Robert Schulz: "No Answers, No Taxes."

I disagree Poohbah, there have been individuals, and a few groups of individuals that have had some correspondence about their concerns. Some have done so in a legal framework, in court. They may, or may not have received some answers along the way.

They most assuredly DID receive answers. Again, they didn't like those answers. I'm sure that murderers dislike the laws prohibiting murder with the same sort of ferocity as the TPers hate the Internal Revenue Code.

Some have won in court, some have lost.

You are mistaken--none have won.

But, they did not go with a formal, legal, constitutional petition for redress of grievance.

Interesting. You attach such meaning to this concept of a "formal, legal constitutional petition for redress of grievance," but there is no definition of such a process in the Constiution.

That is a necessarily formal, first amendment process.

No, it isn't, because the process isn't defined in the document. We have a process for amending the Constitution; we have a process for electing Representatives and Senators; we have a process for electing the electoral college, which in turn elects the President; but we don't have a process for a "formal, legal, constitutional redress of grievance."

I don't believe it has ever been done before.

You can't do what isn't defined. So Schulz's action is semantically void.

One of the reasons that it has not been done thoroughly before is that it costs a lot of money, and it takes a great deal of tenacity.

In other words, it's too much like work for most of the fringe whackos dodging taxes.

Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there?

I start with the founders, and the Constitution if you don't mind. Then I'll evaluate the claims of Mr/ Schulz and his cronies.

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."

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

Seems pretty clear, only point left is who do the tax laws of the National government apply too?

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;"

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;

Now to look at your link for further information about what "wethepeople.org" stands for:

OOP's password and membership is required.

Well there is good ole FR, to help us out.

Bob Schulz Hunger Strike Day Thread 1:

" There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings "

I don't need to look any further to see that Schulz & Friends claims concerning the tax laws of the nation are a pile of Bovine Excretement, and the rest is merely window dressing to dress it up abit. You see FR has been exposed to Bob Schulz' progressions through the past many months trying to legitimize his base message. Don't pay taxes. I don't buy this iteration of the same message any more that his first more blatant expositions.

I just found his original approach was insupportable is all. His credibility is nil and his agenda has not changed in the least. He just tries to put a different approach to it and hide his underlying motivation. Not Pay Taxes.

Poohbah: I find it interesting that you are so desirous of upholding the line that, the popular understanding that whatever the government has done is okay! Surely, there must be something that they may have done wrong, isn't there?

It is totally unfair to compare a person who wishes to stand up for what he considers his rights, and a murderer who would rather not go through a trial! Certainly, you don't think of them as being comparable?

The fact of the matter is, our Constitution is a unique document in all of history. The people, as the Creators, have all the rights, most importantly, the basic rights of freedom, that many take for granted, are considered to predate the Constitution, and are from our beneficent God, and are not subject, at any time to restrictive legislation.

The States, as created entities, were given a number of responsibilites, and the central government, which could get into the most mischief, was highly restricted, put into a box, so to speak. Its power was strictly limited.

There have in fact been victories in court, by those 'protesting' the income tax. I'm not prepared to document those at this moment. Some were not published, which is the courts perogative. But I am not saying that the courts have been friendly to citizen's concerns since the 1930's or so. There are reasons for this, which are beyond the scope of our discussion.

But, I do not concede that this means that the income tax system is okay, and beyond legal reproach! And I don't understand anyone that has looked into the system, saying that.

Perhaps the word 'formal' redress is misunderstood. I mean by that, that we are talking about something which is not casual, an event which is not entered into without knowing what you are doing, from a legal standpoint. In other words, we are talking about something basic to our Bill Of Rights: The First Amendment: ..."or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This is something that Bob Schulz refers to written by Anthony Hargis: ""The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." It is truly a process that has been forgotten, or assumed (improperly), as the right to tell government what you think. Its much more than that!

So, to say that it isn't defined, and therefore, we can't do it, is obviously, on its face, misconstruction of the clear meaning of the first amendment. While this was probably unintentional, its important to clarify that.

There are certain methods of taxation which are not constitutional. Even if the 16th amendment was ratified.

Three federal restrictions,

1) Federal gov can not impose tariffs between the states.
2) Federal gov can not tax foreign exports from any state, and
2) Federal gov can not tax the functions of any state.

Two requirements,

1) direct(e.g. property) and Capitation taxes must be apportioned among the states in accord with state population and,
2) indirect(i.e. on activities, events or exchanges) taxes must be laid by a uniform law among the states.

That's it.

For instance, you still have the right of the fifth amendment, not to incriminate yourself. That is, you do if you do not sign away that right.

Merely giving truthful general information concerning income which is not specific to a committed crime does not infringe upon the 5th amendment. If a question is asked that relates to a crime you have committed, you are free to challenge the specific question or answer it in general terms.

You must be able to demonstrate a "real danger of incrimination" to avoid answer a specific question on the 1040 form.

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.

It is well-settled that a taxpayer may not assert a blanket claim of Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid providing any financial information on an income tax return. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1985); Heitman v. United States, 753 F.2d 33 (6th Cir.1984); Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir.1984); Martinez v. I.R.S., 744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir.1984); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.1984). While the privilege can be invoked in response to particular questions--in proper circumstances where the taxpayer can demonstrate a real danger of incrimination--it cannot be used, in effect, to excuse filing of a return.

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.

The gravamen of this appeal is Heise's argument that he is protected by the fifth amendment from disclosing the information requested and may not be subjected to prosecution for the exercise of that right. The Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, if validly exercised, is a defense to a s 7203 prosecution. Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 662, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).
The court also has held that the privilege does not justify an outright refusal to file an income tax return. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927).
In the present case, Heise asserted the privilege in response to each specific question; however, he did so on such a wholesale basis as to deny the Internal Revenue Service any information with respect to his income for the years 1976 and 1977. This Circuit has held that a tax return which contains no information from which tax liability can be calculated does not constitute a tax return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. See [cites ommitted].
Other circuits also have held that the failure to provide any information in a tax return is tantamount to failure to file any return at all. See, [cites ommitted]. Therefore, Heise's failure to provide the proper financial data on his tax returns amounted to a total failure to file a return. This cannot be justified under the fifth amendment.

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

Drefke argues that 26 U.S.C. ss 7203 and 7205 giving rise to his conviction constitute punishment for failure to give self-incriminating information. Both the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not authorize individuals to refuse to disclose information concerning their income. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927); United States v. Russell, 585 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1978).

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) , 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.

There is something terribly wrong with this system, and We The People, have the right and the obligation to make it right.

Then I suggest addressing the Congress where the problem lay instead of beating your brains out against their minions in the bureaucracy.

PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

"Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

Until you address and impress a change in Congress, you are bound to failure.

I must agree with the last paragraph of your post #18. In fact, I even agree with a significant part of that upon which Shultz bases his schemes. If the Court still based their rulings on "original intent", then Shultz's arguments might stand some very small chance. If that were the case, I might even join you guys. But I know and Shultz knows that decades of case law is working against him and, as such, his schemes can't possibly work. The primary difference between you and me is that I realize that Shultz's crazy schemes are only designed to enrich Shultz. But the real problem is that the more people who promote his schemes, the less likely we are to avoid the outcome that you so understandably predicted in that last paragraph.

Much of what Shultz bases his wacky schemes on is the "original intent" of the Constitution. Would that the courts based their rulings on "original intent", this would be a much better world. However, it has been many generations since either Congress, the Whitehouse or the Court has paid any attention to "original intent". Therefore, any attempt to use the "original intent" of the Constitution as an argument to eliminate the income tax, is doomed to certain failure.

And, as Geezer has so well pointed out, even if you should somehow get the Court to consider "original intent", even that weighs heavily against your position. But, if you look at many of the rulings that Geezer cites in more recent times, you will see that over the years, the Court (and Congress) have moved farther and farther from "original intent". Decades of incremental usurpations of Constitutional guarantees, both in Congress and in the Courts, has made it impossible to use "original intent" as a successful defense in income tax cases (among many others). In particular, the various branches of government will always defer to the Court, since they know that in recent years, the Court has refused to hear such claims, citing the "Enrolled Bill Rule", among other weak justifications.

Petitions for redress, will ultimately end up back in the Court, where they will be dismissed.

That isn't right. It isn't Constitutional. But it is FACT and we have to deal with it.

The ONLY chance of eliminating the income tax has nothing to do with raising even more futile Constitutional arguments, that will only be ignored by a Court that no longer recognizes the "original intent" of the Constitution, since such arguments just waste valuable time and allows income tax supporters to paint the legitimate tax reform movement with the same broad brush of foolishness. Instead, we should all concentrate on the time tested method of voting in Congressional representation that will eliminate the income tax through legislation. Every time any movement gets enough support in Congress, they achieve a large measure of success. It's the one method that has a proven positive track record. That's how we got to where we are. That's how we can get back.

The real problem with people like Shultz, is that his wacky antics make headlines that the opposition (mostly our current lawmakers) quite effectively use to paint not only his supporters, but all people interested in legitimate tax reform, as the same kind of fool that he is, which makes it extremely difficult to get the ballot box support required to put reform minded legislators in office. The warped, though effectve, logic goes like this. Shultz is opposed to the income tax. Shultz is an idiot. Therefore, any candidate who is opposed to the income tax is an idiot. If you vote for an idiot, you are an idiot, by association.

You and I can see the flaw in that logic. But, many uninformed voters think exactly that way. Shultz is seriously hurting the legitimate tax reform movement. Only by distancing ourselves from him and denying him any support, making him look like a lone fool, can we remove his stigma from the legitimate tax reform movement and move forward.

Even if I could make a bjillion dollars, I would never do anything that would bring discredit to the tax reform movement. But, I can understand how a man with no moral conscience might do just that, for much less. In fact, Shultz makes a healthy living by playing the idiot, at the expense of legitimate tax reform. What amazes me is that so many other people, who don't make anything off of it, are so willing to follow his lead.

We have a GREAT deal in common at this point. I certainly agree that the courts don't believe in original intent, except in a academic sense. Of course, that doesn't make their position right (as you say).

As a matter of fact, the consequences you refered to, for continuing on this unconstitutional road to perdition, are very close. You need look no further than the vote yesterday, authorizing the Homeland Security reorganization. I'm not sure that it isn't more surreal to think that you can oppose the direction and velocity of our nation, by tax reform. Bob Schulz is not a fool my friend. You may want to go in another direction, and thats okay. But Bob is no fool, and I would challenge you to show how he is doing this for any other reason than that stated. To revitalize the American people, in their great heritage, the Constitution. I had the chance to meet Bob, and talk with him at some length, during his recent tour through the SouthEast. I believe he is at least as dedicated to tax reform, or as he would call it: Tax Honesty...as you and Geezer. I absolutely believe that. In fact, I am more sure of Bob's agenda, than you, as I was able to interface with him over several days, and get a sense of his mind, and 'guts', his reasoning powers.

Have you done this? He has travelled widely, have you met him? My caution to you would be this...don't be so quick to condemn a fellow citizen who sees the problems, as you do, and has decided to work toward resolution in a different manner than you.

Frankly, I don't think that you will ever be able to get really meaningful reform, to a totally constitutional system, by any method other than a appeal to the people, and their being made aware of the incredible unconstitutional construction of our governmental system. As I continually remind you, this is not just a IRS problem, its much bigger than that!

The problems we all face are not unexpected. Thomas Jefferson and others of our founders told us that we would have to be prepared to defend freedom, or that we would lose it. My appeal to you is this: Get serious about our Constitution, the rule book for the Nation, or prepare for serious consequences of losing our Republic! Welcome every fellow American to that righteous cause.

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.