alpert@chovax.DEC (03/12/86)
[This article is approx. 150 lines long] First, I'd like to thank those that have been taking part in the discussion regaring the lawfulness of the IRS and tax system, even those with flames, negative comments, etc. I feel that these are important issues that deserve airing. Unfortunately this node has been largely "off the air" lately for mammoth hardware and software upgrades and I have probably missed some comments. However, I must state that the members of the so-called "tax-protest" movement are *not* a bunch of "neo-Nazis" or right-wing fascists. By and large they are people from all walks of life and represent a broad spectrum of political background. Many have become involved after coming into non-trivial contact with the IRS's brand of "justice." Unfortunately, IRS abuses of citizens' rights is not confined to a few isolated instances, it is the normal way they conduct their business. (Once again, if anyone wants to hear it "from the horse's mouth" I have available an excellent tape of an interview with an ex-IRS agent which is very enlightening and profoundly disturbing.) There are a number of "fringe" groups that do get connected with the movement, especially religious groups that have come under IRS attack. (A very informative paper is published by the Scientologists, for example.) Nazis are not to be found as that particular philosophy runs completely counter to the ideals of liberty and freedom espoused by people involved in this movement. (The closest political group in terms of beliefs would probably be the Libertarian Party.) There has also been much comment on how the government should be funded if not through "income" taxes. What most people don't realize is that for most of our history there has not been a significant direct tax levied on the "incomes" of individuals. In fact, until the 1942 "Victory Tax" (which we are all still paying), only about 3% of the population was subject to this type of tax. Today, government has expanded to the point where it consumes 50-60% of the average person's productivity, and every financial transaction is potentially subject to government scrutiny. This has become firmly entrenched as "normal" in the public consciousness. There are fewer and fewer people left alive who remember a time when the Federal government did not steal this level of wealth from its citizens. For simply put, taxation is theft. There are basically two ways to acquire wealth, to produce it or to steal it. Government falls squarely into the latter category. As a necessary evil, we realize that government needs to steal some of the wealth of its citizens to provide the functionality that is expected of it. However, when the average person has over half of his wealth forcibly extracted from him to maintain a bloated and greedy Federal beauracracy, that person is reduced to the status of a "tax slave," his resources being stripped from him just as surely as those of a chattel slave, and his freedom being stripped if he dares to do anything concrete about his situation. Interestingly, the public was sold the idea of an "income tax" as a tax on the rich; indeed, the general public was enthusiastically in favor of enacting such a tax (we will hopefully take a closer look at this in the near future as we look more closely at the history of the current tax). At a recent A.C.T. meeting we had as a guest speaker an attorney who has been involved with the Libertarian movement for quite a few years. He had a few interesting things to say about the system from the perspective of an "officer of the court." Stating that he can "no longer distinguish between taxation and theft", he went on to say that the court system in this country exists "to maintain the status quo" rather than to dispense justice, particularly in cases where the power of the State is being challenged on any level. "The law is not the words on the piece of paper, it's what the judges enforce", he said, describing the manner in which judges arbitrarily circumvent the word and/or intent of many laws, particularly in tax cases. He also stated that judges are no longer informing juries about the right of jury nullification -- that is, the jury's ability ro overrule the judge if they feel his interpretation of the law is incorrect, or that the law is unjust or being unjustly applied. In fact, in federal courts, he stated, the first thing that jurors are being told is that it is their responsibility "to accept the law as given by the judge." In addition, he said, defense attorneys are frequently being forbidden to inform jurors about jury nullification. He went on to describe the IRS and current tax system as "institutionalized terrorism with the full support and backing of the political system." He also stated his belief that the legal profession as a whole chooses to not only refuse discussing these issues, but is "hiding from the massive violation of rights" engendered in the current system. The majority of the "officers of the court" refuse to even acknowledge that these issues exist. He also went on to describe an "officer of the court" as "a person who has an interest in maintaining the court system above and beyond the individual case." He then pointed out the near impossibility of anyone who questions the powers of the State obtaining a fair and impartial trial under these conditions -- particularly when the power being questioned is that of taxing authority, "the very heart of the system." "There are no such things as 'laws', there is only what judges will do." On the subject of rights, he stated that "without the concept of property, the concept of rights has no meaning. Every right is a right in property." He then described what he felt was a serious and damaging trend -- that Federal courts are shying away from using the word "rights", substituting the word "interests", thereby effecting a "dangerous erosion of the concept of rights within the legal system, there is no longer such a thing as 'inalienable rights', simply parties with with differing 'interests'." "The system is becoming more untenable and terroristic" as time goes on, he stated. Judges frequently have no concept of the world outside the system. They typically go through law school, go to work for a judge, become a prosecutor, and become judges themselves -- these individuals have "never worked outside of the State." "Tax slavery is wrong. People must realize that tax slavery is as immoral as chattel slavery." As far as resisting or attempting to change the system, he painted a fairly pessimistic picture. "Political activity is difficult in the face of a 'guided democracy' with both major political parties funded by the tax system. People who are a significant threat are removed.", he said. He stated that the so-called "tax court" is a sham, and not a court at all in the proper sense, but simply an arm of the IRS. "How do you expect a government agency to be impartial" when its own funding is on the line. However, he said that some people are winning in district court, if they can get a jury and convince them. However, he said that "...when you are found innocent, it is not a reported case. The cases that appear in law books went to appeal, they are losing cases to begin with..." Once again, speaking of the human rights issues involved, he stated that the legal profession as a whole "refuses to admit that these issues exist." Despite the difficulties, he stated that "In the long run, political pressure is the only recourse, these are all political issues." "The Founding Fathers attempted, through the Constitution, to establish a republic with a limited government that respected people's rights. They failed." Interestingly, the next evening I had dinner with a very close friend of mine who is a public defender in the state of New Jersey. Not only did he confirm the comments and observations of the A.C.T. speaker, he himself stated that "judges no longer want to hear about people's rights, the Constitution means nothing to them." Indeed, it is from the information gleaned from him and other attorneys that are friends and acquaintences of mine that I draw my extremely low opinion of the legal profession and the judicial system. Comments, flames, etc., welcomed. Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert P.S. There really is a lot more, we haven't even yet touched on what's been done to the monetary system (Federal Reserve Notes vs. lawful money) or the incredible sham of the so-called "Social Security" system. All in due time... STANDARD DISCLAIMER: These opinions are my own (and those of the original authors).
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/14/86)
In article <1630@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: [ ... comments on "the system" ... ] >Comments, flames, etc., welcomed. No flames here, I agree with you. > > Bob Alpert > >P.S. > >There really is a lot more, we haven't even yet touched on what's been >done to the monetary system (Federal Reserve Notes vs. lawful money) [ ... ] Please continue to post. Your article was particularly insightful. -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu
tonti@ptsfc.UUCP (Guy Tonti) (03/15/86)
In article <1630@decwrl.DEC.COM>, alpert@chovax.DEC writes: ..... what I consider to be a very well written article. Many good, thought provoking subjects are brought up, which I am sure will give good fodder to this newsgroup for quite a while. I realize that the emphasis of the article was directed towards the IRS, but I would like to address just one small part of the article (not directly dealing with the IRS), which is a belief I have had for years, and have not had refuted by anyone I have discussed it with. In the article it states: > ....... > "The system is becoming more untenable and terroristic" as time goes > on, he stated. Judges frequently have no concept of the world outside > the system. They typically go through law school, go to work > for a judge, become a prosecutor, and become judges themselves -- these > individuals have "never worked outside of the State." > I propose that: When the U.S. Constitution was written, it was written and approved by a broad mix of people (though generally "upper class", they were farmers, merchants, professional soldiers, etc.). In the Constitution, they put in a rather elaborate (for the time) set of checks and balances between the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. This held up very well until the mid-20th century. However, in the last 50 or so years, this balance has been thrown out of kilter by the rise in the number of "law school educated" personnel (LSEP) in all 3 branches of the government. It is obvious that the power of the judiciary has increased (very eloquently stated in the referred to article). But also, in the executive branch the rise in the number of commissions and agencies has increased this branches power over "the people," and it is made up primarily of LSEP. And finally, the majority of elected congressmen and senators (not to mention their staffs) are also LSEP. Thus, as stated above, "...these individuals have "never worked outside of the State."" Or better stated for my purposes, "these individuals have "never worked (or received any education), outside of the judicial system." This has meant that areas of the government can go unchecked, as each branch of the government "marches to the same drummer." ***************************************** Well, the consequences of the above could make for quite a book, which is not what the net was designed for. I apologize if this doesn't properly fit this category of net.taxes, but I figured if I put it in net.legal it would probably be removed somehow by an LSEP (just kidding), or at least flamed to death. Thanks for reading.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/17/86)
In article <1630@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: > > >Unfortunately, >IRS abuses of citizens' rights is not confined to a few isolated instances, >it is the normal way they conduct their business. It seems to me that if it were the "normal way they conduct their business", I would know of someone personally who had problems along the lines you mention. The only stories of abuse that I've heard come from people who, as I find out more about them, seem to have been provoking the problems to begin with. >(A very informative paper is published >by the Scientologists, for example.) An interesting choice of authority figures. Do you really think citing Scientologists helps your case? >Nazis are not to be found as that >particular philosophy runs completely counter to the ideals of liberty >and freedom espoused by people involved in this movement. (The closest What about the Order and Posse Comitatus. Granted, they may not use the word "Nazi" to describe themselves, but a rose by any other name... >There has also been much comment on how the government should be funded >if not through "income" taxes. What most people don't realize is that >for most of our history there has not been a significant direct tax >levied on the "incomes" of individuals. > Okay, then am I correct in hearing that you're complaining about the *amount* of government, and how nmuch it costs? I'll agree with you there, to an extent - the gummint *is* to big and costly. But I don't really see that as an argument against the form of the taxes - only the amount. >There are fewer and fewer people left alive who remember a time when the >Federal government did not steal this level of wealth from its citizens. Hyperbole. > >For simply put, taxation is theft. There are basically two ways to acquire >wealth, to produce it or to steal it. Government falls squarely into the >latter category. >However, when the average person has over half >of his wealth forcibly extracted from him to maintain a bloated and greedy >Federal beauracracy, that person is reduced to the status of a "tax slave," Hyperbole. > >Stating that he can "no longer distinguish between taxation and theft", >he went on to say that the court system in this country exists "to >maintain the status quo" rather than to dispense justice, particularly >in cases where the power of the State is being challenged on any level. Alternate wording: the courts exist to uphold the laws of the land. They don't make the laws - they uphold them. The legislature creates the laws - if you don't like the laws, the courts are not the right place to try to change them - try the legislature. > >He also stated that judges are no longer informing juries about >the right of jury nullification -- that is, the jury's ability ro overrule >the judge if they feel his interpretation of the law is incorrect, or that >the law is unjust or being unjustly applied. In fact, in federal courts, >he stated, the first thing that jurors are being told is that it is their >responsibility "to accept the law as given by the judge." In addition, >he said, defense attorneys are frequently being forbidden to inform jurors >about jury nullification. Here you have an argument that I can't counter. I have heard of judges over-ruling juries, but never the other way around. If the juries do indeed have the right to over-rule judges, then this appears to be a travesty. However, it surprises me that juries have that right, and after just a moment's thought about it, I can't see it as a good thing. Who wants a group of average people to make decisions contrary to the law - even to the point of over-riding the judge? Can you say "kangaroo court"? If I was a black man in the South unjustly accused of raping and killing a white Southern Belle, I would not want the (maybe all-white) jury to ignore the rules of law. Any lawyers out there? *Can* juries over-ride judges? > >He went on to describe the IRS and current tax system as "institutionalized >terrorism with the full support and backing of the political system." He Hyperbole. >also stated his belief that the legal profession as a whole chooses to not >only refuse discussing these issues, but is "hiding from the massive >violation of rights" engendered in the current system. The majority of >the "officers of the court" refuse to even acknowledge that these issues >exist. He also went on to describe an "officer of the court" as "a person >who has an interest in maintaining the court system above and beyond >the individual case." Paranoid hyperbole. > "There are no such things as 'laws', there is only > what judges will do." > Paranoid hyperbole. Bullshit slogan. >On the subject of rights, he stated that "without the concept of property, >the concept of rights has no meaning. Every right is a right in property." Clearly bullshit, unless you consider "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be rooted in property. >He then described what he felt was a serious and damaging trend -- that >Federal courts are shying away from using the word "rights", substituting the >word "interests", thereby effecting a "dangerous erosion of the concept >of rights within the legal system, there is no longer such a thing as >'inalienable rights', simply parties with with differing 'interests'." The idea is that rights often conflict, and in those cases there is no possible way to uphold everybody's "rights". It's a realistic approach to a very real problem. > >"The system is becoming more untenable and terroristic" as time goes >on, he stated. Judges frequently have no concept of the world outside >the system. They typically go through law school, go to work >for a judge, become a prosecutor, and become judges themselves -- these >individuals have "never worked outside of the State." Paranoid hyperbole. > >As far as resisting or attempting to change the system, he painted >a fairly pessimistic picture. "Political activity is difficult in >the face of a 'guided democracy' with both major political parties >funded by the tax system. People who are a significant threat are >removed.", he said. People who want to overthrow the government are removed. Sounds self evident to me. But how are they "removed". I suppose you would have us believe they are carted off in the night to a faithful re-creation of Auschwitz somewhere in rural Wyoming. > "The Founding Fathers attempted, through the Constitution, > to establish a republic with a limited government that > respected people's rights. They failed." > Hyperbole & B.S. > >"judges no longer want to hear about people's rights, the Constitution means >nothing to them." Hyperbole. > > Bob Alpert > With all the hyperbole and bullshit, I don't think you're winning many people to your cause. If people catch you exaggerating and distorting the facts, it casts considerable doubt on even the true things you say. You're not doing your cause any good by propagandizing - go for the truth, not a bunch of paranoid, hyperbolic, half-true ravings. You use a lot of loaded words like "steal" and "theft" that twist your sentences so that the conclusions you wish people to draw from your arguments are already included. When people read this sort of slanted rhetoric, the intelligent ones automatically discount everything you say because it's so obviously biased as to cast immediate doubt as to the veracity of the facts. Instead of examining the facts and drawing a conclusion, you're giving the conclusion and then fitting the facts to conform. Not a very scientific practice. -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan