Richard 614, truth attack!

[Gregg]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1527

Help Expose the Income Tax Fraud:
WTP Joins "Truth Attack" for April 15th Event

Educate the Nation at Your Post Office


For almost a decade, the WTP organization has been engaged in a pursuit to have the U.S. Government respond to the People's respectful, exhaustively documented, and repeated Petitions for Redress of Grievances alleging significant violations of the Constitution.

I guess they don’t take a hint real well.

One of those Petitions, signed by thousands of citizens, directly challenges the statutory and constitutional authority of the U.S. Government to impose direct, unapportioned taxes upon the labor of ordinary working Americans.

To date, despite this Foundation's years-long effort of repeatedly serving these Petitions upon every branch of our Government including Presidents, Secretaries of Treasury, IRS Commissioners, U.S. Attorney Generals and every member of Congress, the Government has steadfastly refused to provide any official response to any of the People's Petitions for Redress of Grievances.

You have the right to petition, you don’t have a right to personal answers. While we’re on it, though, has it ever occurred to you that if all of the people mentioned are ignoring you, perhaps you might be wasting your time?

In fact, an anyone here recall a time in the history of the United States where the Government has provided an official response to any petition?

Indeed, the Government's refusal to respond to the Petitions for Redress, as they are so required, is the very reason the WTP organization has now openly called for the assembly of a new Continental Congress to publicly discuss the peaceful steps and tactics the People may soon take in order to restore Constitutional Order.

Forgive me if I prefer the version Mssrs. Madison, Mason et al came up with over anything you or the current crop of elected officials may come up with. Agreed, what we have is kind of sloppy, but I’ll take it and the points against the chaos you’re thinking about.

As part of our continuing effort to educate America about the existence, and depth of the nation's escalating Constitutional crisis and the income tax fraud, we have decided to support this year's April 15th tax-day event sponsored by the "Truth Attack" organization. TA is headed by practicing Louisiana attorney Tom Cryer.

A man who owes his freedom to the fact that he convinced a jury of his peers that in spite of having a license to practice law, he is too thick to understand the law in regards to taxes

Two years ago, attorney Cryer was found not guilty by a federal jury of criminal tax charges arising from his failure to file federal income tax returns. Since then, he has devoted a significant part of his time to educating America about the true, limited nature and bona fide applicability of the income tax statutes.

As already stated, he didn’t convince anyone who matters that the tax is a fraud, he in fact still owes the taxes, plus penalties, plus interest (unless he has paid them, I dunno that he has or has not). He convinced a jury that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[.]

He convinced a jury that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

One would think that a lawyer who resorted to a Cheek defense would shortly thereafter be referred to as a disbarred lawyer.

[ASITStands]

One of those Petitions, signed by thousands of citizens, directly challenges the statutory and constitutional authority of the U.S. Government to impose direct, unapportioned taxes upon the labor of ordinary working Americans.

I'd oppose a direct, unapportioned tax on labor too if that's what the government enacted. Unfortunately, or fortunately (however you look at it), they didn't, as discussed many times.

What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over with the same results? Seems like those making tax protester arguments would 'get it' after while. Maybe not.

It's like the quote from Coleman v. Commissioner, "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."

One question I've asked Lost Horizon posters is, "If 'Cracking the Code' is correct in Law, why does the IRS reject so many CtC returns and impose so many frivolous penalties?"

If the argument was correct, the IRS would agree at some point in the examination or collection process, and it would be upheld by a court of law somewhere. All those who've made the argument in court (whether plaintiff or defendant) have failed to prevail.

What does that tell you? Posters keep asking for one court decision in which the principles of 'Cracking the Code' were argued, and in which it was upheld, and no decision exists.

Are tax protesters so 'eat up' with frivolous arguments that they simply can't see (or won't admit) when they don't work? Are they so 'touched in the head' they can't admit failure?

Is it a mental disorder that acts like a fever? Is it a simple failure in logic? Why can one person recover themselves out of illogical arguments ('mutter' for instance) and another be so infested with 'tommyrot' ('Tax Protester') they fail to see the handwriting on the wall?

Meaning no disrespect to 'Tax Protester,' but rational argument must prevail somewhere.

Those who've engaged him on this forum have tried to point out the illogical conclusions of a misreading in law, and others have tried to suggest alternative views, to no avail.

It's truly some kind of irrationality that's not simply overcome. Wish I knew more.

[LPC]

One of those Petitions, signed by thousands of citizens, directly challenges the statutory and constitutional authority of the U.S. Government to impose direct, unapportioned taxes upon the labor of ordinary working Americans.

To date, despite this Foundation's years-long effort of repeatedly serving these Petitions upon every branch of our Government including Presidents, Secretaries of Treasury, IRS Commissioners, U.S. Attorney Generals and every member of Congress, the Government has steadfastly refused to provide any official response to any of the People's Petitions for Redress of Grievances.

You have the right to petition, you don’t have a right to personal answers. While we’re on it, though, has it ever occurred to you that if all of the people mentioned are ignoring you, perhaps you might be wasting your time?

In fact, an anyone here recall a time in the history of the United States where the Government has provided an official response to any petition?

If you write a letter to your Congressman with a complaint about the government, you'll probably get a response of some kind, even though it may be a largely negative response. But if you prepare a "petition" and "serve" it on the same Congressman, you're probably not going to get any response at all.

Which, as I think about it, is fairly typical of tax protester efforts. They spend a great deal of time and trouble getting the same "no" they could have gotten much more easily if they had just used common sense and a plain approach instead of doing "research" and preparing "notices of constructive notice" and other nonsense that accomplish nothing.

[Joey Smith]

The TRUTH is that the government has answered; they just don't like the answers:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

[SteveSy]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Yeah, they got answers they didn't like also...silly tax protesters.

[Famspear]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Yeah, they got answers they didn't like also...

Steve is indirectly highlighting the support for the point I think others have made here: tax protesters such as Bob Schulz and his ilk are being intellectually dishonest. It is one thing to say that the protesters disagree with the government, or that they disagree with the laws, or that they believe the laws are unjust, or that they don't believe the law really is the law, or that they don't like the answer the government gives them.

It is another thing to falsely claim that they have received no answer from the government. This is intellectual dishonesty. One aspect of this is the "show me the law" rhetoric that we hear over and over. They've already been shown the law. Because they refuse to accept that it is the law, they couch that refusal in the guise of the phony "the government has not answered our petition" rhetoric. That is dishonesty, and I do not respect that. Unfortunately, whether they accept the law for what it is or not, they are still bound by it, just as all of us are bound by it -- even when (as is sometimes the case) the law is unwise or unfair.

[The Observer]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Yeah, they got answers they didn't like also...silly tax protesters.

And, as it has been pointed out to you many times, the colonists were under a system where they had no representation and their petitions were met with increased taxation, arrest, etc. That is a far cry from the system that the founding fathers instituted which incorporated representation for its citizens and the ability to petition and protest without fear of prosecution.

But if we are to follow your argument, you would be presenting George Washington as some sort of fascist dictator for putting down the Whiskey Rebelllion during his administration. Would you care to explain why the founding fathers had no problem ignoring the protests of the frontier farmers?

Or can it be simply the fact that you, like WTP, just can't accept the fact that the TP movement is on the losing side of the issue and has no political base upon which they could legitimately overturn the income tax through legislation?

[Cpt Banjo]

Yeah, they got answers they didn't like also...silly tax protesters.

Comparing Schulz and his moronic lemmings to the people who signed the Declaration of Independence shows how intellectually vapid Stevie really is.

[ASITStands]

The TRUTH is that the government has answered; they just don't like the answers:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

Ain't it the TRUTH!

And, to return to my own lament above, even when you try to deal with individuals with individual questions and problems, you still wind up with either an inability to accept what's being said, or a simple refusal to agree with what's plainly laid before them.

You can argue ever so cleverly, and a tax denier will deny 'till his dying day (apparently).

That's not always true, as we've seen many come and go in the movement, and some actually find their way out of the mess of irrationality, with or without help. Kudos to them!

[SteveSy]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Yeah, they got answers they didn't like also...silly tax protesters.

And, as it has been pointed out to you many times, the colonists were under a system where they had no representation and their petitions were met with increased taxation, arrest, etc. That is a far cry from the system that the founding fathers instituted which incorporated representation for its citizens and the ability to petition and protest without fear of prosecution.

As been pointed out to you they were offered representation and they didn't want it. Franklin negotiated the deal and to his surprise the colonists wanted nothing to do with it. They wanted their own representation separate and apart from Britain.

That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.
...
That all supplies to the Crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists.

That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain.

- http://www.americanrevolution.com/StampAct.htm

Learn a little history, instead of accepting the general notion that the colonists did everything right and the evil empire was simply running them down. The colonists were tax protesters plain and simple far worse than any TP today. They wanted a free ride, protection for free and be able to do as they wish without intervention from Britain. Their position was that the mere fact that they produced items that were then shipped to Britain for sale was their contribution to Britain, they owed nothing more. They didn't even want to pay a minuscule tax on printed materials, less than 1%. Britain was just trying to recover its cost for protecting the colonists which was a heavy burden on the British treasury.

So don't try and make the colonists icons of justice and today's TP's morally bankrupt. TP's today have far more to complain about concerning over zealous government and taxation than the colonists ever did. The colonists were vicious to any tax collectors, they burned their houses down and paraded them through the streets after tarring and feathering them. TP's even remotely suggest violence and you guys hop off your seats. The tax collectors they are dealing with are trying to collect more than they even have most of the time. A lot of the colonists that participated in the acts of violence were only slightly affected by the tax if any at all. They were pissed that the tax collectors would come in to their places of business and demand to see their books and records in order to determine if they were paying their proper taxes. Everyone today is told they must surrender their books and records regardless if they're accused or not of properly paying taxes....so give me a break already.

[Judge Roy Bean]

.... TP's today have far more to complain about concerning over zealous government and taxation than the colonists ever did.

Sorry, Steve but that's apparently not the case. Things were sufficiently bad that there were enough colonists willing to literally go to war over the conditions, and frankly speaking I believe there was also a unique confluence of leadership. What the TP/TD crowd has been hoping would happen (an en masse tax revolt) is a fantasy mostly because as bad as it is the vast majority of people begrudgingly comply to one degree or another.

(I believe it was Will Rogers who said the income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.)

[Famspear]

Learn a little history, instead of accepting the general notion that the colonists did everything right and the evil empire was simply running them down. The colonists were tax protesters plain and simple far worse than any TP today.

No, Steve. You're equivocating on the use of the term "tax protester." Yes, both the colonists and today's tax protesters opposed the tax systems applicable to them. However, tax protesters today make legally frivolous, nonsensical arguments about the legality and application of the tax. When we use the term "tax protester" today, we are referring to "protester" in THAT sense -- not in its more general, non-perjorative sense.

If I draft a non-frivolous "protest" to the IRS after the issuance of a 30 day letter by the IRS on behalf of my client, and send it to the IRS, I guess you can say that the client is a "protester" in some sense. But that is not the sense in which we are using the term in this forum, and that is not the sense in which the courts use the term in the cases we discuss here.

If I file a document called a "protest," taking a non-frivolous position, with the County Appraisal District regarding the valuation of property taxes on certain real estate I own in Texas, then in some general sense I am a "tax protester." But that is not the sense in which we are using the term "tax protester" in this forum.

Let's just be clear and not equivocate. The Founding Fathers, the colonists, were NOT "tax protesters" in the sense in which the courts use that term in the cases we discuss here. To put it another way: Not all oppositions to taxes are "created equal." Some oppositions are more morally valid than others. The opposition of tax protesters today -- in the form of criminal activity to evade paying tax -- is neither morally valid nor legally valid.

PS: Steve, I do not necessarily disagree with your description of the things that the colonists did (the violence, etc.), and I do not necessarily say that everything the colonists did was morally right in every case, either. Many of the rest of us have studied history, too.

[The Observer]

I never said anything about whether the colonist's reaction to tax collectors was moral or that their decision to resort to violence was acceptable. I merely pointed out the fact that the basis for their revolt was the lack of representation - not because they thought that there was frivolous arguments that had merit and should be addressed by Her Majesty's government.

But this is Stevesy and he has never met a irrelevant tangent that he didn't like going off on.

[SteveSy]

Learn a little history, instead of accepting the general notion that the colonists did everything right and the evil empire was simply running them down. The colonists were tax protesters plain and simple far worse than any TP today.

No, Steve. You're equivocating on the use of the term "tax protester." Yes, both the colonists and today's tax protesters opposed the tax systems applicable to them. However, tax protesters today make legally frivolous, nonsensical arguments about the legality and application of the tax. When we use the term "tax protester" today, we are referring to "protester" in THAT sense -- not in its more general, non-perjorative sense.

Yes they did Famspear. They used all kinds of non-sensical baloney to justify why British laws did not apply to them. First and foremost was taxation without representation. Nothing in the British law required they have the kind of representation they demanded in order to be taxed. It was absurd that they even had the balls to contest the tax considering Britain spent a crap load saving their stupid butts from Indians. I say stupid becuase the colonists intentionally settled in areas outside the safe zones, destroyed the Indians hunting areas and treated them like animals, and then whinned about not being protected when the Indians got pissed and attacked them.

Go read the several redress of grievances they sent. Read the history of what transpired back then and how the colonists thought the courts were mistreating them. Everything the British did was perfectly legal yet the colonists had this notion by citing all kinds of common law and natural law mumbo-jumbo, I'm sure that's what the crown thought, they were exempt from British law. In lot of cases they just didn't like the law so they just deemed it tyrannical and absurd and simply ignored it because they didn't agree.

You really need to read a few books that tell it like it was rather than how we want to view it, a lot of you do, instead of what some school textbook that glorifies the revolutionary war says. If people acted with the same arrogance and thought the same way colonists did back then you would be demanding they be rounded up and imprisoned for life.

[Famspear]

You really need to read a few books that tell it like it was rather than how we want to view it, a lot of you do, instead of what some school textbook that glorifies the colonists. If people acted with the same arrogance and thought the same way colonists did back then you would be demanding they be rounded up and imprisoned for life.

And what books have I read, Steve? What books have I not read? You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that I "need to read a few books that tell it like it was." Can the rhetoric; you don't know what I've read and what I haven't read.

[SteveSy]

You really need to read a few books that tell it like it was rather than how we want to view it, a lot of you do, instead of what some school textbook that glorifies the colonists. If people acted with the same arrogance and thought the same way colonists did back then you would be demanding they be rounded up and imprisoned for life.

And what books have I read, Steve? What books have I not read? You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that I "need to read a few books that tell it like it was." Can the rhetoric; you don't know what I've read and what I haven't read.

I can tell by the way you're responding that you either ignore the facts surrounding that era or you haven't actually studied the facts. TP's today have nothing on the colonists...Most TP's today are more than reasonable compared to the colonists back then.

[Famspear]

You really need to read a few books that tell it like it was rather than how we want to view it, a lot of you do, instead of what some school textbook that glorifies the colonists. If people acted with the same arrogance and thought the same way colonists did back then you would be demanding they be rounded up and imprisoned for life.

And what books have I read, Steve? What books have I not read? You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that I "need to read a few books that tell it like it was." Can the rhetoric; you don't know what I've read and what I haven't read.

I can tell by the way you're responding that you either ignore the facts surrounding that era or you haven't actually studied the facts. TP's today have nothing on the colonists...Most TP's today are more than reasonable compared to the colonists back then.

I can tell by the way you're responding that you're blowing rhetorical smoke.

[SteveSy]

Famspear the house of commons let Franklin speak to them and work out deals with the colonists even though the colonists were making absurd demands. That would NEVER happen today, the government simply flat out ignores anyone attempting work on behalf of the TP's. The TP's requests today are a hell of a lot more reasonable considering. If TP's were to make the same demands they would demand that no laws created by the federal government apply to them and that they pay no tax whatsoever yet have the federal government protect them if someone invades their property even if they're building a house across the Mexican border.

[Famspear]

Famspear the house of commons let Franklin speak to them and work out deals with the colonists even though the colonists were making absurd demands. That would NEVER happen today, the government simply flat out ignores anyone attempting work on behalf of the TP's.

Aw, that mean ol' bad ol' government!

The TP's requests today are a hell of a lot more reasonable considering. If TP's were to make the same demands they would demand that no laws created by the federal government apply to them and that they pay no tax whatsoever yet have the federal government protect them if someone invades their property even if they're building a house across the Mexican border.

Interesting argument. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with that.

You're off on another tangent, Steve, which is your right. My assertion stands: You're equivocating in your use of the term "tax protester." You have (at least, arguably) provided examples of where the colonists made arguments that were without legal merit at the time the arguments were made. You have yet to provide examples where colonists made arguments that were so wacky that the arguments were ruled to be legally frivolous by the courts of their day. Maybe that happened from time to time. Maybe it never happened. I'm reiterating: You are equivocating on the use of the term "tax protester." The colonists were not "tax protesters" in the same sense that we use that term today, to apply to people like Pete Hendrickson, or Edward Lewis Brown, or Lindsey Springer.