Posted on 04/14/2018 12:31:06 PM PDT by ameribbean expat
PORTLAND, ORE. A federal judge has dismissed a tax evasion charge against a man who describes himself as a Christian who refuses to give money to the government to support abortion.
The Oregonian/OregonLive reported Thursday the judge ruled that the government failed to provide evidence that Michael Bowman tried to conceal or mislead government officials. Prosecutors accused Bowman of not filing an accurate tax return since at least 1997.
Bowman said he's been up front with the Internal Revenue Service, refusing to file a return or pay taxes since 1999 without some accommodation afforded to him for religious beliefs.
The charge was dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could seek a new indictment. Assistant U.S Attorney Donna Maddux said the government is considering options.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The Government has not established any religion. It permits banks to offer Sharia-compliant banking for customers who want it, just as it permits restaurants to serve kosher food to customers who want it. Those banks are still regulated by the banking regulators and must follow all U.S. laws.
The judge did not uphold his claim of religious exemption; he still faces criminal charges for failure to file. The judge dismissed the most serious charge (tax evasion) because the indictment didn't allege that he lied to the IRS or did anything to mislead it.
I haven’t filed in almost 2 decades. Everything is fine.*
*Individual results may vary
thanks.
I think this guy has a better case than someone claiming they do not want to fund the military. Funding our military is one of the powers of congress enumerated in the Constitution, while funding abortions is not.
"Bowman said he's been up front with the Internal Revenue Service, refusing to file a return or pay taxes since 1999 without some accommodation afforded to him for religious beliefs."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
While I appreciate Mr. Bowman's argument, please consider the following.
If the states were teaching school children about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as they should be doing, including the fed's limited power to appropriate taxes, then Mr. Bowman, and probably most other taxpayers, would probably be able to argue the following points against federal taxes.
Mr. Bowman could not only argue federal funding for abortion is unconstitutional, but that most other federal spending programs are unconstitutional as well imo.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
In fact, military issues aside, citizens can argue that if a given federal spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service (1.8.7) then the program is unconstitutional, and probably be right most of the time.
So why are citizens now paying unconstitutional federal taxes?
Based on the excerpt above from Gibbons v. Ogden, note that one of the reasons that the Founding States established the federal Senate was so that the Senate could kill unconstitutional House appropriations bills (1.7.1), bills that not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues uniquely associated with those powers.
In fact, the Founding States had originally given the power to vote for federal senators uniquely to state lawmakers (1.3.1), not ordinary voters. This is because the founders had expected senators to protect their respective states from the feds partly by killing unconstitutional House appropriations bills, bills that steal state revenues and ultimately citizens' wallets.
So how did citizens allow the unconstitutionally big federal government to drown them in unconstitutional taxes, citizens now basically paying unconstitutional taxes to the feds on a silver platter, particularly since the time of the FDR Administration?
Consider that the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement successfully spooked low-information citizens, citizens who were evidently clueless about the fed's constitutionally limited powers, into pressuring state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A). And state lawmakers foolishly caved in and ratified 17A, foolishly giving up their voices in Congress by doing so.
What's been going on more and more since 17A was ratified is this. Lawmakers in both Houses long ago discovered that they could exploit low-information voters in the following way. Career lawmakers win their votes by promising citizens every kind of federal spending program under the sun.
The problem is such voters are probably clueless that, military issues aside, most spending programs of the constitutionally limited power federal government are unconstitutional according the Gibbon v. Ogden excerpt above.
In other words, constitutional lawmakers had expected citizens in each state to work with their state lawmakers, not the feds, to establish the social spending programs that they wanted.
"... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
The remedy for the unconstitutionally big federal government that misguided voters have created …
It is entirely up to us patriots to finish the job that we started when we elected Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting, state sovereignty-respecting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots. Such candidates need to commit to supporting Pres. Trump to lead the states to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Patriots then need to pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
Consider that we also need to move tax day from April 15 to the last working day before election day.
And until the states wake up and repeal 17A, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of the outcome of Alabama's and Pennsylvania's special elections, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
You don’t actually have to file as long as you withhold more than you owe.
You do have to file to get a refund.
Heck, if this were allowed, everyone would say they oppose this or that specific government spending, just to trim their tax bill.
___________________
Picture the nightmare!
People would get to keep their own money!!
:)
Nightmare?
This could be the beginning of a precedent to eliminate the 16th Amendment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.