alpert@nanook.DEC (12/04/84)
RE: response by ...voder!kathy
Thank you for taking the time to address the issues on a point-by-point
basis, you are one of the first persons to do so!
I am sending a copy of your comments to Schiff to solicit his reactions
(if any). My own comments on the points you raise follow, along with
some details on a couple of recent *wins* over the IRS.
"OREGONIAN" ARTICLE:
There is no way the fellow in this article could have won his case
on the grounds that the tax laws are unconstitutional. They are
not. The methods and policies of the IRS are, however. He lost,
like many others, due to not using the proper defense. Anyone trying
to prove the IRS code unconstitutional will fail!!
COMMENTS ON SECTION 7401 (Authorization for collection of taxes):
There is no need for the IRS code to "guarantee" Constitutional due
process -- but it cannot (and does not) interfere with it either!
Is the Constitution the highest law of the land or is it not?
LEVIES:
Yes, levies are legal, however the IRS does not use levies, they
use a "Notice of Levy", which is a completely different document.
The "Notice of Levy" is described in the IRS code as having a severely
limited application, the bogus regulation which "interprets" that code
contradicts the actual law and is therefore not binding. The "Notice
of Levy" is an attempt (highly successful) at using intimidation and
fear against the public.
You also seem to feel that seizure of property by any means without
due process is not unconstitutional, and that the IRS has the legal
authority to plunder as they please. I don't understand this
viewpoint, the Constitution is quite clear on such matters.
As stated in the article, the whole question of the difference between
"Levies" and the "Notice of Levy" is currently being tested in cases
that are in litigation. It remains to be seen whether pursuing this
avenue is a "waste of money and time". I do not believe it is false
reasoning, but that of course is just my opinion, the courts will
ultimately decide.
TAX LIABILITY:
Note that section 6011 of the code very clearly states that
"any person MADE LIABLE for ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE...
shall make a return..."
That is, a person "shall" make a return if:
1) A tax is imposed
2) He/she is MADE LIABLE for that tax
Once again, the various taxes IMPOSED by the Code all very clearly
have sections which MAKE certain persons LIABLE for that tax. Such
sections are curiously missing for "income" taxes.
From Irwin Schiff:
"The income tax issue is a simple one: There is no provision
in the Internal Revenue Code that establishes an income tax
`liability' or any requirement that such a tax be paid by
anyone - whether you are `enfranchised' or not, incorporated
or not, or work for the government or not! What other issue,
therefore, can be significant..."
SOME WINNING CASES:
(From "The Schiff Report", July 1983)
Ray Garland case:
...a Chicago jury found him *not guilty* on four counts of failing to
file tax returns for the years 1976, '77, '78, and '79. Ray did a superb
job of handling his own defense. Ray's basic defense was that filing tax
returns is voluntary...
In addition, Ray explained to the jury that it is the government's
responsibility to bill citizens for any "income" taxes they owe and *why*
it would be a violation of his 5th and 9th Amendment rights if the law
"required" him to file "income" tax returns...
...Garland then offered the jury a current (1982) 1040 booklet...which
states that individuals may *volunteer* to reduce the public debt. He then
asked the jury whether or not they, too, might find themselves charged
someday with the crime of not "volunteering to reduce the public debt".
If he could be charged with the "crime" of "failing to file a tax return",
which was described in the 1971 booklet as being "voluntary", they could
with equal logic, be charged with the "crime" of not "volunteering to reduce
the public debt"...
...Of added interest in this case was the comment of District Court Judge
William T. Hart who, after the verdict was announced, told Ray that he
was "a very lucky man". Why was Ray "lucky"? The jury found him innocent.
Obviously he was lucky becaused the "judge" believed him to be guilty. But
a judge is supposed to be impartial. This is proof that the "judge" in
this case was not impartial (so, what else is new?) and thus could not
even function as a judge in this case. He believed that Ray was guilty even
after the jury pronounced him innocent! So much for federal judges...
Perry "Jack" Pierce, Jr case:
...win on May 27, 1983 in upstate New York could have even greater significance
than Ray's win, since Jack didn't even take the stand in his own defense!...
...Jack was also charged with allegedly filing false W-4s for the years 1980
and '81, in addition to allegedly failing to file tax returns. He beat all
four counts!
Int his case Jack was ably defended by Scott McLarty, an attorney from
Athens, Georgia, and called as a defense witness, Adrienne Flipse, an attorney
from Long Island, New York.
An important element in this case was that the trial judge sustained so many
of the government's objections to Scott McLarty's incisive questions directed
at both government and defense witnesses that the jury sensed (correctly)
that the judge was trying to hide things from them, so they found Jack
*not guilty* on all four counts...
>>>>>><<<<<<<
In any event, if I get a response from Schiff to the points raised by
...voder!kathy I will post it to the net.
Bob Alpert
...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert