johnhi@tekig.UUCP (John Higley) (11/20/84)
[Any comments] This article was 'clipped' from the 20 Nov 84 Oregonian. I am not agreeing with the article, I am just putting it up for comment. What do you think of the outcome of this, Bob? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Salem man who contended at his trial that income tax laws were unconstitutional was sentenced Monday to three years in Prison. Charles D---- K-----, 37, was sentenced for tax offenses for the years 1977, 1979 and 1980. In sentencing K-----, U.S. District Judge James M. Burns said that while history may someday prove K-----'s contentions correct, "I do not appreciate Mr. K----- getting the protection of society that I've paid for when he's not willing to pay his share. As far as I'm concerned he's nothing but a shabby tax cheat." K-----'s lawyer, Terrance L. McCauley, had told Burns that K----- and many other people sincerely believe the tax laws are unconstitutional because the government claims the right to tax their wages as income. He said the movement, which he sees as involving the same kind of idealism as the draft resistance movement during the Vietnam War, "will not go away." K----- told Burns the government "has tried to make an example of me." He said the Internal Revenue Service had not talked or worked with him, but that he had been willing to pay the taxes he owed if the government had given him a bill. Arthur H. Davis, an assistant U.S. attorney from the U.S. Justice Department's tax division in Washington, D.C., argued that the opposite was true, that K----- had used "every trick in the book" to avoid paying his taxes. Davis, in recommending a substantial jail sentence, said K----- had disseminated his views on taxes to many other people. A jury found K----- guilty in October of failing to file federal income tax returns for 1978, 1979 and 1980 of gross income of $37,023, $55,176 and $54,168, respectively. On Monday, however, Burns granted a defense motion to dismiss the 1978 count, which the government had amended during the trial. K----- also was convicted of falsely claiming $3,900 in employee business expenses for 1977, and of understating on a corporate tax return the sale price of a delivery van in 1977. During the period covered by the indictment, K----- operated a bread delivery route, primarily in Salem and Albany. Burns ordered K-----, following his release from prison, to serve a five- year probation term, including the special conditions that he pay the costs of prosecution and a $5,000 fine. The judge refused to set bail pending appeal and ordered K----- taken into custody immediately. K----- had testified at the trial that he believed the tax laws required only voluntary payment of taxes, and that wages are not "income" for taxation purposes. In another tax-related case, a former Medford couple who also challenged the constitutionality of the federal tax laws was sentenced to jail terms Monday for failing to file tax returns on gross income totaling $190,000 for 1977, 1978 and 1979. Ronald C------, 45, was sentenced by Burns to nine months in jail on one count, a consecutive six-month jail term on the second count, and a five- year probation term on the third count to be served after release from jail. Suzanne C------, 46, was sentenced to six months in prison, to be followed by a five-year probations term. The C------s, ...... stopped paying taxes in 1977 .... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the names were printed in the Oregonian, I do not feel proper in spreading them around the world. If you (Bob Alpert) would like the names in order to find out more about the case let me know and give me a path to use. John Higley ...tektronix!tekig!johnhi Disclaimer: Anything you see here is a product of my own misgivings and not those of my company.
kathy@voder.UUCP (Kathy Hale) (11/30/84)
I wonder if these people have franchises? (drivers' licenses, social security cards, birth certificates, etc.) If so, why is it a surprise that they lost in court and were jailed -- if you are enfranchised, you OWE the "income" tax under the IRS code. The only way your wages do not become "income" is if you are at the Common Law and a freeperson! Disenfranchised! > This article was 'clipped' from the 20 Nov 84 Oregonian. I am not agreeing > with the article, I am just putting it up for comment. What do you think of > the outcome of this, Bob? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > A Salem man who contended at his trial that income tax laws were > unconstitutional was sentenced Monday to three years in Prison. > Charles D---- K-----, 37, was sentenced for tax offenses for the years > 1977, 1979 and 1980. > > In sentencing K-----, U.S. District Judge James M. Burns said that while > history may someday prove K-----'s contentions correct, "I do not appreciate > Mr. K----- getting the protection of society that I've paid for when he's not > willing to pay his share. As far as I'm concerned he's nothing but a shabby > tax cheat." > > K-----'s lawyer, Terrance L. McCauley, had told Burns that K----- and many > other people sincerely believe the tax laws are unconstitutional because the > government claims the right to tax their wages as income. He said the > movement, which he sees as involving the same kind of idealism as the draft > resistance movement during the Vietnam War, "will not go away." > K----- told Burns the government "has tried to make an example of me." He > said the Internal Revenue Service had not talked or worked with him, but that > he had been willing to pay the taxes he owed if the government had given him > a bill. > > Arthur H. Davis, an assistant U.S. attorney from the U.S. Justice > Department's tax division in Washington, D.C., argued that the opposite was > true, that K----- had used "every trick in the book" to avoid paying his > taxes. Davis, in recommending a substantial jail sentence, said K----- had > disseminated his views on taxes to many other people. > > A jury found K----- guilty in October of failing to file federal income tax > returns for 1978, 1979 and 1980 of gross income of $37,023, $55,176 and > $54,168, respectively. On Monday, however, Burns granted a defense motion to > dismiss the 1978 count, which the government had amended during the trial. > K----- also was convicted of falsely claiming $3,900 in employee business > expenses for 1977, and of understating on a corporate tax return the sale > price of a delivery van in 1977. > During the period covered by the indictment, K----- operated a bread > delivery route, primarily in Salem and Albany. > Burns ordered K-----, following his release from prison, to serve a five- > year probation term, including the special conditions that he pay the costs > of prosecution and a $5,000 fine. > The judge refused to set bail pending appeal and ordered K----- taken into > custody immediately. > K----- had testified at the trial that he believed the tax laws required > only voluntary payment of taxes, and that wages are not "income" for taxation > purposes. > > In another tax-related case, a former Medford couple who also challenged > the constitutionality of the federal tax laws was sentenced to jail terms > Monday for failing to file tax returns on gross income totaling $190,000 for > 1977, 1978 and 1979. > Ronald C------, 45, was sentenced by Burns to nine months in jail on one > count, a consecutive six-month jail term on the second count, and a five- > year probation term on the third count to be served after release from jail. > Suzanne C------, 46, was sentenced to six months in prison, to be followed > by a five-year probations term. > The C------s, ...... stopped paying taxes in 1977 .... > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Although the names were printed in the Oregonian, I do not feel proper in > spreading them around the world. If you (Bob Alpert) would like the names in > order to find out more about the case let me know and give me a path to use. > > John Higley > ...tektronix!tekig!johnhi > > Disclaimer: Anything you see here is a product of my own misgivings and not > those of my company. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***