Posted on 01/16/2003 9:13:51 AM PST by JohnHuang2
There is NO authority in the constitution for unlimited ability to tax, given to the congress.
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."
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,"
However,
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "'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 [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."
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
The scope of taxation is that inherent in paying the bills under all circumances, enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 as limited by the people in their roll of the electorate:
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."
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
Please explain how the any limits of the Constitution are currently being exceeded by the income tax law. Schulz and company nor you for that matter has made the case.
Now, I don't mean to say that they haven't reached outside the 'box' that their powers are inside, to take powers they don't have. Obviously, they have.
You say so, yet you have yet to make your case that they have done so as regards the Income Tax Law.
Obviously, that is the point of contention.
Government officials overeach everyday. That is a point of contention. That has nothing to do with the basic legality and constitutionality of the Income Tax Law in Title 26.
You may want to make it so, but you have yet to make the case regardless of any bad conduct regarding individual officials in elective or appointed office.
Schulz, declares the Income Tax law to be illegal and unconstitutional. That is his issue, misconduct of officials is a sidetrack that can only be addressed on an individual by individual basis in the courts or by impeachment proceeding in the Congress, or electoral process as the case may require on an individual by individual basis.
So not what you so grandly declare as your "point of contention," is not what the Shulz & Company announced reason for grievence is.
.Let me put a sharper point on this.
Whiskey was the trade goods of those "individual" farmers, and was the only money in any real sense readily available to them with which to conduct commerce. That is why they traded in whiskey and not feed stocks such as corn.
If Washington had tried to collect a income tax on the sale of that whiskey, he would have been run out of town!
No tax on whiskey, what do you think an excise is? The label is irrelavent, it is a tax on activity or event, and the tax comes from the proceeds of trade and exchange (i.e)sales.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
- While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
Furthermore those individual from whom the tax was collected rebelled , and Washington called down the militia as Commander in Chief :
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union
Article I Section 8
With full authority of the Consitution to back him up:
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."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people." -- Amendment 9
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X
The power to tax is an enumerated power, to lay a duty or exises is subject only to the rule of uniformity as envisioned by the authors of the Constitution:
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.
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;"
The individual income tax is an excise or duty to which the individual citizen is subject,
wherein is the limit of the Federal government other than that clearly stated by the courts:
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."
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "'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 [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."
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
Through the process of precedent, one justice following the lead of their predecessor, we have arrived at this point.
Under the Judicial Authority of Article III of the Constitution.
My point would be that we, and that includes all the American people had better see about realigning our case law, with the reality of the Constitution.
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."
That shouldn't be that difficult to relate to, especially on the Free Republic website. That's the only real point I am trying to make.
And of course, one can't do that without risk.
Sure you can, pay the income tax, that is indeed constitutional, work for its repeal and replacement through the constitutional routes provided. The Congress and petition to Congess for redress of grievence. Work to force the change through the electorate process.
There are a lot of risks, living in this world, I would say a lot more than we would have, if our government were carefully following every dot and line of our Constitution. I think that is what we all want for our families, for our grandchildren.
Certainly, but advocating violation of the rule of law, where the law in question is clearly within the authority of Congress to enact and the authority of the Executive to administer and enforce, is not upholding or protecting the Constitution nor providing for the blessings of liberty for our Prosterity.
Advocating the violation of law is merely the promotion of anarchy.
I know, as a veteran, that is what I want, and what I will continue to fight for.
As veterans, you and I both took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
First: The Income tax is law under that constitution whether we like the particular law or not. Encouraging its violation by mistatement and misrepresentation of the law is not the way to "protect and defend", it is the way to undermine which is the basis of my rejection of Mr. Schulz and his backers message.
Second: I do not believe that the best way to go after repeal of an income tax, to be Federal Property taxes and Tariffs as Schulz & company advocate.
Third: I do believe the best way to get rid of the income tax and the IRS, is to address the issue to CONGRESS who have the power and authority to change the law and are responsible for the Income and Payroll tax laws the IRS merely administrates under Congress oversight and concurrence. Congess, not the minions and bureaucrats, adn the people are the Principles in this fight.
Schulz & Company ("We The People") miss the point on all three in my estimation and do not warrant my or anyone's support until they change there message, and target.
A lot of government officials are 'overreaching' their authority every day, and it is in reference to Title 26 issues!
That is the claim, however, misfeasance and malfeasence of an official does not make a LAW, unconstituitional. The officials in their personal capacities are indeed subject to the same standards of conduct and of trial under indictment as any other citizen.
Establish the criminal or civil case for malfeasence, fraud, or any number of other criminal and civil abuses to the except standard of proof in the courtroom and justice will be done. Or is it that you are demanding that some persons should not have equal protection of the law?
You have a problem with the IRS as an agency of the government or the administration of that law, your recourse is get Congress to change the agency. Failing that then work to get a Congress that will.
You have a problem with the law, work for it's repeal through lawful means and holding those who have the authority to make such change responsible to the change demanded.
Schulz & Company is doing very little of any of the above, and is in fact addressing the wrong culprits. Congress and holding Congress accountable should be the focus. Not the IRS or the Courts who are merely applying the law written by Congress. To change the behavior of either merely requires a responsive change in the law by Congress to accomplish the desired end. Neither the IRS nor the Courts will respond in the manner you wish without the move by Congress.
For inspite of your oft stated conclusion that the questions have been answered (many times..), they really haven't been answered completely and honestly, yet!
Only in your estimation. You may not like the answers, but liking the answer given is not a reasonable expectation.
Again if you don't like the answers, Congress is the one to address not their minions:
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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 media events for their own agrandizement (promotion of pocket book and political agendas) than listening or looking for real answers.
Change will only come from holding Congress' feet to the fire for any well defined goal. Spacious and unfocused pronouncements such as those of Schulz and those behind them do not meet any standard for expectation of real changes in the offing.
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.