Defiant Tax Protester Gets Seven Year Sentence

Star Telegram.com ^ | 4-30-04 | Toni Heinzl

[ancient_geezer]

I think that if the government was held to it's Constitutional powers and duties, we would need a lot less money to run it.

True, unfortunately the power to tax is one of the most fundament authorities of the national government under the Constitution:

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;"

 

Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.

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;

 

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."

And holding the Congress, to the constitution in the exercise of its other powers has been woefully lacking as regards the electorate demanding more and who keep those Congress Critter's in office.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Hey Blood, maybe you should put more of your responses in bold, that way the strident nuttiness stands out more.

[Abcdefg]

Does that make you an expert?

[Cultural Jihad]

McBryde said Simkanin would continue to violate income tax laws. The judge recalled that Simkanin threatened to kill federal judges and that he surrendered his Texas driver's license but continued to drive with a home-made ID card. ...

... While under investigation, Simkanin posted a warning on his Web site that spoke of the "fury of a fire" that would consume his adversaries. He wrote to the Treasury secretary that he had repatriated himself from the United States to the "Republic of Texas." He vowed to ignore the laws of the United States.

Anyone know what his logon name is?

[VRWC_minion]

then why did they agree with me?

Its a mail filing code. It tells the computer what package of forms to send. Only an idiot or at risk of being redundant, a tax protestor, would think that if they don't mail them tax forms they aren't taxable.

The IRS simply agreed your code was 0, not that your not liable. You heard what you wanted to hear.

[A Jovial Cad]

*Tell it to Corporal Tillman*

Amen! I'm frankly amazed at some of the folks who really believe that this guy--who at best was just a common tax cheat--should be accorded hero status. Simply incredible.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Anyone know what his logon name is?

Well, you can find some of his bestest buddies and penpals at LP and FU. They have been leading the parade for this guy since day one. But, I suspect that they have been doing a lot of shredding and back tax paying lately.

Look, its one thing to fight against excessive taxation, as conservatives we all do that, but to take a very strident and unlawful stand that you won't pay your taxes, and then advertise it to the world is just plain dumbass stupid. This guy reminds me of the jerk roommate I had in college that stiffed me and bailed, I'd want to extract the cash from him.

[ancient_geezer]

Here is a clue: THE JUDGE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT!

So? Any protestation that taxes do not apply to you is then nonsense:

• For working for the government that judge will be certain to make the tax law applies to you regardless;
• And in the instance the law does indeed apply to you and is constitutional, the judges will make certain the tax law applies to you.

Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.

Furthermore:

1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. The pay cannot be taken away from them.

2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.

3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.

4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.

Something is lacking in your protest that judges work for the government, and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.

[Cultural Jihad]

This is where your 26 years of prophetic experience will come in handy. So tell me about me?

"My, here I am talking endlessly about myself all the time. Let's let you talk for a while. Tell me, what do you think of me?"

[VRWC_minion]

The Constitution says the law is made by Congress.

And Congress gives authority to the IRS to write the regulations to enact the intent of congress, it created the tax courts to intepret the law and it provides the appeals courts to have the final say on what a law means before it goes to the SC.

[natewill]

The IRS simply agreed your code was 0, not that your not liable. You heard what you wanted to hear.

No. I stuck my neck out,and they had the chance to stick it to me, but didn't. They simply mailed me a check for the amount that was withheld. I still have the check. I haven't decided whether to cash it, or keep it as a souvenir. Veni Vidi Vici. Cogito, ergo Sum.

[Cultural Jihad]

And Congress gives authority to the IRS to write the regulations to enact the intent of congress, it created the tax courts to intepret the law and it provides the appeals courts to have the final say on what a law means before it goes to the SC.

In other words, institutions of self-governance which are the bane of a Me-ocracy.

[VRWC_minion]

Does that make you an expert?

I'm sure you can read section 1 and regulation 1.1 and see for yourself. They are rather clear to 99.9% of the people who read them. The .1% of those folks who think the fringe on a flag have something to do with the law can see all sorts of pretty colors in section 1 and reg 1.1. They can be treated by a good nuerosurgeon.

[Abcdefg]

Well, I'll just keep paying my taxes. Sure wish they were less.

[steplock]

There is one catch to that ... since I have been 100% disabled and living off my disability, I have not paid any taxes ... I don't make enough.

Kind of hard to take a tax deduction that way...

[Abcdefg]

You mean this:

Section 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who
makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[VRWC_minion]

You told them you had an MFR code of 0, and therefore no tax was due ? Or did you file a claim for refund ?

[Central Scrutiniser]

The yellow fringe flag folks are classic. They believe that since the fringe (how apt) is on the flag, it is an admiralty flag, and thus invalidates everything behind it. Kinda like saying that if you have a photocopy of the constitution, it would be invalid, since it isn't the real thing.

Tax protestors are hilarious, there are a cadre of them at another site that sell worthless currency to trade in, and run "free energy" scams and all kinds of grifting crap. One group, run by convicted felon John Kotmair will sell you all kinds of info to cheat on your taxes, but you have to send his patriot group unsigned money orders! People actually fall for it, its more fun to cheat than to do the right thing...

[VRWC_minion]

A possibility is the deduction in the followin year when you had little income might be a loss before adjusted gross income and therefore create a net operating loss. If so, it would be carried back two years and then forward. It could then offset the income.

I believe the IRS considers the deduction to be an itemized deduction but that might be subject to interpretation, especialy in that the claim of right deduction was created by the courts and not the IRS.

Logically it should follow that if the income was gross income the deduction should be against gross income, but logic and the tax laws are distant cousins.

[VRWC_minion]

What part of "tax imposed" don't you understand ?

While at it, take a look at reg.1, its more descriptive.