'Truth-in-taxation' forum ends in D.C.

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, March 5, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

[ancient_geezer]

What any individual, at any particular circumstance, may say is not the Law of the Land.

By the way, there are no questions or evidences posed in the list to disprove. They are mere statements to admit a thing and the statement is selfevident of itself.

There is nothing there to be dispproved. It is indeed a list of demands to admit things.

To take one particular demand from your list.

297. Admit that Judge Learned Hand stated that:

"Logically, indeed, he (the taxpayer) is boxed in a paradox for he must prove the criminatory character of what it is his privilege to suppress just because it is criminatory. The only practicable solution is to be content with the door's being set a little ajar, AND WHILE AT TIMES THIS NO DOUBT PARTIALLY DESTROYS THE PRIVILEGE,...nothing better is available."

ANSWER: No Knowledge of that, however if stipulated to be the case, it is irrelavent to the issue of the Constitutionality of the Income tax.

The Constitution expressly grants authority to levy excises and duties as long as they are Uniform. Such taxes are termed indirect taxes when applied to activities, and events of commerce. Consideration received in exchange for labor is commerce, the exchange(i.e. contract) is taxable under Article I Sec. 8.

You do know the difference between Right and Privilege do you not?

Furthermore, One is not obligated to answer specific questions he can substantiate can lead to a criminal prosecution for he may challenge that. Answering the question of how much income did you earn as it is formulated under the income tax law is not of that class, thus does not relieve one of the requirement to file a return.

Judge Learned hand has said more regard law as well, which place a great deal of question upon the context from which that statement may have been derived. Not having the full text from which it was taken nor the cite for where that text may be found, the statement is of dubious value as may be said of most of the statements in your question set.

From Selected Gems of Learned Hand

Regards quoting statements out of history:

No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.... P. 79, Sources of Tolerance (1930).

And in regards the law he as stated:

Two conditions are essential to the realization of justice according to law. The law must have an authority supreme over the will of the individual, and such an authority can arise only from a background of social acquiescence, which gives it the voice of indefinitely greater numbers than those of its expositors. Thus, the law surpasses the deliverances of even the most exalted of its prophets; the momentum of its composite will alone makes it effective to coerce the individual and reconciles him to his subserviency. The pious traditionalism of the law has its roots in a sound conviction of this necessity; it must be content to lag behind the best inspiration of its time until it feels behind it the weight of such general acceptance as will give sanction to its pretension to unquestioned dictation. P. 16, The Speech of Justice (1916).

And finally in regards the individuals place in a civilized society:

The condition of our survival in any but the meagerest existence is our willingness to accommodate ourselves to the conflicting interests of others, to learn to live in a social world. P.87, To Yale Law Graduates (1931).

[ancient_geezer]

Ok wise guys, I want you to prove ANY of these points about the income tax incorrect.

You asked for one,

There are more that are either irrelevant to the issues and more that are wrong for incompleteness I assure you. But here is a quick one, grabbed from the bottom of the heap working my way upwards Item:

294. Admit that if one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud.

---

It is your privilege to claim a Fifth Amendment protection under certain circumstances.

(Example O.J.Simpson in civil hearing had to testify as the things he had to say concerning the death of his wife, could not lead to criminal prosecution having been aquitted of her murder)

It is not your obligation to do so. Nor is protection required if a tax return is accurate.

1) If you file the return, there can be no criminal prosecution for failure to file.

2) If your returns are complete and truthful, it can be no probable cause for tax evasion.

3) If it does not contain deliberate attempts to hide income, it cannot be cause for charge of conspiracy to defraud or falsify information.

Only if independent evidence outside the forms exists, can probable cause arise.

Not filing with independant evidence of probable cause, can result in criminal prosecution at any time.

Claiming Fifth amendment privilege is a non-sequiter where the questions answered do not constitute in themselves evidence of crime.

GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)

"In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:

• "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."

"In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. 21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.

The judgment is

• Affirmed."

UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)

"As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 , 43 S. Ct. 511. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [274 U.S. 259, 264]   of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 , 37 S. Ct. 621; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration ( January 3, 1927) 273 U.S. 103 , 47 S. Ct. 302. In this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith (1927) A. C. 193.

Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No. 99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.

United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.

[ancient_geezer]

292. Admit that the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes.

False, neither the exercising of a Fifth Amendment privilege nor claiming a Fifth amendment exception prevents the development of independant evidence leading to prosecution and conviction of tax crimes. Evidence if improperly gathered can be thrown out or not used, that does not prevent the use of independant evidence in supporting a conviction.

For example

GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)

"In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:

• "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."

The fifth amendment does not relieve one of liablity of filing a return, not does it relieve one of the obligation of paying a tax debt. Independant evidence of either not honored by the citizen, can lead to prosecution and conviction of a tax crime as a consequence of intentional refusal to file or pay without raising a fifth amendment issue at all.