Time: Sat Jul 12 05:46:40 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA11584;
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:31:41 -0700 (MST)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA07810;
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:31:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:31:17 -0700
To: harold@halcyon.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Shall we now tax the Citizen?
Cc: <libnw@dmi.net>
References: <199707110519.BAA15403@home.gis.net>
<33C65973.26E2@dmi.net>
The ONLY liability statutes for subtitle A
income taxes are those found in the provisions
for withholding agents. See list at IRC 7701(a)(16).
The one holding the money withheld is the one made
liable by statute. Such an agent only becomes liable
by accepting a valid, voluntary Employee's Withholding
Allowance Certificate -- ALLOWING withholding to occur.
For the rest of the story, see Treasury Decision 2313,
approved March 30, 1916, held effective as of January 1,
1916 (by W. H. Osborn, CIR).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 03:42 AM 7/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>LIB_NW wrote:
>
>> From: Harold Thomas
>> To: Frank Reichert
>
>> (huge snip)
>
>
>
>> Frank said:
>> Nothing in the above, just quoted, suggests that American citizens are
>>
>> not also liable to fill out Form 1040 and pay the tax -- this only
>> deals
>> with non-resident aliens, which were also apparently included. Where
>> is
>> the exclusion here for US citizens working in the 50 states that you
>> talked about in your last post? I'm not pounding on you, or giving
>> you
>> are hard time, but I and probably a few others around here would like
>> to
>> know where you base this commentary.
>
>Harold response:
>Frank, this is not how law works. I'm a bit surprised you don't know
>this.
>Were such reasoning as you expressed above to exist in American juris-
>prudence, then we would all be guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps,
>you
>are exhibiting some of the understandable "logic" born of 80+ years of
>brainwashing by the gov't.
>
>No law applies to you until you are specifically and unambiguously MADE
>LIABLE. There is no need for an "exclusion" for "US citizens working in
>
>the 50 states" any more than there is a need for an exclusion for
>Eskimos or
>Frenchmen. A clear, unambiguous liability for the payment of any
>particular
>tax must be imposed before anyone is liable.
>
>A tax is like a 3 legged stool. If any one leg is missing, the stool
>falls over.
>Leg 1 = the tax is imposed on some thing or event, Leg 2 = someone is
>made
>liable for the payment of the tax, Leg 3 = an enforcement mechanism is
>put
>in place (i.e., penalty statutes, reg's, directives etc.).
>
>Leg 1: a tax is clearly imposed upon income under subtitle A, however,
>there
>are any number of huge problems with this, including the fact that
>income is
>never clearly defined and "gross income" under Chapter 61 was originally
>
>codified and applicable to income connected with a specific tax treaty
>with
>Canada. The proof of this is found in the footnotes at the bottom of
>the def-
>inition of "gross income" in the 1954 Income Tax Code. The creators of
>subsequent editions of the Code conveniently deleted this footnote.
>This
>whole matter is documented in detail in the SAPF videos.
>
>Leg 2: the only "person" made liable in Subtitle A ("Income Tax") for
>the
>payment of the tax is the "Withholding Agent" under Section 1461. If
>you
>or anyone can find any place in Subtitle A where YOU or I are made
>liable
>for the PAYMENT of an income tax, let me know. You will immediately
>shut down the whole "tax" movement!!!
>
>Leg 3: Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code (the penalty statute
>for
>the crime of "Willful Failure to File" income tax returns) HAS NO
>implementing regulation!!! None! ZIP! It doesn't exist. According to
>various
>U.S. Supreme Court cases, starting with California Bankers v. Schultz,
>statutes
>for which implementing regulations have not been promulgated, have no
>force
>and effect of law. Try explaining that to the people in jail right now,
>convicted
>under Sec. 7203 -- judicial integrity, indeed!! Civil "enforcement"
>statutes
>used by the IRS to seize property for alleged nonpayment of "income tax"
>are
>almost without exception only implemented under Title 27 Part 70,
>dealing
>with excise taxes associated with alcohol, tobacco and firearms. Yet,
>quite
>a few Americans are having cars and homes seized by the IRS, with the
>blessing
>of the courts.
>
>> Frank:
>> Will such an argument hold up in courts today? Since wages are
>> routinely
>> withheld by employers, there seems to be the overall consensus that
>> this
>> is the law of the land. You will find very few employers who will
>> agree
>> not to withhold your wages, not wishing to incur the wrath of the IRS.
>>
>> Harold's response:
>
>There are some "wins" here and there in the courts by those in the
>"tax"movement. However, you are quite correct that there exists an
>overall
>concensus that this is the "law of the land". After you have PERSONALLY
>
>investigated this issue, done the research, faced the print, you will
>join
>myself and Gordon and millions of others who are APPALLED at the extent
>of this hoax and the gross ignorance of the American people, INCLUDING
>attorneys, CPA's, etc.
>
>It is also true, indeed, that you will find precious few "employers"
>willing
>to not withhold -- regardless of how much law you show them, or even if
>they believe you are CORRECT. WHY IS THIS? Is this a good thing?
>Isn't it, in fact, appalling that Americans, including "employers" are
>so
>terrified of the IRS that no amount of proof will convince them to take
>a
>stand against obvious unlawful extortion and dishonesty in gov't???
>
>>
>
>Frank:
>
>> They can, I agree, but judges tell them to ignore judgement of laws
>> and
>> you know that. In practice juries are intimidated by judges to
>> consider
>> only guilt or innocense. Jury nullification is an entirely different
>> matter here and this "right" that both you and I believe is a
>> consitutional one, is rarely applied in actual court cases. So in
>> other
>> words, if I fail to submit a tax return, end up in a court of law, and
>>
>> the jury is unaware of their right of "nullification", my keester is
>> left
>> hanging with what the judge tells them the law says. I'll still, most
>>
>> likely, be chipping away at rock in the slammer for several years.
>>
>> Harold's response:
>
>So, again we come to "I don't want to take a stand against tyranny,
>eventhe abrogation of the Constitution, if it means some corrupt judge
>may
>send me to jail." In so many conversations I've had with "well-meaning"
>
>Conservatives and Libertarians, this is always the bottom line: "Well,
>you may be right but you're going to go to jail." A fraudulently
>imposed
>and extorted income tax which confiscates nearly half of the fruits of
>the
>labor of all Americans (by the time you compound its effect), can only
>be
>said to be tantamount to SLAVERY. If you would not be willing to risk
>imprisonment for your political stand for THIS, Frank, what in heaven's
>name WOULD you be willing to risk it for?
>
>Oh, incidentally, the gov't has cut way back on criminal prosecutions
>among
>the ranks of those heavily involved in such "tax education"
>organizations
>such as the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship due to the fact that they have
>been
>getting their head handed to them in the last few jury trials. (See
>since 1990,
>cases such as Cheek, the Tennessee 17/Franklin Sanders, Gabe Scott, the
>Hardy Brothers, Danny Hashimoto, Fred Allnutt, Lloyd Long, Ray and
>Dixie Powell, to name a few.) At the rate the ranks of non-filers is
>growing,
>the last statistics I saw indicated that your chances of getting
>convicted for
>"non-filing" were in therange of getting struck by lightning. At the
>rate the
>gov't is filing these cases, it should take roughly 5000 years to
>prosecute all
>the current non-filers.
>
>No, I'd bet that the real reason for concerns about non-filing has more
>to do
>with the very real inconveniences of functioning in an ignorant,
>unprincipled,
>and cowardly society, the risks of being held up to ridicule, and, last
>but
>certainly not least, the very real risk of losing one's property to the
>thugs at the
>IRS. Loss of property is, indeed, a very real risk in this struggle.
>Again, are
>we engaged in a merely academic exercise? Are we willing to ride in the
>
>car as long as the rubber really never hits the road!?!?!
>
>>
>
>Frank:
>
>> If you really have Constitutional law on your side, why not work
>> within
>> the system to change these asinine laws where citizens are being
>> terrorized! Every time a tax resister goes to jail, it sends the
>> wrong
>> message to the rest of America. Most Americans still haven't figured
>> out
>> yet that we live in an increasing police state, and its growing. In
>> other
>> words, the side with the government. The man had it coming! I pay my
>> taxes, and he/she is not doing their "fair share"! That isn't, of
>> course, my view. But sadly that is the way most Americans perceive of
>>
>> lost cases where tax protestors, resisters, are incarcerated.
>>
>
>Harold's response:
>
>"Work within the system"!?!?!? You must be kidding! That is precisely
>what
>the Establishment wants you to waste your life doing. For heaven's
>sake, Frank,
>they've got the American people and their hundreds if not thousands of
>"political
>interest" groups stumbling all over each other, fighting over "spotted
>owls" and
>"foreign aid to lower Slobovia". There are so many red herrings
>swimming in
> the public consciousness, that MOBY DICK hasn't been sighted in over 80
>+
>years!!!
>
>"Every time a tax resister goes to jail it SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE
>..."!?!?
>Oh, Frank, my heart just sank into my shoes. Gandhi sent the WRONG
>message?
>The Roman Christians sent the WRONG message? While I may not agree with
>
>Nelson Mandela, did he send the WRONG message by his years in jail? The
>
>American colonist/revolutionaries were originally in the minority,
>Frank. Many
>of them risked and experienced a lot worse than just jail over
>oppression which
>looked like Libertarian Heaven compared to America today.
>
>We are living in the "increasing police state" you refer to precisely
>because the
>gov't is well aware that the talk on the Internet is just that -- a lot
>of talk. As they
>close the jaws of the vise, those who continue to chant, "Don't take a
>stand, you
>might go to jail," might as well join hands with the jack-booted thugs
>and crank
>away at the handle of the vise!!!
>
>> Frank:
>> > How many American citizens, working within one of the 50
>> > states, has successfully fought this issue against the IRS in a
>> court
>> > of law, and won?
>> >
>
>Harold's response: Frank, in civil cases the number is ZERO! So
>what?!?! I'm telling you that I've
>personally reviewed several civil cases of people in the tax movement
>and that the courts UTTERLY ignored the law, denied anything even
>remotely related to due process, and, in at least two cases that I know
>of,
>were openly and obviously intimidated and coerced by gov't agents.
>
>Even in the "patriot" movement, people just have a devil of a time
>accepting the reality that the courts are utterly corrupt. It is a sad
>reality, but it must be faced before ANYTHING in America can
>be fixed. Especially in civil cases, the courts CANNOT allow a
>published, repeatable victory, lest the entire tax structure collapse
>and 80+ years of gov't tax fraud be exposed. I would exhort you to go
>to the court case on my Home Page where a judge recently THREW
>OUT a juries 11 to 1 verdict in favor of a man who successfully argued
>that the IRS had unlawfully seized and sold his home. The judge
>THREW OUT his right to a jury trial -- GUARANTEED by the
>Constitution, right!?!?
>
>> > Frank: You suggest that simply filing a sworn affidavit to the
>> effect
>> > that you no longer have any liability for future filing returns will
>>
>> > get you off the hook. I would like to know, and I am sure others
>> > would also, if courts of law will uphold this, or rather if such
>> > action would land you in federal prison.
>
>Harold:
>There you go again. You know, Frank, bending over to pick up the soap
>in prison can't be much different than the life of the average
>"taxpayer"!
>
>> > Frank: How about employers who refuse to hire you without filing a
>> > SSN???
>>
>
>Harold's response:
>
>What's this, Frank, a Libertarian worried about someone else providing
>his
>livelihood via "employment". Whatever happened to "free enterprise" --
>i.e., venturing forth in true LIBERTY?
>Frank:
>
>> That's great, however it would have been better to go to trail and win
>> a
>> judgement. Out of court settlements are not an admission of guilt!
>> What
>> we need here is definitive judgements of guilt, not against employers,
>>
>> but those carrying out unconstitutional terrorism against Americans.
>
>Harold:
>
>Here we agree! Hooray!
>
>>
>>
>> > Frank: Then the next question that comes to mind is, why hasn't the
>> > federal government been sued for issuing IRS documents that
>> > specifically state you are required to pay if your income level
>> > exceeds a certain point? It would appear that the government could
>> > be rightfully sued to at least issue documents that spell out the
>> > legal requirements for refusal to sign onto the IRS/Income Tax
>> > system. Why doesn't the ACLU take this one on? Obviously most
>> > American's civil liberties are being grossly violated here if you
>> are
>> > correct.
>> > Gordon: The federal district courts are corrupt. The judges are all
>> > under constant Treasury surveillance and none wants to bring the
>> > house of cards down with his name attached to it. The requirements
>> of
>> > the law are in fact clearly spelled out in plain english. They are
>> > there for anyone to read and understand.
>
>Harold: Ditto, Gordon.
>
>>
>>
>> > Frank: Many, including myself, would probably gladly join you
>> > [Gordon: I stopped filing in 1992. I refuse to subsidize the
>> > destruction of the America I love. A fire cannot be extinguished by
>> > pouring oxygen on it] if doing so would not land you in prison. I
>> > would like to see some actually court confrontations on this
>> specific
>> > issue, and see how it all turns out.
>
>Harold to Frank:
>Whose offspring do you suppose deserved the fruits of Liberty,
>those whose fathers lay dead in the field of battle or those whose
>fathers waited comfortably in Canada or England to "see how it
>all turns out"!?!?
>
>> Frank:
>>
>> That's fine, I would love to read some of this material, as would a
>> lot
>> of others most likely here. Why not make this newsletter public, put
>> it
>> on a web site, or post the articles contained therein in
>> political/judicial newsgroups? Millions of Americans read these
>> groups
>> daily!
>>
>> Harold to Frank:
>
>Frank: It's done. Go to http://www.halcyon.com/harold/ and review
>theIncome Tax Related Documents file.
>
>> > Frank:
>
>
>
>> The system itself may very well be outside the law as defined
>> > under statute, the IRS regulations (even if contradictory to statute
>>
>> > law) however are usually backed up with the use of force! This bring
>>
>> > me back yet once again to appropriate court challenges by those who
>> > really know the law. And this brings me back yet again to the basic
>> > libertarian principle concerning the initiation of force to achieve
>> > political or social goals. If you are correct, then IRS propaganda
>> > amounts to horrendous fraud and that should be a prosecutable
>> offense
>> > in a court of law.
>
>Harold to Frank:
>
>So, then George Washington and the American colonists should have
>initiated some sort of bizarre class-action lawsuit in King George's
>court, demanding that the King cease and desist his gross violations of
>the Magna Carta, or the Colonists would ... uh, would ... what???
>Become
>Libertarians and whine incessantly while grovelling at the King's
>feet???
>Frank, Ghandi and countless other pacifists didn't belive in the
>initiation
>of force, either, but that didn't stop them from TAKING A STAND and
>being willing to endure prison, even death, for their principles. I
>cannot
>see where your concept of Libertarianism leads except to some verbose
>version of surrender.
>
>>
>>
>> > Frank:
>
>
>
>> I guess that I need to have some assurance here that the IRS
>> > goon squad won't be knocking on my front door with a set of
>> handcuffs
>> > after April 15th if I do NOT believe in the propriety of filing a
>> tax
>> > return, and choose not to.
>>
>
>Harold to Frank:
>To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."
>
>>
>>
>> > Frank:
>
>
>
>> You may say it is illegal, and is contrary to code, but
>> > it's still very much out there! On the state and local levels there
>> > is still the disdainful "property" taxes, and when you fall behind
>> on
>> > those for a very few years your home is placed on the auction block
>> > and sold to someone who will pay the taxes! So much for this system
>>
>> > of "protection" -- it may exist in the constitution, but it does NOT
>>
>> > exist in reality. My point is that private property isn't
>> protected.
>> > It is confiscated.
>
>Harold to Frank:
>The protection of the Magna Carta didn't exist "in reality" until it
>became
>clear to the violators of it that a resolute and principled people were
>willing to die, rather than subject their posterity to continued abuses!
>
>> Frank, thanks for engaging Gordon, and, although I may have ripped
>> into
>
> you a bit here, I know from previous exchanges that you wear asbestos
>goggleswhen you read this stuff and can take pretty good care of
>yourself!!!
>
>Regards.
>
>Harold Thomas
>
>> =====================================================================
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE AND DISCUSSION GROUP
>> "The only Libertarian-oriented political discussion group on the
>> Fidonet Z1 Backbone"... Fidonet 1:346/16 -*- SYSOPS AREAFIX: LIB_NW
>> Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/
>> Email Subscriptions via the Internet: subscribe@libnw.circuit.com
>>
>> ...Liberty is NEVER an option... only a condition to be lost!
>> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail