what the Hell does HE need them dam, ugly black military weapons for, anyway?" And then they'll call the snitch line....
Lord Acton
#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#9)
Lord Acton
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#12)
I would never say that I believe the tax is unconstitutional per se, because it is not. It is in the way it is applied--to those who don't fall into the category of "taxpayer" and upon that which it was never intended to reach (compensation)--that makes it wrong. It just doesn't apply to most people--I am sure you already know that from your posts.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest