Presented at Freedom Drive 2002, The National Mall, Washington DC November 14, 2002

Acknowledgement: Bob Schulz wishes to acknowledge and thank Anthony Hargis for his fine research paper, "The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." (undated). Bob's speech draws heavily on that research and the underlying documents.

The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people . . . may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People's non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on -- or place their trust in -- the government's willingness to respond to the People's petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I'd like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

Under this heading, all officers of the government are liable, if they strayed from their oath of office.

If we are to secure our Rights, we must rely on the laws of nature and a reasoned sense of innovation. To rely on precedent is to oppress posterity with the ignorance or chains of their fathers. Being forced by the government to rely on precedent is, itself, a grievance.

The sequence of Redress Before Taxes was well established in English law at a time when great numbers of Englishmen traveled to America. They brought with them English history and English law: they brought with them the principle of "taxes with consent"; the unlawfulness of "troops quartered in private homes," of "cruel and unusual punishments," and a whole collection of Rights, such as Redress, Speech, Assembly and Trial by Jury.

Any notion, spurious act of Congress or opinion by a Court that taxes must by paid before Redress is a perversion of Natural Law, of modern English law, of the American Constitution and of Truth and Justice.

The reverse principle of "Taxes Before Redress" is based on the essence of monarchy and kingly power: the king owns everything under his domain. People possess property under a monarch by his grace alone. Since a king owns everything under his domain, he merely has to speak to lawfully dispose of his property. Thus, if a king imposed a tax on land he imposed it on his own land and whoever occupied the land was obligated to pay the tax to the king's treasury. A tax, then, being a part of the king's property, was legally presumed to be in the possession of the king before and after its assessment.

Since the landholder, or landless subject, enjoyed the privilege of tenancy on the land only by the will of the king, he could be required to pay over the tax before he could contest the assessment--or redress a grievance.

Thus, the theory that a tax must be paid before redress rests on the presumption that society is organized as a monarchy; that all people living therein exist by grace of an autocrat--whether one man or an assembly of men. This proposition was soundly rejected by the Founders in designing our unique system of governance.

In America, such presumptions constitute grievances. The first duty of any officer is to uphold the Constitution-- the entire Constitution, without reservation and without bribery or blackmail.

Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievance naturally includes the ability to compel admissions--the production of information and answers to questions.

Jefferson wrote, "The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, . . . has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."

According to the Right of Redress, as the Founders described it, we have a right to withhold taxes if government violates our rights. But, as American courts describe the Right, we must suffer the injury, pay the taxes, and only then, sue for Redress against an adversary with unlimited resources.

The idea that taxes are to be paid before redress is asserted by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code at Section 7241, which states, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person . . . ."

How repugnant! American government is supposed to be organized to protect American citizens; but section 7241 authorizes the IRS to destroy them with impunity and the judiciary is cooperating with the executive and legislative branches in a collective decision to deny the People their constitutional Rights. Such acts of government are unconstitutional and must be stopped.

In America, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances is the basis of our liberty. Our founders explicitly recognized this right in the first amendment to our constitution -- for they understood that without it, we could not have a servant government whose power is defined and limited by the consent of the people.

In America, the right to petition our government for a Redress of Grievances is an unalienable right. It derives from our faith in a supreme being - an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government's absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people's petition.

This is the essential cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty -- a government of the People, by the People and for the People.

In 1791, the right to petition became primary among the Rights of the People of the United States of America, as expressed in, and guaranteed by, the First Amendment.

Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech; that this vital constitutional protection - the very basis of our liberty - is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petitions -- or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that result in our petitions. Some would even go so far as to say it is merely a Right to complain, with no expectation of response.

This is nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We will not listen to those who would denigrate our Constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or "sharing bedrooms" with tyrants.

We must guard against this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. We must recognize that even in the long run government can never be rational, without a principled Constitution firmly rooted in Liberty. Government has but one legitimate purpose -- to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to the People.

The right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection -- the final, peaceful check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant.

The way the system is now working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. The servant is taking over the House: the government has brought us to the brink; the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Not only is the government neglecting its duties, it is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around its powers.

First: In violation of the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution, the President has colluded with the Congress to pass legislation that authorizes the President to apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities in Iraq without a congressional Declaration of War.

Second: In a hasty response to widespread fear and panic following 9/11, our elected representatives voted on the "U.S.A. Patriot Act" (with many having not read it), which by the plain language of the Act, violates and seizes a number of the unalienable rights of the People.

Third: Our government has relinquished direct control of the monetary system of this nation to a privately owned central bank and has transformed our money into nothing but limitless debt. And, a significant portion of the Federal Reserve stock is held by foreign entities.

And Fourth, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service reneged on their July 2001 agreement to appear at a public forum to answer the People's Remonstrance and well-documented legal charges directly asserting the lack of statutory or Constitutional authority for the federal income tax and the systemic abuses of our unalienable rights in the daily operations of the IRS.

Let us thank our forefathers for their vision, foresight and innate understanding of the nature of man, political power, and government corruption in recognizing the explicit right of the People to petition their government for redress.

On October 7, 2002, four Petitions for Redress of these grievances were posted on the internet. The four Petitions, signed by thousands of American citizens who reside in all 435 Congressional Districts, were hand delivered to the offices of each member of the House of Representatives and each member of the Senate (in Washington DC) on November 8, 2002 (last Friday). Then, the Petitions were each formally served on the President on the twelfth.

The Petitions address specific constitutional grievances relating to: 1) the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution; 2) the privacy, due process and free speech clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act; 3) the money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System; and 4) the tax-related clauses of the Constitution and the federal Income Tax system.

With the exception of the Income Tax Petition, the Petitions for Redress include specific questions, which We the People expected to be answered. The Petitions respectfully requested each congressperson and the President to send a representative to meet with the People at 2 P.M. today, right here on the National Mall, to either answer the questions OR tell the People when the questions will be answered.

With respect to the Income Tax Petition, we are further along. Those questions have already gone unanswered by the government following its receipt of an earlier Petition for Redress. The current, second, Petition on the Income Tax Grievances moved the petitioning process to the next level with its list of demands. There is more to the petitioning process than the mere submittal of the "despised" petitions.

With today's failure to respond, we can see a clear pattern. Our elected representatives do not feel compelled to respond to the People.

We must take the appropriate next step. As of two o'clock today, the government has left us no choice but to engage in civil action--a pro-active, non-violent mass movement, with the explicit goal of restoring the Republic by bringing the government back under the control of the People and our Rule Book--the Constitution of the United States of America.

This meeting here on the National Mall is the culmination of Freedom Drive 2002. On November 8, citizens from across the nation began driving in caravans toward Washington DC, to peaceably assemble here to await the government's response to their Petitions.

We appear to have reached the point where the institutions of the Court and the Congress and the Executive have failed in their Constitutional duty to protect the people from tyranny, The government is refusing to answer the People's allegations of governmental wrongdoing. Unless the People withhold their money from the government their grievances will fall on deaf ears and Liberty will give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary, economic servitude.

Every adult in this nation has a personal duty and a moral responsibility, that stem directly from our heritage, to repel the tyrannical acts of those to whom the People have granted well defined and limited powers.

The right to Petition is the foundation of Popular Sovereignty and is the direct vehicle for the peaceful, non-violent resolution of matters involving errant government. This right is the procedural mechanism that enables the People to call any branch of their servant government before them.

In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny -- our Constitution, and our will as a free people to protect and defend it.

These petitions are about us -- We the People. They are proof of our resolve to correct our government?s abusive and unlawful behavior.

As a People, who are we? And who do we want to be? What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and future generations of Americans?

Again, we ask: What does a free People do when confronted with a government that refuses to honor, and systemically schemes to evade, the boundaries and limitations established for it by We the People?

We stand at the brink of a Constitutionally unauthorized war and the meltdown of a monetary system based on the endless conjuring of debt. Under the guise of "protecting" us from terrorists, our government is attempting to seize our most fundamental rights and deprive us of their protections. To finance it all, the IRS and the Department of Justice use intimidation by, and the power of, the police state to enforce and prosecute offenses of tax "laws" --- yet they continue to refuse to cite the specific legal authority that purportedly allows them to enforce those laws.

If the People fail to act, we will end forever the chapter in human history when a People reigned sovereign, and the chains of a written constitution limited and bound their government to their service.

We came for answers, but we did not get them. Now we demand that our government obey the Constitution, which, after all is a strongly worded set of principles to govern the government, not the people.

By the terms and provisions of the Constitution the People have not only formed their government and enabled the government to act in certain ways, they have purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain other ways.

The nature of our resistance is clear. It is not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it is an act of resistance to a government that is violating the purposes for which the Creator -- through the People and the Constitution -- has ordained civil government.

We are not "anti-war." We are not "anti-tax." We are "pro-constitution" and "anti-fraud."

Thus far we have pursued peaceful reconciliation and petition. It is the President and the Congress who have refused to respond to our Petitions for Redress of Grievances, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

We did not initiate this conflict. We have been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and have pursued that course for decades.

We have no desire for resistance or violence of any kind. However, in the People's peaceful reconciliation attempts, the People's petitions and appeals have been met with force, and in some instances with near- military force.

The defense of our homes, families, properties and possessions is a most important point to us. It is our heritage. It is our Right.

There is not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of America, but of defending our personal Rights, Freedoms and Liberties from unjust encroachment.

There was not the least desire of withdrawing our allegiance from the leaders of the branches until it became absolutely necessary -- and, indeed, it has been their own choice.

They know that we, the People, struggle for that freedom to which all men are entitled -- that we struggle against oppression, seizure, plunder, extortion and more than savage barbarity.

We are not moved by any light or hasty suggestion of anger or revenge. Through every possible change of fortune we adhere peaceably to this determination.

Our property and happiness have been attacked. Our self-defense against an aggressor government is righteous.

Our civil action is for the cause of civil justice -- a righteous struggle, undertaken in defense of our property, our happiness and our families. It is to oppose the invasions of usurped power. We will bravely suffer present hardships and face future dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom for generations yet unborn.

It is our obligation, as responsible citizens of this country, to set a proper value upon, and to defend to the utmost, our just rights and the blessings of Life and Liberty. Without this personal commitment, a few unprincipled individuals would tyrannize the People, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that civil action is not only justifiable, but an indispensable duty to correct these wrongs.

It is upon these principles that we are resisting the government and will oppose force with force.

Any wage earner who gives money to the federal government and any employer who withholds money from the paychecks of working Americans is undermining the People's Rights, Freedoms and Liberties. Under the present circumstances, their behavior must be considered to be un-American.

As our Founders said so clearly: "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

No Answers, No Taxes

I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just TP'rs don't like the answer does not in anyway invalidate them.

Answers from the Founders:

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

"the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

"A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government"

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Madison, 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;"

James Madison, 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] sic Congress will have to REQUIRE them of individual citizens;"

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
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.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.

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."

Consideration received in exchange for labor or product is commerce, subject to an indirect tax.

Answers from the Supreme Court:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

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

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."

"Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

"We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

"The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."

"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

"in the Pollock Case , in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

Answers from the Congress:

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

[Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."

[Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.

[Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.

[Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

Answers from the Treasury Department & IRS:

26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861

NonFiler Enforcement Program

Answers from the Department of Justice & Jurys:

DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, TAX PROTESTERS.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??

CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

Answers from the Legal Community:

The Tax Protestor FAQ

Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery

Government has met its burden and answered the relavent questions as regards the income tax, officially and repeatedly.

It seems me Schulz & Company are more interested in a media event for his own agrandizement (promotion of his pocket book and political agenda) than listening or looking for real answers.

You can find them

I've seen the list, and analyzed their basis. They boil down to nothing at all, that is not answered above.

The bottom line, the income tax as it is applied to wages & salaries is not dependant upon the 16th Amendment.

The tax on occupations, trades, professions and employments, is and always has been within the power of Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution to lay and collect duties and excises uniform among the United States since the writing of the Constitution of 1887, as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation of 1776.

The entire premise of Schulz and his cohort of scammers is destroyed by the Constitution, the words of its chief proponents and the meaning of the language of the period:

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.

Federalist #21:

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it.

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;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

But, I, for one, would like to see the answers from the government that is paid to do that.

Who in Government are are looking for answers from? Schulz looks to get answers from bureaucrats who cannot authoratatively answer his questions nor are the paid to answer is questions any other way than they have, for they are only minions and spokesman of the real culprits, Congress and the American People who elect Congresses.

I don't see Schulz addressing his complaints of high and abusive taxation to either.

What answers are you looking for that have not already been answered and you should be able to answer for yourself?

Has there been an assult on our liberties as we compare to what we had even 50 years ago?

Yes.

Has State and National government attempted to extend it exercise of power to the boundries of what that the Constitution enumerates and tested the limits of its authority therein?

Yes

Have the American People allowed even encourage this testing of Constitutional limits?

Yes

Has State and National government gone beyond any reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause in extending authority over the individual at the insistence of the American People?

Yes.

Has State and National government gone beyond what I consider to be the boundries of the Bill of Rights in its quest for control, and the quest for security by the American People?

Yes.

What is your responsibility to answer Schulz' questions?

Total! You are a soveriegn citizen, or so Schulz & company claim. It is you the citizen that must be the basis of change, for you make the Congress, and demand the services the bureaucracies are tasked to administer.

Do any of those questions, say anything about abuse of the enumerated power of Congress to lay and collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

No! For the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes from the individual as opposed to the state is the 1st enumerated power in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is one of the primary reasons the Constitution was written and ratified by the people of the founding of our nation.

Three of the Five Judges of the first Supreme Court were proponents of the Constitution and delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and had this to say about the enumerated power to tax given to Congress under the Constitution:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

Furthermore the Court has made it very clear as to who ultimately hold the responsibility to change things that are not right.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

"The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."

For,

LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

"It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."

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."

Lane Co. v. Oregon (1868), 74 U.S. [7 Wall.] 71:

[T]he people, through the constitution of the United States, 'established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the states.' In no other way can the supremacy of that constitution be maintained. It creates a government in fact as well as in name, because its constitution is the supreme law of the land, 'anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding;' and its authority is enforced by its power to regulate and govern the conduct of individuals, even where its prohibitions are laid only upon the states themselves.

Thus:

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

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the [income] tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

"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."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."

"Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.

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."

I suggest that Schulz and folks are barking up the wrong tree, if they want answers to their tax questions.

I submit Schulz & Company are asking the wrong questions if they figure on addressing the fundamental problems regarding impositions on individual liberty in this republic.

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.