DEATH-FAST Protest Against IRS in Austin, Texas

http://www.in-austin.com/death-fast/story.htm ^

[ravingnutter]

Ummmm...first of all, it is not a bed sheet...

Dressed in a dhoti of Indian fabric, which he located with the help of Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohandas Gandhi

Secondly...for those who asked about the hotel room...it was provided by supporters.

Finally...yes, those pictures are taken as the death fast is proceeding...he shaves his head, so there goes your "theory".

We get constant updates on his condition on KTSA (San Antonio), he calls in daily. He is only drinking water with a pinch of salt in it, the way Ghandi did. Last I heard, he had lost 50 lbs.

Now...while I do not agree with his methods...and do not know enough about the legal/Constitutional aspects of income tax to be able to debate on it, I have to respect him for standing up for his beliefs by asking for a Petitions for Redress of Grievances. He follows We The People Chairman Bob Schulz who went on a similar hunger strike in July, 2001. The Govt. promised Schulz a forum, but the DOJ and IRS later reneged on their agreement and have refused to answer the questions since. It is their obligation to answer these questions under the law. What do they have to hide?

If anyone wants more info, his website is:

Gene Chapman Blog Spot

[Lurking Libertarian]

It is their obligation to answer these questions under the law.

Where does it say that?

[kevkrom]

The Govt. promised Schulz a forum, but the DOJ and IRS later reneged on their agreement

"The Govt." never promised anything. One U.S. House member (the name escapes me) made some promises about giving Schulz & company a forum and a captive IRS lawyer to play with, but didn't have the clout to pull it off.

There is no obligation for any government employee or elected official to explain the law to people who refuse to accept it. Government lawyers especially refuse to give any such advice or interpretation because if they accidentally mis-state something, they will be quoted by everyone who has a bone to pick with the particular law.

[CobaltBlue]

>>the tax code is nothing more than a boondoggle to take a good chunk of our hard earned money and waste it<<

Nothing more?

Personally, when I think of paying my taxes, I find it very soothing to think of them going to pay for the salary of a soldier out there fighting for my liberty - or maybe paying for one teeny-tiny piece of an aircraft carrier.

Usually the aircraft carrier. I have a thing for aircraft carriers, with full battle group. Can't have too many of those these days, and they aren't cheap.

[kevkrom]

There's a big difference between being against the current tax code and saying that the government shouldn't have some way of raising revenue. Personally, I support eliminating the income tax completely and replacing it with a single-stage, single-rate national retail sales tax. That still supports the troops, and gets rid of a hideous and intrusive monster (a progressive income tax) that comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

[Kowdawg]

Come to San Francisco. There's a guy who walks around town who believes that the last six U.S. Presidents are part of an alien conspiracy, and is willing to die for his cause.

No. But thanks anyway. The guy sounds like a disciple of David Ickes. He postulates that most of the world's leaders are shape-shifting reptiles from outer space.

He's probably right.

[Grando Calrissian]

He postulates that most of the world's leaders are shape-shifting reptiles from outer space.

Well if you put it that way, it sounds reasonable.

[AppyPappy]

Don't you just feel an uncontrollable urge to send him a few bucks?

I have the uncontrollable urge to have a pizza delivered to him.

[elbucko]

Too funny. Are you in on the con?

No. Just an observer. I don't care for the impression this sort of stuff gives legitimate tax reform, but if a Secretary of State can say she has confidence in a President that's about to be impeached, than I can voice support for this guy's "drift" if not his substance.

Then he should run for Congress.

You bet! But he won't get elected, because he's not Maxine Waters. She's as crazy as this guy is, but it's acceptable on the Left.

[candeee]

I wish you all cared enough to occasionally take your heads out for some air. There are 2 taxing clauses in the Constitution - neither of which have been eliminated by the 16th Amendment. The income tax is certainly Constitutional as written. The problem is that it is intentionally misleading and most people believe it contains requirements that it does not. The income tax is an excise tax - that is a fact. Gene Chapman is not some tax nut - I dare say that you act like a tax nut for believing something that you have never researched for yourself. Shame on you.

[MineralMan]

And there you have it. This guy is a nutcase. If he wants to starve himself, then that's OK with me. But he's incorrect in his assumptions and in the law. Do I like paying taxes? I do not. Do I believe that the government has the power to tax? I do...it's in the Constitution. You want to change that? We have mechanisms to do so. So far, it hasn't happened, nor do I believe it is about to.

[ravingnutter]

As a Libertarian, I would think you would have heard of something called the CONSTITUTION...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[DonQ]

The Govt. promised Schulz a forum, but the DOJ and IRS later reneged on their agreement

"The Govt." never promised anything. One U.S. House member (the name escapes me) made some promises about giving Schulz & company a forum and a captive IRS lawyer to play with, but didn't have the clout to pull it off.

The Congressman was Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican from the panhandle of Maryland. And he actually arranged - not for a forum and a captive IRS lawyer - but for a "briefing" on the tax laws to be given to Schulz and his buddies by a DOJ lawyer - not IRS (the IRS is one agency that Congressmen are not supposed to try to squeeze for favors). This amounted to arranging for a lecture with Schulz as part of the audience. This positively was not the "debate", or the "hearing" or the "trial" that Schulz demanded and claimed it was.

Even though this briefing was supposed to take place in an available room in one of the House office buildings, Schulz started trying to collect money from his followers as if somehow he was paying for it. Then he claimed to have absolute control over the attendance list, then he claimed that he had absolute control over any questions that could be put to the lecturers (it was never clear that the lecturers would entertain questions) - if you wanted your questions asked then you'd better send Schulz money, etc., he even tried to set up a pay-per-view webcast of this event. And he claimed, contrary to fact, that the IRS was sending representatives (plural), when there was reason to doubt that the IRS was going to be involved in any way in this lecture.

The last straw came when Schulz started talking about this as an official Congressional hearing - which it definitely wasn't; it wasn't even clear if any Congressman would be in the room - that would lead to dramatic new legislation - which was never even hinted at - and finally he started referring to this event as "putting the IRS on trial", and then telling his followers to refrain from sending in their tax returns, "Don't File Before the Trial". When the IRS and DOJ got wind of this, they complained to Bartlett, who cancelled the lecture altogether. Schulz has only himself to blame.

[ravingnutter]

"The Govt." never promised anything.

Wrong....there was a written agreement, a scanned copy can be found at:

Give Me Liberty

In addition...Congressman Bartlett stated in another letter...

“The constitution that I love and have sworn to uphold and defend grants citizens the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. It is my duty as an elected representative to the United States Congress to insure that once a petition, such as yours, is properly framed, our government timely and properly responds."

[IYAS9YAS]

The code is nothing more than a boondoggle. It could be simplified so that all could easily understand it. Problem is, the tax accountants, CPAs, lawyers and auditors would all need to find new jobs.

I also said that they take a good chunk of our hard-earned money and waste it. Am I wrong? I did not say that I thought that we shouldn't pay taxes.

I agree with paying taxes to provide for military and infrastructure, that doesn't mean that the code is magically coherent. I am former military and I think they should be paid a hell of a lot more than they are for some of the jobs performed.

[ravingnutter]

From Barlett's office...

We have re-scheduled the forum (symposium) for February 27 and 28 in the Science and Technology Committee Hearing Room in the Rayburn House Office Building beginning at 9:00 a.m. each day. A letter of support and confirmation signed by myself and other members of Congress has been drafted, circulated, and will be sent to officials at the Department of Justice, Treasury and the IRS, informing them of the dates and times and requiring their attendance. I will personally chair the event and have invited other members of Congress to attend and sit on the panel.

You have my word as an elected member of the United States Congress that I will do all within my power that this event go forward, the IRS and the DOJ attend as they have promised to do, and are compelled to do by the Constitution.

Text Copy of Congressman Bartlett's Letter

From a previous letter:

It will be a Congressional briefing like hearing with appropriate controls.

Barlett Letter

You might want to take a gander at Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant's note at the bottom of that letter which refers to a "Congressional Briefing".

I'm not saying Schulz and his cohorts are right, just that your interpretation of the events are wrong.

[kevkrom]

Thanks for the clarifications -- that's what I get fot going from a rusty memory rather than looking it up.

[SERE_DOC]

"It is not the job of the IRS to point out logical fallacies"

Since the IRS has the power to destroy a family and ruin one financially, just who would you ask?

The judical system? (you don't have enough horse power)

The elected officals? (you don't have enough money, and they are not going to give up power to ANYONE,especially a lowlife commoner like us)

The IRS? (they don't answer to anyone)

So have a nice day, huff more methane and keep believing the GOV is here to help you.

[CobaltBlue]

Excise taxes are not income taxes.

An excise tax is a tax on a business or an occupation or on consumption, e.g., there is an excise tax on motor fuels, and there is an excise tax on beer and there is an excise tax on cigarettes. There are exise taxes on the sale of real estate, and excise taxes on your telephone bill.

All of which are income to the government but not taxes on your income.

[CobaltBlue]

>> It could be simplified so that all could easily understand it.<<

Yeah, sure. Compute how much income you had last year. Send it in.-g-