fallingbills.gif (9520 bytes)

Subject: "Pat Shannan's Investigative Reports"
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:29:54 -0500
From: "Oceana Investigations"
To: ,"Ken Vardon"


On Thursday a week ago, the Senate conducted a sham hearing purportedly to
challenge IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti to answer to the provocative ads
run three times this year in USA Today. C-Span did not cover the hearings.
But Bob Shultz, Bill Benson, Joe Banister and other courageous individuals
who had been pictured and quoted in the ads were present in the audience and
had requested an invitation to speak.  They were denied an appearance by
those conducting this phony probe, apparently out of fear of having to face
the truth.

Imagine: Blowups of the ads were posted in the meeting room, Rossotti did
his normal tapdance, and those who wrote and paid for the ads were anxiously
sitting right there but were not allowed to tell their side of the story.

The following Monday, April 9th, more than 1,000 Americans participated in a
"walkaround" of the IRS Headquarters in Washington, DC, chanting en masse,
"Show us the Law!" Bill Benson personally challenged Charles Rossotti to
come out and address the group and show the law that required American
workers to file a 1040 form.  Rossotti, in typical bureaucratic fashion,
refused to appear.

Meanwhile, USA Today has decided to censor away any further advertisement
from We the People, foregoing $62,000 per page.  Who got to them?  We are
awaiting a response from the newspaper officials, who have been invited to
particpate in our radio show.
"Pat Shannan's Investigative Reports" will delve into it this Sunday evening
with live interviews from those who were on the scene.


HEAR: "Pat Shannan's Investigative Reports"
live every Sunday evening, 8:00pm EST,
5:00pm PST at:

Your call-in number for questions and comments
is 1-800-259-9231


Date:  Fri, 31 May 2002 22:03:37 -0500
From:  jim carter



 Freedom is seldom lost overnight.  In the usual setting, an established society will tolerate the form of government to which they have become accustomed and allow gradual encroachment on previous sacrosanct areas under a multitude of rationale---usually with silence.  If citizens forget that they have a right, they will not be able to assert it.  Time usually results in relinquishing protection of our most basic freedoms to the care of others---and a new master is acquired.

 In the United States, lawyers have gradually filled that position.  As public schools have become more concerned with social science than history, racial hegemony than property rights, and the conceived responsibilities of government rather than the rights of an individual, law school became the last bastion to teach the rights of man.  But even there, Miranda rights and Blevins actions to control the local police have replaced instruction on limiting the expansion of fabian socialism.  Law schools that teach politically incorrect concepts that restrict government may not be able to place interns in choice federal courts, or receive lucrative federal grants.  To strenuously argue economic limitations on the federal government in tax "court" will find permission to advocate is canceled.  Such advocacy in district court will find you ridiculed, smeared, sanctioned, or find your state granted privilege to pursue your profession has been rescinded.

 If there is any one specific right firmly entrenched in our organic law, it is the right to Liberty as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, in the Fifth Amendment, and specifically applied to the states by the 14th amendment.  Our forefathers succinctly identified the purpose for lawful government: "That to secure these rights (of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men..."  Declaration of Independence. It has been said that the rights to life, liberty, and property  are so related that the deprivation of any one of these separate and independent rights may lessen or extinguish the value of the others.  Smith v Texas, 233 US 630.

 Liberty has been adjudicated to include a vast group of rights but perhaps the extent of its meaning can best be visualized by observing political systems that are considered as oppressive.  In those countries we see persecution for statements deemed unpleasant to government, travel being restricted, occupations and employment that promote the party line being subsidized by government, housing allocated by government, and privacy from government non-existent.  Our forefathers faced only slightly less oppression; impressed naval duty, arbitrary taxation, government indifferent to public lamentations, denial of judicial procedures, and other items witnessed in the Declaration of Independence.  With this hindsight and a desire to formulate a descriptive encapsulation of a word, it is suggested that the essence of liberty is freedom from government.

 That liberty includes the right to pursue a livelihood and provide for a family is a most profound proviso of constitutional adjudication.  Liberty "means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his facilities; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."  Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 US 578, 589.  And again:  "It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the amendment to secure."  Truax v Raich, 239 US 33, 41.  Greene v McElroy, 300 US 474;  Meyer  v Nebraska, 262 US 390;  Butchers Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746; Grosjean v American Press, 297 US 233:  Regents v Roth, 408 US 564;  Hall v Geiger-Jones, 242 US 539;  Chicago B & Q R. Co v McGuire, 219 US 549.

 Of what value is life if the individual cannot exchange the sweat of his brow for the things that make life worthwhile?  If ever there was a fundamental right that is "preservative of all rights" (ref. Harman v Forssenius, 380 US 528, 537 discussing a poll tax), it is the right to make a living. What more fundamental right do citizens have than to feed and house themselves?  An individual cannot maintain any freedom from government if the earnings of his labor are subject to some arbitrary self-serving government assessment made in the cavernous depths of some political bureaucracy without authorization by the citizenry.  The question of whether the fruits of an individual's labor belonged to another resulted in a most violent period in this nation's history.  Slavery is no less reprehensible because it is a government action.

 We are informed by various pundits that taxes consume 40 to 60% of a citizen's wages, and increases annually.  A study  by the office of management and budget included in the president's federal budget released in 1994 included projections on percentages of lifetime earnings future generations would pay in taxes.  Various alternatives went to 82% and 93.7%.  While subject to challenges and changes, just the potential of the figures being accurate, or conservative, is horrifying.  At what percentage do we shift from peonage to slavery?

 Is it possible that a constitutional right can properly be an object of taxation? Perhaps in the rare case where the police powers of government are necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, but the income tax is not a police power---it is the exercise of mere revenue power. Even a regulatory tax involving police powers must be closely drawn within constitutional restraints or be denied.  Lochner v New York, 198 US 45, 56;  Schneider v New Jersey, 308 US 147, 150.  Nor can a valid regulatory tax be expanded to infringe on constitutional rights.  Bates v Little Rock, 361 US 516.  A revenue tax on a constitutional right is summarily rejected; "A (government) may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."  Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, 113.  Taxes exacted as a price of exercising freedoms protected by the constitution are presumptively invalid for "on their face they are a restriction of the free exercise of those freedoms." id 114.  If it were otherwise, all constitutional rights could be taxed out of existence.

 Taxation has been adjudicated to be a matter of sovereignty, and that over which the government is not sovereign is not a suitable basis for taxation. McCulloch v Maryland, 17 US 316.  The U.S. Constitution is accepted as a grant of authority to the government from the people and any authority not granted is retained by We the sovereign people. Adkins v Children's Hospital, 261 US 525, 559.  If the right to pursue a livelihood is retained by "We the [sovereign] people," how then does the government acquire the necessary sovereignty to make the pursuit of our livelihood a suitable object for taxation?  A sovereign is not subject to taxation.  Pittman v Home Owners Loan, 308 US 21.

 The Bill of Rights specifically enumerates areas forbidden to the federal government; they are reserved and secured for the people.  The court has recognized the power to tax is "the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."  Murdock v Pennsylvania, 317 US 105, 112.  A tax upon any right secured by the Bill of Rights would require relinquishing control of that right to the government.  We the people do not desire to relinquish control of our livelihood nor are we aware of any such action in the past.

 Perhaps the concept escapes the casual observer:  the right to trial by jury cannot be conditioned upon the payment of $10,000 in advance to defray the costs of the trial;  an annual fee of $3000 cannot become a condition to keep a rifle in the house;  the right to security of papers in a home or of the freedom of the press cannot be conditioned to only papers that do not contain unpleasant remarks about the government; the assistance of counsel is not conditioned to an ability to pay.  "The too precious, too fundamental, to be so burdened or conditioned."  Harper v Virginia, 383 US 663, 670.  Surely the right to vote in the Harper case is no more precious or fundamental than putting food on the table and a roof over your family.  The $1.50 optional poll tax forbidden by the Harper court pales when compared with the criminally enforced mandatory burden on pursuing a livelihood.  "The mere chilling of a constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional."  Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618.  If conditions can be imposed on constitutional rights, all constitutional rights can be conditioned out of existence.

 But, it might be suggested, the law was passed by the elected representatives of the people; they were empowered to pass the legislation and to cause its enforcement.  The court declares otherwise.  "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.  One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638.  If a direct vote of the people cannot accomplish an object, neither can an indirect vote by elected representatives.

 Is it possible that the exercise of a constitutional right can properly be the basis for a criminal action?  Of course not.  An individual cannot become guilty of a crime for exercising his right to avoid self-incrimination.  Counselman v Hitchcock, 142 US 547; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436.  Nor can denying government access to a man's house except upon presentation of a warrant be considered a criminal act.  See v Seattle, 387 US 541.  Nor must speech be censored to the tastes of government or risk sedition charges.  If the exercise of a constitutional right can become the cause for imprisonment, the constitution has been nullified and there is no security from omnipotent government; the constitution has become a worthless scrap of paper.  Marchetti v US, 390 US 39, 57.

 Can conditions for the exercise of a constitutional right be imposed?  Can the government properly require an individual to inform the government of the extent and nature of the exercise of a constitutional right (i.e., file 1040 forms, submit books and records, etc.) or risk punitive action/incarceration?  Of course not.  The conditions are only a subterfuge---a diversion of attention.  It is the exercise of the constitutional right that is the nexus of potential incarceration; it is for its exercise that the individual risks punishment.  The government's action is a means to simplify gathering of information so the fruits of the individual's exercise of constitutional rights can be confiscated.  If the object of taxation cannot properly be taxed, penalties for gathering information for the (illegal) taxation cannot be sustained.

 Perhaps a rational analysis is not required.  The court has flatly rejected the imposition of a tax upon a right secured by the Bill of Rights.  Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105.  Likewise a tax levied on a federal right of interstate commerce was invalidated. McGoldrick v Berwind-White, 309 US 33; Hood v Dumond, 336 US 525.  Nor can the exercise of religion be taxed. Follett v McCormick, 321 US 573.  Nor can the right to vote (an implied right) be taxed. Harper v Virginia, 383 US 663.   The poll tax is "a penalty imposed on those who wish to exercise their right (and) ...the tying of its collection to the franchise would be invalid as a charge on a very precious constitutional right." U.S. v Texas, 252 FSup 234, 255; affirmed 384 US 155.   [This eloquent district court opinion must be read !!]  Constitutional rights are not suitable objects for taxation.

 It may be suggested that the revenue from the income tax is required by the government, or more euphemistically:  "There is an overriding government interest to uphold" or "A sound tax system is of such a high order."  (King John reportedly made similar platitudes when forced to accept the Magna Carta;  King Charles shortly before he lost his head; King George before he lost the colonies.)  It is submitted there is no higher order, in a republic as guaranteed by article 4, section 4 of the constitution than the rights of the people.  A claim of necessity has little sway if the constitution has any significance.  "It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state.  A government which recognized no such after all but a despotism...of all the powers conferred upon government, that of taxation is most liable to abuse...the power to tax is the power to destroy."  Loan Association v Topeka, 87 US 655, 663.

 There are political forms espousing ideologies that include government control of common occupations. We try to believe these forms are not within the United States.  If the power to tax exists, it is a matter of indifference to the courts if the tax destroys the object of the tax.  Magnona v Hamilton, 292 US 40, 46.  Whether the income tax is destroying the secured liberty of the U.S. citizen may depend on whether the beholder is a taxpayer or a tax beneficiary, but it is irrelevant for adjudication. The issue is principle, not feigned necessity.

 There are those who would suggest the United States got along much better for 165 years without a significant income tax than the last 60 years with continually heavier taxation.  A significant reduction of the tax burden is analyzed by some economic pundits to result in a great boom for the U.S. economy.  But the courts have wisely declared the social/economic philosophies of Herbert Spencer---or John Maynard Keynes or Murray Rothbard---are irrelevant to the court.  The issue is still principle.  This is a constitution we are propounding.

 Various government publications and internet sites will lead a person to believe that every possible challenge to the income tax has been previously adjudicated.  When an issue of wages/salary is made, they will invariably rely upon the cases of Springer v US, 102 US 586 (1881)  and of Pollock.  Perhaps we should review those cases to be sure we are not being mislead.

 Springer claimed the unapportioned tax was a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional and additionally claimed the seizure and auctioning of his real estate without adjudication was a violation of due process.  The court observed the procedures to collect taxes included seizure by warrant without oath which constituted conclusive evidence of the facts recited in it.  The don't-involve-me mind-set of the court is apparent:  If the procedure "involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make Congresses to see that the evil was corrected.  The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government." id 594.  It appears the court was ready to emasculate, without objection, the Fourth Amendment right to be free of General Warrants/Writs of Assistance that had been a major factor in the Revolutionary War---to expedite tax collection.   Fortunately  for the public, the tax had expired many years before the seizure and adjudication had worked its way to the Supreme Court.

 The Opinion takes the bulk of  discussion (eleven pages) to detail the history and relevant points of what constitutes a direct tax, including the observation: "It will thus be seen that whenever 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."  id 599, emphasis supplied.  The court then HELD the tax was not a direct tax.

 In a concluding half-sentence dictum, the court writes "the tax of which (Springer) complains is within the category of an excise or duty."  id 602.  There is no discussion of the nature of an excise or of a duty.  The statement is not a holding; it is a mere observation of constitutional requirements for the tax to be valid---an escape clause.

 The income tax was rescinded after the Civil War, was reintroduced in the 1890's, and was challenged in Pollock v Farmers Loan, 157 US 429, 158 US 601.  The Pollock challenge involved income derived from dividends from bonds and income from rental property.  The court distinguished the issues as being a tax levied upon the income from capital investments that might be considered differently from a tax levied on "business, privileges, or employment." id 579.  The court held the tax levied on income from capital investments was a direct tax and unconstitutional.  Since this action would place the bulk of the remaining tax on salaries and wages which was not the intent of congress, the entire tax scheme on rehearing was declared invalid. id 637 (do not read unconstitutional). Pollock did not adjudicate any issue relating to wages or salary, the issue did not have representation before the court.  Salaries/wages (employment) was mentioned by the Pollock court to have previously "assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such." id 157 US 579; 158 US 635. No authoritative citation is given nor should we confuse a guise with a holding.  Congress could have reinstated an income tax on wages/salaries without an amendment to the constitution, but not upon dividends or rental income.

 Congress had realized the tremendous economic bonanza of an income tax and submitted the 16th Amendment to the states for ratification in 1909.  Subsequent adjudication declared that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to reverse, by legislation, the judicial action of the Pollock court.  Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 18-19.  Since the holding of the Pollock court related to income from capital investments, it is submitted that the 16th Amendment is irrelevant to an issue of wages/salaries.  Ref. Bower v Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174; Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 206.

 Concurrence of this point can be found in Congressional Research Service Report #84-168A,  SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS, updated 9/26/84, at page 8:  "The fallacy of this argument (that wages are not taxable as income) is that the taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional and therefore the (16th) amendment to the Constitution was not necessary to permit this type of taxation (on wages)."  The statement is true but misleading.  The reason taxation of an individual's wages has never been found unconstitutional is that the court has never adjudicated the protection of Liberty.   [The report unwittingly confirms that Pollock did not adjudicate an issue of wages.   Since the report acknowledges "taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional," and history identifies Pollock for its "unconstitutional" ruling which is the only case discussed in the report, Pollock obviously  did not adjudicate an issue of wages. That leaves only Springer which simply held the income tax was not a direct tax.]   Pollock  is, by misleading phraseology, also erroneously implied to hold "income taxes are generally indirect taxes in the nature of excises..." on page 3.  Pollock mentions that dicta as a 'guise' from previous adjudication but definitely did not make such a holding.  The report's reliance on Pollock as relevant to a tax on wages/salary is poorly placed.

 The  Congressional Research Report was updated and revised with release dated November 17, 1989 and titled FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX and again declares the16th Amendment is not relevant to an income tax levied on wages at page 10.

  Congress  passed the Corporate Tax Act in 1909 that was merged with the allegedly ratified 16th Amendment in 1914.  Adjudication of an individual's constitutional rights relevant to the income tax is sparse; most income tax litigation involves corporations and corporate privileges.  Subsequent adjudication has served to blur the distinction between the two taxes.  Numerous adjudications have held corporations are subject to an excise tax. American Manufacturing v St. Louis, 250 US 459; Flint v Stone Tracy, 220 US 107. Corporations, as creations of the states,  receive their existence from government as a privilege, but we are here concerned with sovereign citizens that are exercising a constitutional right.  Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43;  Lehnhauser v Lake Shore Auto Parts, 410 US 336. It is also recognized that select specific occupations of a public nature have been deemed suitable objects of an excise tax.  But this is still far short of declaring that occupations in general are suitable objects for a privilege tax.  Such a declaration would have profound constitutional reverberations.

 An employee "of an instrumentality of the U.S." was held subject to an excise (privilege) tax. Graves v New York, 306 US 466, 478, 480.  Taxation of recipients of government funds, either as their employer or by another government entity  (state or federal),  resulted in several cases and some taxation on intergovernmental employment was struck down.  After much adjudication over sovereignty, the issue resulted in the Public Salary Act of 1939 that appears to basically be an acceptance of reciprocal taxation.  If governments wish their employees to consider employment a privilege upon which a kickback (return) can be demanded, they may jolly well do so, but this is far short of declaring that common citizens are to consider employment a privilege from the government upon which an income tax can be levied.  Adjudication involving government employment or a beneficiary of government privileges (i.e., a corporation) is irrelevant to claims presented by this paper.

 Can an individual be properly required to purchase that which is already his?  The concept is inane.  The court has declared that the levying of excise taxes turns on the "controlling question of whether the  (government) has given anything for which it can ask return."  Wisconsin v J.C. Penny,  311 US 435, 444.  The government has not given anything when an individual pursues a livelihood.  The right to pursue a livelihood existed long before government was created;  it will continue long after this government is gone; it is not a creation of the government for which the government can ask a return.  The government does not grant or give a constitutional right; the government exists to protect constitutional rights.  Declaration of Independence, Weeks v US, 232 US 383, 392.  A sovereign citizen cannot properly be required to purchase as a mere privilege from government that which he already possesses as a sacred right.

 Some government apologists have suggested Steward Machine Company v Davis, 301 US 548, has ruled employment is subject to a tax.  The second line of the opinion identifies the company as "an Alabama corporation."  The petitioner had no standing to present a constitutional right to Liberty nor are constitutional rights addressed in the opinion.  The court ruled the corporation was subject to an excise tax.

 Perhaps it may be suggested the income tax is levied upon those who are privileged to enjoy the benefits of government.  The suggestion witnesses a gross misunderstanding of the evolution of our government.  It is not a privilege to enjoy government;  government enjoys a privilege to have been created by our forefathers.  The suggestion is a complete reversal of the role that government is the (civil) servant of the people and suggests that government is the master bestowing its gifts and privileges upon the citizenry.  Government has absolutely nothing to bestow, either finances or privileges, except what it has already received or taken from the people and the pursuit of a livelihood has never been knowingly acquiesced by the people.  The income tax does not fulfill adjudicated characteristics of an excise tax.  Agreement can be found in Internal Revenue Manual 9781, Section 452.1.

 Can the income tax be constitutionally recognized as a duty? A "duty" has been adjudicated to be a tax levied on imports. McGoldrick v Gulf Oil, 309 US 414.  Perhaps a much broader, non-technical meaning of duty is suggested, i.e., a responsibility.  Does a citizen have a responsibility to yield to government all that government requests and can consume?  Reflection on the voracious economic appetite of elected and appointed officials, even when government spending currently accounts for 50% of the GNP, makes a person apprehensive, but the courts have stated it succinctly.  A person has no responsibility to make contributions to government in the form of taxes if government has no right to them.  Gregory v Helvering, 293 US 465.  And again, "(an individual) is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business..."  Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43, 74.  Payment of taxes allegedly owed to the government under threat of prosecution when no tax is properly due is to submit to a form of extortion under color of law.

 Can the income tax be sustained as an impost?  Considering the consistent adjudication of imposts as a tax on import merchandise (ref. Hadden v Collector, 72 US 107), it is believed that to mention the possibility is to negate its potential.

 If not an indirect tax (i.e., an excise, impost, or duty), can the income tax be recognized as a direct tax ?  As previously noted, Springer v U.S., 102 US 586 went to considerable length to hold the income tax was not a direct tax.  (The court noted; "It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a DIRECT TAX, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate or slaves." emphasis supplied.) Please note the current income tax does not apply to real estate.   Recent adjudication starting with US v Francisco, 614 F2d 617, have declared the income tax is a direct tax relieved of the constitutional requirement of apportionment by the 16th. Amendment.  Interestingly enough, they usually cite Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, which appears incongruous.

 If we assume, for analysis, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified, can it negate a constitutional safeguard or nullify a fundamental constitutional right?  Of course not.  The purpose for the constitution was to put certain rights of the people beyond the grasp of government tampering.  West Virginia v Barnett, 319 US 624.  If the government can impose a tax on a constitutional right because of the 16th amendment, then the right to trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and each and every constitutional protection can similarly be taxed or destroyed tomorrow by amendment;  the constitution can be totally emasculated by act of congress and the state legislators.  "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them."  Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436.  The issue of the amendment conflicting with constitutional provisions was pressed upon the Brushaber court.  The court declared the amendment did not alter or negate any constitutional provision.  id p 11-19.   The constitution has provisions for being amended;  it has no provisions for being repudiated.

` But consideration of the 16th. Amendment itself is undoubtedly irrelevant.  Pollock was explicitly overruled in South Carolina v Baker, 485 US 505 (1988) which has been suggested to make the amendment redundant.  We should note South Carolina adjudicated an issue of taxes on bonds---not an issue of wages/salaries.  The 16th amendment appears to leave the legacy of a non-apportioned tax.  To avoid a constitutional conflict over apportionment, the tax must fall within the parameters of an indirect tax, i.e., an excise, impost, or duty,  but it would still infringe the constitutional right to liberty.

 Apparently our judicial system previously recognized the status of the sovereign citizen and tacitly acknowledged an individual could voluntarily comply with provisions of the tax law even if not required.  Flora v U.S., 362 US 145.  This individual has decided that he no longer wishes to volunteer further and hereby claims his constitutional rights.  For that action, he cannot properly be found guilty of a crime or be incarcerated.  A law that improperly infringes on constitutional rights is void from its inception and no person can be obligated to obey such a law.  16A AmJur2d Constitutional Law, #203 (1998).  Habeaus Corpus may be used to challenge the unconstitutionality of legislation. id #134, ref. 13 AmJur Pl  & Pr forms, Hab C.# 81,82.

 The paradox poised by our idealistic forefathers who established government to protect posterity from government oppression can only be understood in light of their unequivocal faith in a supreme being and an awareness of the reality that only slightly less government during the preceding eleven years offered no assurance of individual security or economic prosperity.  The question of whether government has abused the faith of our forefathers has been repeatedly brought before the courts over the span of 200 years;  it must be again.  The chicanery used by the federal courts and the IRS to prevent this question from being adjudicated with procedures that have been held to void any claim to jurisdiction in similar applications is the subject of another paper.

 The groundswell of public resentment to government inflicted burdens has resulted in numerous paramilitary organizations and a willingness by recalcitrant citizens to risk incarceration and loss of possessions.  The IRS now identifies more than 100,000 individuals as tax protesters.  There are an  increasing number of pro se's who are venting their frustrations with government via sometimes ambiguous defenses to prosecutions and unusual actions against public officials.  Their frustration, borne of contempt of government officials who piously assert that they know better how to spend the earnings of the common man than does the individual who knew enough to earn the money have led many to become martyrs within federal confinement. They conclude it is their taxes that are financing the government projects they find wasteful/reprehensible/self-destructive and nothing will change as long as congress receives docile compliance. Many return home  unrepentant, and tempered.  And they aspire to leave their children something besides oppressive debt, bondage, and serfdom.  "The government that makes evolution impossible makes revolution inevitable."  President John F. Kennedy.  The small voice of the people wanting freedom from government should be heeded; it is but a harbinger.


Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)


APFN YahooGroups:




  Isn't it interesting that IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti did not
  just walk outside an show everyone an actual law that required them
  to file and pay the federal income tax?

  Jim Hardin

132 million Taxpayers CAN tell 435 Congressman, 100 Senators
and 1 President WHAT TO DO!
Make April 15th just another great spring day.
It will not happen without you!


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask
not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those
who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue

new6.gif (6897 bytes) IRS: Certificate of Non-Existence
Here is confirmed Proof researched for you.      (33 pages .pdf file)

IRS ~ Tax Info  

NY TIMES: Saying Income Tax Is Illegal


behind_the_8ball_md_wht.gif (22915 bytes)

American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..."

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Home Page

APFN Contents Page


Hit Counter

Last updated 08/31/2010