My Disappointment Over a Tax Crime Trial

[notorial dissent]

I think to go with what observer has said, that in order form most TP's to make the asinine claims and stories and theories they come up with, they have to be intimately familiar with or at the very least aware of the very tax laws they claim they don't know about or understand. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, disingenuousness, and just plain hypocrisy, in other words SOP for TP's, and whining Bobby. Now see Bobby, that wasn't so hard or much of a leap.

[LPC]

I think to go with what observer has said, that in order form most TP's to make the asinine claims and stories and theories they come up with, they have to be intimately familiar with or at the very least aware of the very tax laws they claim they don't know about or understand. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, disingenuousness, and just plain hypocrisy,

That's what I was trying to say before.

If you are being prosecuted for willfully failing to file (or filing false returns, or tax evasion, or whatever), and your defense is that you misunderstood the meaning of "income" in Southern Pacific v. Lowe (or Eisner v. Macomber, or whatever), I think that the jury can properly ask itself (and the prosecution can properly ask the jury), why the hell are you reading Southern Pacific v. Lowe?

If you're confused by the instructions to Form 1040, that's one thing. But if you go outside the instructions to Form 1040, outside the text of the Internal Revenue Code, and outside of the text of regulations issued by the U.S. Treasury and start reading various historical Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of "income," I think it's legitimate to question why you're doing that, and to question whether you are honestly trying to comply with the law or dishonestly trying to find a rationale to evade the law.

[notorial dissent]

That's what I was trying to say before.

Yes, actually you did, and did very well, as well as some other very good and telling points, and I got distracted and spaced mentioning it.

[bobhurt]

And then there's your plug for Michael Minns, whom you call "the best tax defense lawyer in America". We've actually reviewed Minns' record. Here, let me help:

Diane Goulder Steiniger. Convicted on all counts. Top count: evasion.

Michael Diesel, 05-cr-20005 (KS). Convicted on all counts. Top count: false return.

Richard Hatch, 05-cr-00098 (RI). Convicted on top three counts (evasion).

Denny Patridge, 04-cr-20031 (ILCD). Convicted on multiple counts of evasion and money laundering.

Paul Harris, 02-cr-00541 (CO). Convicted of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Pamela Moran, 02-cr-00423 (WAWD). Minns was cocounsel with a local federal defender named Jon Zulauf. Moran was acquitted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and related charges. Good job by someone, can't tell who.

Wayne Anderson, 01-cr-00180 (CAED): convicted on top count (money laundering).

Pedro Rivera, 98-cr-00142 (TXND): convicted on multiple counts of evasion.

Frank J. Masiarczyk, Jr., 97-cr-00039 (WVND): convicted on all counts (conspiracy to defraud the U.S., evasion).

Jill Ann Proctor, 97-cr-00022 (OKND): convicted on all counts (false returns).

Bianca Apusen, 96-cr-00082 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to two counts of false returns.

Gary Harris, 94-cr-00353 (OHND): convicted of top count (evasion).

Joseph Delvecchio, 93-cr-14038 (FLSD): acquitted.

William Bussey, 91-cr-00064 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to false returns.

Emmett Doyle, 90-cr-00006 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to failure to file.

Roy Powell, 89-cr-00085 (AZ): convicted on all counts (failure to file).
You don't imagine that extolling the virtues of a lawyer - who incidentally lost 14 of the 16 cases he tried - might "leave earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax", do you?

Well tell me, wserra, how many criminal cases have you won against the IRS/DOJ? Let's see your track record.

[JamesVincent]

Well tell me, wserra, how many criminal cases have you won against the IRS/DOJ? Let's see your track record.

Show me one place where Wes claimed to be "the best tax defense lawyer in America". We'll wait.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Bob, being "the best" at what amounts to a losing cause seems somehow pointless.

[bobhurt]

You who delight in demeaning me don't risk much because I am not practitioner. I am merely a student. I don't pretend that I make no mistakes. At the same time, I don't cloak my identity like a pack of radical islamic or Ku Klux Klan terrorists. Nor do I demean people for their sincere efforts to understand the law or litigation. Had I attended law school, I might have early learned the significance of statutory construction. That might have made it less likely that I would misconstrue or misunderstand areas of law that seem to cause a lot of confusion, dissent, etc.

But when you stoop to LIE about excellent attorneys like Michael Minns who routinely beat the biggest, most powerful and resourceful, unlimited-budget law firm in the world, or cheer on such liars, your show your true colors as disingenuous sissy bullies and terrorists. I'd like to see any of you in the ring against Michael Louis Minns for 60 seconds. You probably wouldn't last a quarter of that. And I doubt that you'd fare any better against him in court.

I did a little research of my own. The list of 16 cases you listed in this thread was itself a lie. Michael Minns didn't try 5 of them, 3 of which were plea bargains.. That means the 2 acquittals comprised about 20%. Whom among you has won 20% of your cases against the IRS and DOJ? Furthermore, he actually won 90% or more of the counts in those cases.

Dian Steiniger fired Minns because of some Quatloosian-types badmouthing him, and that explains why she got convicted - he never tried the case.

Minns won 7 out of 10 counts in the Richard Hatch case, 27 out of 31 counts in the Paula Harris and Gary Harris case, 6 out of 8 counts in the Pedro Rivera case, and all 64 of the counts in the Pamela Moran case (he hired Zulauf as local counsel).

Minns didn't try the Denny Patridge case.

Masiarczyk wouldn't allow Minns to handle the appeal.

In the Bianca Apusen case, Minns got her father and sister off, and she had been facing 20 years. Most honest people would consider that a significant win.

Minns won Emmett Doyle's appeal after Doyl spent 14 months in prison, he got Doyle a new trial, and Doyle plead guilty to 1 misdemeanor and did no more jail time. That was one of the biggest wins in the annals of income tax litigation.

Minns won all but 2 counts in the Wayne Anderson case, and won one of them on appeal.

And most significant, Minns won about 200 not-guilty verdicts for his clients over the past 37 years. I guess wserra couldn't research that.

Michael Louis Minns has a STELLAR litigation record. I consider that even more phenomenal because he defends people against the most powerful law firm in the world.



As for the rest of your snotty remarks in this thread, note that they have little to do with the tone, timbre, and salient message in the commentary I wrote. I do appreciate the comments of those of you who use this pulpit to educate. I don't appreciate the sissy bullying.

[Arthur Rubin]

the biggest, most powerful and resourceful, unlimited-budget law firm in the world,

is not the IRS, DoJ, or even the US government as a whole.

There appears to be some dispute about Minns's record. IMO, if criminal sentences are usually concurrent, then the number of counts dismissed or of which the defendant is acquitted is irrelevant. In fact, in many criminal tax cases, a single action could be subject to only one of two different counts, so a 50% acquittal rate is nothing.

On the other hand, a great criminal defense attorney should have the charges dismissed before trial, so there would be little record of his success.

I suspect there are few criminal lawyers (ambiguity intended) on this board; but a high success rate would be an indication that the lawyer only takes easy cases, not that he's good. I'm not sure what the appropriate measure of success would be. Quite possibly discussion in third-party treatises. I don't have access to indices, but I suspect Minns is singularly absent in law review articles. LPC, on the other hand....

[wserra]

I have no problem with Minns' record per se. Depending on the cases he takes on, he may have a good record. Federal court is a tough place to defend criminal cases. My problem is what "the best tax defense lawyer in America" says about himself.

For example, the very first words one sees when one goes to his site: "If you are accused of a tax crime and you don't have Michael Minns or his book, pack your toothbrush and tell the family you're going to be a guest of the Feds for a while." So we're to understand that all you need to do to send DOJ packing is to buy Minns' book? I'll bet that's a lot cheaper than Minns. Why hire him? And Minns is the only one who can get you off? For that matter, Bob, even you appear to agree that Minns got acquittals only in "about 20%" of his federal trials. That's not necessarily a bad record at all. But shouldn't he start his site with "If you are accused of a tax crime and you do have Michael Minns or his book, 80% of you should pack your toothbrush and tell the family you're going to be a guest of the Feds for a while"? Seems more accurate.

Furthermore, he actually won 90% or more of the counts in those cases.
...
Minns won 7 out of 10 counts in the Richard Hatch case, 27 out of 31 counts in the Paula Harris and Gary Harris case, 6 out of 8 counts in the Pedro Rivera case

Especially in a Guidelines case, that's all but meaningless, Bob. It's entirely possible that the sentence that results from the conviction of less-than-all counts is exactly the same as the sentence that would result from conviction of every count. Take Wesley Snipes. He was acquitted of the tax felonies but convicted of three misdemeanors. He received three one-year sentences, back-to-back, the max. Would he have gotten more if convicted of evasion or corrupt interference? Quite likely, yes, because the actual sentence was limited by the one-year max on the misdemeanor counts. But acquittal of some felonies and conviction of others may well make no difference at all. We'd need the details. Similarly with a plea - it could be a major victory, an abject defeat, or simply cutting one's losses. There's no way to know without details.

There is no such animal as "the best tax lawyer in America", Bob, if only because you don't know all of them. And, if you did, we'd have to rely on your judgment.

As for my own record - well, Bob, I haven't practiced federal criminal defense in fifteen years. Most of my criminal cases were pre-PACER, but some are there. I did in fact get acquittals in major cases. I also got convictions in major cases. I have won on appeal, and lost on appeal. But I'm not going to publicize names, because (a) it wouldn't mean anything without the details, and (b) those folks have been through enough.

[Llwellyn]

As I watched the defendant's nightmare unfold, I wondered what feat of logic possessed the judge to think it possible that a defendant who committed alleged crimes because of belief about the meaning or applicability of the law could possibly defend against the accusations without fully discussing the source of the belief that the law did not apply to the defendant.

After all, a trial over whether someone committed a violent murder seldom has to do with confusion over the law or its meaning. Rather, it has to do with the facts. But when the issue has first to do with the meaning and application of the law, shouldn't the court allow the parties to present their related arguments?

Yes, I muse over the apparent injustice of a conviction in a court that allowed no discussion of the law or whether it applies or does not apply. Do not mistake my musing as confusion. I have absolutely NO confusion about one reality. If the defendant in a case like this cannot prove reliance on some authority (like written advice of a lawyer or CPA) suggesting that the defendant does not have to file a return or pay income tax, the jury will convict the defendant.

If the patriot or tax protester communities of the USA ever hope to beat the IRS/DOJ in a tax issue like this, they really need to take a different approach.

A snippit from your opening post.. that I find a little flawed. Your comment about murder and confusion etc there has actually be dealt with in courts (here in Canada) - See any posting or reference to the Shafia Family Murders, where under their religious structure/beliefs, they had the RIGHT and NEED to kill those in their own family from violating the 'Honor Code' they lived by. (Murder of 3 daughters, and 1 poly-wife). They attempted to use this Honor Code and religious structure as their defense. (This still occurs in a number of foreign countries, where religious beliefs rule more than common sense? it seems).

Under their belief, they had to kill these people and they were 'legally' safe and required to do so. Like the person in your court case, it was THEIR belief.. not that of the society, not that of the governing body, and not that of the court/justice system .. that they need not pay taxes.
They misinterpreted the law? may hap, they didn't understand the law.. many possibilities, but in the end - ignorance of the law is no excuse - If they were confused, they could have gotten advice. They could have made the effort to be actually informed, and not fall into the common and flawed Tax Protester/Sovrun/Freeman/what-ever-else-scam. But, when you believe everyone is part of a conspiracy, there' no one left to talk to but other conspiracy nuts.

Llwellyn

[Judge Roy Bean]

Bob, your argument for Mimms is like trying to get a bookie to pay off on a losing football bet when the team you bet on to win lost the game but gained more yards on the ground than the opponent.

Can you point to any case in which Mimms was able to obtain a ruling that invalidated any part of the tax law on behalf of his client? That's an honest question - I don't know if he has or not although I must say I have my doubts.

Until the root TP arguments as to the validity of the tax is won, the statistics on criminal convictions and sentencing don't mean much.

[bobhurt]

I maintain that three simple realities clarify the income tax dispute:

1. The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it. As I understand it, Congress MUST impose the income tax through an excise-like mechanism, and must NOT collect it directly from people OR implement it as a direct tax on property. I see, any contrary interpretation of the tax code as dead wrong, and as an essential element of establishing a Communist dictatorship. And I see the traditional Quatloosian hoots and cat-calls against that understanding as highly similar to the crowd that bellowed about the lovely clothing that the naked king wore. The clothing did not exist, and neither does the constitutional authority to steal money directly from people in the guise of legitimate taxation.

2. The Congress (through the convoluted tax code), IRS (through refusal ever to discuss the laws they follow and enforce), DOJ (through finagling judges to disallow discussion of law), and courts (through disallowing discussion of law) seem to have conspired to allow a mafia-like operation to squeeze money out of people wrongfully, destroying many families as a consequence. HELL NO people don't want to pay income tax, and HELL NO it isn't a rightful tax as implemented.

3. In view of the foregoing, Income taxation is a POLITICAL matter, for no litigation means exists to challenge it successfully. The Supreme Court said as much by refusing to allow court testing of the ratification and enactment of the 16th Amendment. I personally believe nothing short of violent rebellion will repair it because 25% of the voter base is too stupid to graduate from high school, much less vote intelligently, another 25% is just as irresponsible, owing to apathy about government and to deficient educations, and another 15% or thereabouts is brainwashed into believing the USA actually needs the income tax when Congress borrows all it needs to run the country, fight endless no-win wars, and sustain the irresponsible through unconstitutional largess.

Within the scope of all that, I see men like Michael Minns as heroes. His successes prove that the IRS and DOJ operate like a pack of crooks and mobsters. And owing to wrong public policy, the courts favor them. In spite of that favor, they lose a lot of counts against competent attorneys, counts that the DOJ never should have lodged and the grand juries never should have issued indictments on to begin with. Because of the incompetence among many defense attorneys, and the monumental expense and effort the people must expend to keep the IRS from stealing them blind without going to court, the IRS does in fact rob the productive American public blind day in and day out. And that remains true EVEN IF the considered implementation of the income tax is fully legitimate. The IRS is a pack of THIEVES, and the wins of lawyers like MINNS proves it. Those thieves would have stolen much more but for the successful efforts of good lawyers like Michael Louis MINNS.

As to integrity of leaders in the "tax honesty" movement, whom you call tax-protesters, I believe most of them file returns and pay taxes accordingly, or they doom themselves to languish in federal prison when the IRS and DOJ close in on them. The IRS and DOJ target them, do their best to get the court to convict them and sentence them to long stretches in prison, then advertise the conviction and sentencing widely for deterrent purposes. And we didn't need the news media noise about the IRS targeting of Tea Party organizers and members to know the IRS has become part of intensely crooked Democrat political machinery. After all, managers and agents can earn secret cash awards of $35,000 awards from the half-billion-dollar fund Congress allocates annually for attaboy awards for Government employees and others who help in politically motivated projects.

Yes, government has valid tax collection functions. In my opinion, for the above reasons, income tax as implemented is not one of them, in spite of the fact that the courts punish many of those who protest by refusing to file or pay. I believe the Religious Technology Center showed how to deal with IRS/DOJ thuggery - file hundreds or thousands of lawsuits against the government for that thuggery. I consider the filing of tens of thousands of lawsuits in reaction to IRS abuse an intensely valid, effective, and benign political weapon against the abusive implementation of income tax.

Meanwhile I do not recommend that tax protesters put themselves and their families at risk by refusing to file returns or pay taxes that the law, as the IRS, DOJ, and Courts construe it, require. Rather, I recommend arranging one's life and affairs so as lawfully to avoid all tax possible, file returns, and pay the minimum possible, then use the time in political activism which one would have spent defending against an IRS/DOJ attack. I have yet to learn of any tax protester effectively becoming politically active from federal prison.

I believe Quatloosians have no reason NOT to endorse the above paragraph wholeheartedly, for it demonstrates clearly that one need not snipe like a terrorist at the delusional, outraged, misfortunate, partly-informed Americans who make tax-related mistakes that put them on the IRS radar and cause them legal problems.

As for those tax protesters who delude, misinform, deceive, etc, it should suffice to identify them on Quatloos and eruditely show the errors in their pronouncements WITHOUT the hatefulness and carping snidery.

[Dezcad]

The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it. As I understand it,
(bolding added)

{snip}

In my opinion, for the above reasons, income tax as implemented is not one of them,
(bolding added)

This is the fundamental problem - in the American jurisprudence system, it is not your opinion, my opinion or the opinion of others in this forum that matter.


The judicial branch's opinion is that which matters. All most of us do here is state what the judicial branch's opinion is, as that is the opinion that matters in the American jurisprudence system.

I'm of the opinion that the US should have a consumption or use tax instead of an income tax but that opinion does not change the reality of what is the law, as defined and interpreted within our American jurisprudence system.

Trying, or helping to try, to convince others, that your opinion (or mine) is RIGHT, in our system, is the real issue. And the attempt to convince others is what causes harm as it is misleading as to what or whose opinions matter.

[bobhurt]

And that's why I say the problem is political and abusive income tax won't get fixed in court.

I also want to make another point about Quatloosian's comments generally. Yes, I see what I consider the equivalent of terrorist sniping at tax protesters. But I also see a considerable effort to inform and explain, and I imagine much of the snidery comes from frustration over the inability to make the education soak into the suspicious and distrustful minds of tax protesters. You have not wasted those efforts on me. I look at tax protesters as foolish who do not immunize themselves from theft of their assets, and who protest by not filing and not paying the minimum they "lawfully" (in light of present judicial climate) get by with.

I believe the trouble with most tax protesters lies in their deficient education, their fundamental ignorance of the factors that will make them lose their tax battles, and their lack of preparation. And I don't know many who work for a living and have the time or inclination to study the organic law, tax code, regulations, court opinions, and underlying history, philosophy, and technology of law, necessary to prepare properly for legal combat. I think most of them do not believe their professional advisers and consider those advisers a cross between ostriches and cowards. I believe they think they have a special understanding because of information they have studied which their advisers have not. And so they don't trust the professional advisers, and for the most part don't bother consulting or heeding them.

Quatloosians might do a lot to repair that tax protester thinking.

[Arthur Rubin]

Although your "legal" and "constitutional" interpretations are not credible, you do bring up one point.

believe the trouble with most tax protesters lies in their deficient education, their fundamental ignorance of the factors (such as the law)that will make them lose their tax battles, and their lack of preparation. ... I think most of them do not believe their professional advisers and consider those advisers a cross between ostriches and cowards. I believe they think they have a special understanding because of information they have studied which their advisers have not. And so they don't trust the professional advisers, and for the most part don't bother consulting or heeding them.

Quatloosians might do a lot to repair that tax protester thinking.

Any ideas? The "information they have studied" is either incorrect or unrelated to current law. Any ideas how to convince them? I can't speak for all, but I believe we would rather have "tax protesters" protest the law without violating present law. What would convince you that you do not have a "special understanding"?

You seem to be advising people, not to follow the law, and (admirably), not to not get caught, but to have have no visible assets.

Personally, I don't care if they believe fictions such as the income tax being illegal, or that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as long as they don't act on those beliefs. No, that's not true. I do care, as contradictions may affect their psychological well-being. But I think it would be generally better if they follow the law as generally understood, and work to change the law where appropriate, even if they do not believe it to be law, than to act on their mistaken beliefs as to the law. It would be better still to change those beliefs to comport with reality.

[Duke2Earl]

1. The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it.

Not to be argumentative, but the real problem is that you don't seem to recognize the possibility that your understanding may be simply wrong.

[JamesVincent]

1. The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it.

Not to be argumentative, but the real problem is that you don't seem to recognize the possibility that your understanding may be simply wrong.

You seem to use the phrase "as I understand it" quite a bit for someone who's wrong pretty much 100% of the time. Maybe you ought to rethink your understanding, maybe?

[Famspear]

I maintain that three simple realities clarify the income tax dispute:

1. The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it. As I understand it, Congress MUST impose the income tax through an excise-like mechanism, and must NOT collect it directly from people OR implement it as a direct tax on property. I see, any contrary interpretation of the tax code as dead wrong....

That's part of your problem. It is YOUR interpretation that is dead wrong.

Let's take the phrase "excise-like mechanism," for example. There is simply nothing in the U.S. Constitution or any statute, treaty, common law, rule, regulation etc., etc., that requires that an excise (meaning, an "impost, duty or excise" or indirect tax) not be imposed directly on or collected directly from the people. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Your understanding of the legal meaning of the term "excise" as used in connection with the U.S. Federal income tax is simply incorrect.

Further, the U.S. Federal income tax is not a "tax on property." The phrase "tax on property" (in the sense of a direct tax under the U.S. Constitution) means a tax on property by reason of its ownership. A local ad valorem property tax such as is imposed by almost every city in America would be an example of a tax on property by reason of its ownership.

The income tax is not a tax on property. It is a tax on what is essentially an event: an increase in one's property, if you will. It not a tax on the actually money you receive. It is a tax on the RECEIPT of the money. This is a critical nuance from a constitutional law standpoint. Even in the Pollock case in 1895 (which was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court concluded that although a tax on rental income, dividend income or interest income was not a tax on property, that tax would be treated as a tax on property (which therefore had to be treated as a direct tax, and had to be apportioned among the states by population to be constitutional). The Pollock court thereby made the SOURCE of the income (from property versus from employment) relevant in determining whether the tax on tax property would be TREATED as "direct" or as an "excise."

The Sixteenth Amendment negated the Pollock decision by making the source of the income legally irrelevant to a determination of whether the income tax had to be apportioned. After the Amendment, it matters not what the source of the income is: the tax is not required to be apportioned. Stated another way: After February of 1913, NO U.S. Federal income tax can be treated as a "direct" tax (in the sense that a direct tax must be apportioned).

No, the Quatloos regulars have explained this to you and others countless times. The fact that you refuse to accept it is of no moment. We are not merely explaining our view or belief about the law. We are explaining the ACTUAL law -- the law as it is in our legal system.

Your ranting about "Communist dictatorship" and "Quatloosian hoots and cat-calls" is also of no moment. And, the fact that you characterize the U.S. Federal income tax as "steal[ing] money directly from people in the guise of legitimate taxation" shows how wrong you are. You are trying to transform a policy argument -- about whether the income tax is fair, etc., into an argument that the tax is unconstitutional as enforced. You are wrong.

The Congress (through the convoluted tax code), IRS (through refusal ever to discuss the laws they follow and enforce), DOJ (through finagling judges to disallow discussion of law), and courts (through disallowing discussion of law) seem to have conspired...

Baloney. Total baloney. Let's take the judges, for example. What you people -- and I use the phrase "YOU PEOPLE" very pointedly and deliberately here -- simply refuse to accept is the fact that there is no nefarious agreement, express or implied, among federal judges to uphold the income tax laws. What you refuse to accept is that the laws are interpreted according to standard rules of legal analysis. What you refuse to accept is that your tax protester arguments always lose BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE NO LEGAL MERIT. But, the arguments are worse than merely having no legal merit. Your arguments are almost without exception so stupid, so ridiculous, so off the wall, that they are legally frivolous. That's not merely my opinion. That is legal reality.

The Supreme Court said as much by refusing to allow court testing of the ratification and enactment of the 16th Amendment.

No. The United States Supreme Court has not prevented "court testing of the ratification and enactment of the 16th Amendment." The courts of appeals and lower courts have ruled that arguments challenging the ratification of the Amendment are not legally valid. The Supreme Court itself has not, as far as I know, ever ruled on the specific issue of whether the Sixteenth Amendment ratification "issue" is foreclosed. I'd have to check, but the Supreme Court may well have refused to hear a specific case, thus allowing the decision of a court of appeals to stand -- but that is different.

The point that you and PEOPLE LIKE YOU can't seem to get through your heads is that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS PROPERLY RATIFIED by over 40 states.

Nothing that you or crooks like Bill Benson will ever say will ever change that. The ratification process was validly completed in February 1913.

Come on, Bob. Do you really believe that if ANY state had not ratified the Amendment, the legislature of that state would have failed to notice that the U.S. Secretary of State had incorrectly certified that state as having ratified the Amendment? Don't you think, that after over one hundred years, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE STATES WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED? Are you people really this stupid?

There is not even a record of anyone having alleged that the Amendment was not ratified until the year 1975 - SOME SIXTY-TWO YEARS after the ratification was complete!

Why is it that the only people who have ever made such a stupid claim have been PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING TAXES? Why hasn't even ONE state legislature ever gone on record as having questioned the ratification?

Answer: Because the "non-ratification" story is a FRAUD. Bill Benson, the main purveyor (but not the first purveyor) of this idiocy is a CONVICTED FRAUDSTER.

.....the IRS does in fact rob the productive American public blind day in and day out. And that remains true EVEN IF the considered implementation of the income tax is fully legitimate. The IRS is a pack of THIEVES....

So, even though the federal income tax is constitutional, you feel that the IRS is "robbing" people blind, eh? Thank you for sharing your feeling about that.

Pardon me if I don't ascribe much credibility to you on this score. You see, I believe I have a lot more experience with how the IRS works, day in and day out, than you do, Bob. I've dealt with more IRS people at various levels, from low level clerks to revenue agents (the auditors), revenue officers (the collectors), appeals officers, special agents (the folks who carry badges and firearms and make arrests), and IRS attorneys than you will ever hope to have the chance to deal with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... I don't know many who work for a living and have the time or inclination to study the organic law, tax code, regulations, court opinions, and underlying history, philosophy, and technology of law, necessary to prepare properly for legal combat. ...

Bob, studying does not change anything in the real world.

There seems to be almost no end to cleverly-construed but unsupportable legal theory based on someone's "study." Largely because of the proliferation of the 'net, we see more and more magical thinking as opposed to less and less.

The fact is, some portion of the populace is wired to receive and easily conditioned to believe. When the right stimulus comes along from the right source, there's a connection and a light goes on that is really, really hard to extinguish. Oddly, because they have self-absorbed this magical thinking, hearing from subject matter experts may only reinforce their resistance to reality.

The gullible will always be among us and some will become and staunchly remain deliberately ignorant. They' may have psychological issues or just massive egos and they have a right to be that way. And if they engage in illegal behavior as a result, we, as part of the rest of the "normal" citizenry, wind up paying for their prosecution and resulting care and feeding. That isn't going to change. As the old song goes, "it's part of the cost of being the boss."

[AndyK]

Bob:

I, and probably several others hers, take personal umbrage regarding your remarks concerning the IRS.

Whatever your feelings are with respect to the income tax, the IRS is little more than an immense beauracracy doing little more than carrying out specific orders from Congress -- that is enforcing the laws which were passed by Congress.

The IRS is not a subterranean lair of jack-booted trolls who do nothing more than conspire new and devious ways to assault the American public. In fact, if you were actually to speak to some career IRS employees, you would realize that most of them (at least the public-facing staff) get their greatest satisfaction from assisting taxpayers.

On the other hand, they also derive a great amount of satisfaction from defeating tax evaders. They believe the evaders are stealing from the American public, who the IRS staff are sworn (Check out the oath of office) to protect and defend.

So, if you have issues with the income tax, take them to Congress to get the laws rewritten -- and stop slandering underpaid, hard-working civil servants.