alpert@chovax.DEC (02/08/86)
[] >It's foolish to say the tax itself is unconstitutional. If you want to >say that some IRS methods may be unconstitutional, that's another matter. There are some interesting anomalies surrounding the 16th amendment. Some claim it was never properly ratified. We'll be taking a look at some of this information shortly. Also, as we saw in the Schiff articles, there are anomalies in the tax code itself regarding filing "requirements" and the persons actually made liable for the tax imposed. Possibly I should make my own position clear since I have been posting a variety of material. My primary concern is the vicious Gestapo-like tactics used by the IRS to intimidate and harass taxpayers. The idea that here in America citizens have to fear a government agency that can plunder at will, ignoring all rights and protections, is ludicrous. What does private property mean if the government can confiscate anything it wants at will, without so much as a hearing? How can anyone be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" if the IRS can at will take a fishing expedition through one's bank records and confiscate accounts, without so much as an explanation? >You mean FORMER congressman George Hansen, who left Congress in disgrace >after a number of shady financial deals, and who is now connected with >several extreme right-wing organizations. I don't believe a word the >man says. Here I must ask for more supporting data. What kind of shady financial deals? How was he disgraced? What are these "extreme right-wing" organizations? Has he been convicted of any crimes? Note that the IRS has engaged in "setting up" of public officials who attempt to do anything about the agency. This has been revealed not only in Hansen's and other books, but by former IRS agents. From what I can see, Hansen has done an admirable job of documenting many IRS abuses. The new edition of Hansen's book has just been released, it is twice as thick as the previous edition. >Please post references to legitimate media coverage of any of these >incidents: regular daily newspapers, news magazines, or wire services, >documentation from groups opposed to the income tax will not do. The "legitimate media" is very reluctant to get into heavy criticism of the IRS (though from what I am told the stories in the examples did receive some media attention at the time they occurred). I get my information from a number of sources, including my local A.C.T. group, various books and publications, and a Philadelphia radio station that frequently has victims of the IRS, former IRS agents, and others on the air. Thank you for your reply and interest. Bob Alpert DEC Software Services 6 Executive Campus, Rt. 70 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are my own.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/10/86)
In article <1002@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: > >[] > >>It's foolish to say the tax itself is unconstitutional. If you want to >>say that some IRS methods may be unconstitutional, that's another matter. > >There are some interesting anomalies surrounding the 16th amendment. >Some claim it was never properly ratified. We'll be taking a look >at some of this information shortly. I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination? 16th amendment not valid? Wake up. Let's do a thought experiment. You take the IRS to the Supreme Court and prove beyond any doubt that the tax system in the US is unconstitutional. What do you think the Supreme Court would rule? Do you really think they would say, "Okay, he's right, the government has to give everybody back the money they've paid since 1944, with interest. And not only that, but the government can't tax anybody's income anymore." I'm sorry, but when the federal deficit is measured in trillions of dollars, I have to think you're tilting at windmills. --MKR
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (02/12/86)
> >It's foolish to say the tax itself is unconstitutional. If you want to > >say that some IRS methods may be unconstitutional, that's another matter. > > There are some interesting anomalies surrounding the 16th amendment. > Some claim it was never properly ratified... Yeah, and I wish that "some" would offer some verification, instead of just claiming it as a fact. I've heard this before, but have yet to see proof (which would be easy to do). Every state that claims to have ratified the amendment should have a record of having done so, and it shouldn't take much to figure out which states those are. They either ratified it or they didn't. > Possibly I should make my own position clear since I have been posting > a variety of material. My primary concern is the vicious Gestapo-like > tactics used by the IRS to intimidate and harass taxpayers. The idea > that here in America citizens have to fear a government agency that can > plunder at will, ignoring all rights and protections, is ludicrous. > > What does private property mean if the government can confiscate > anything it wants at will, without so much as a hearing? How can > anyone be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" if the > IRS can at will take a fishing expedition through one's bank records > and confiscate accounts, without so much as an explanation? I have to agree that the Alaska and Maryland incidents (if they happened exactly as described) are pretty brutal. The way you describe the Minnesota incident, however, makes me wonder about the other two. In the Minnesota example, as you described it, the IRS isn't the logical cause of the farmer's death. Look at it from the bank's point of view: when someone borrows money from a bank to buy a combine, most banks will demand a secured interest in the combine, which we usually call "colateral" (you legal types will recognize it as a "purchase-money security interest"). The farmer also must have signed a loan agreement that states quite clearly that if he stops payments on the loan, the bank will reposess the colateral. Would you seriously expect the bank to roll over and say "Gee, Mr. Farmer, I guess we're wrong about letting the IRS into your account", just because he stopped payment on the loan? Of course not. Banks don't work that way. Instead, he might have tried a claim against the bank under the Civil Rights Act. "Oh, hell!", you say. "A big expensive lawsuit over $40.00 will only benefit the lawyers". Well, sure, in that case I guess it makes a lot more sense to default on a loan and then start shooting at the reposessor. Anything is better than paying a lawyer. Even getting killed. Having chosen to stop payment because he was upset over their paying the IRS, he was inviting a reposession. Given that the bank had a security interest in the combine, it is overstating things to claim that the farmer was defending HIS property. Yes, it was his property but he had already agreed to the reposession when he signed the original loan. If he had a problem with the bank, the way to solve it is to sue the bank, or whatever, instead of defaulting on a loan. It is tragic that he got killed, but it's not as though he wasn't looking for trouble. Shooting at a police cars tires isn't exactly the mark of an innocent victim. The IRS has a lot of slimy practices, I agree. But you do great harm to your otherwise plausible argument when you use a grossly over-stated anecdote like that. To say that the IRS "caused" this death is just absurd. > >You mean FORMER congressman George Hansen, who left Congress in disgrace > >after a number of shady financial deals, and who is now connected with > >several extreme right-wing organizations. I don't believe a word the > >man says. > > Here I must ask for more supporting data. What kind of shady financial > deals? Yeah. What kind of shady financial deals>