Tax cheats don't draw comic strips

There's a key distinction between tax protesters, and tax honesty movement agenda.

That New Hampshire couple is not protesting how taxes are used, whether for illegal wars, social programs which may in many ways be desirable but are illegal when they fall outside "duties and powers" or violate civil rights discrimination laws, or other such valid causes to express civil disobedience or 1st Amendment grievances over, even when not respected as such by our courts. They are demanding that the IRS obey its own laws, starting with the long recognized Constitutional limits on their authority plus definitions of what is or is not "taxable income" formerly listed in IRS regulations, still legally present for lack of any change in the Constitution or relevant precedent, but conveniently deleted over the years from being explicitly stated.

They are challenging IRS regulations and conflicting laws from Congress which gives the IRS and Dept. of Treasury enforcement powers for whatever they claim their regulations require, in cases where those regulations or administrative interpretations thereof are in conflict with statutory or Constitutional law. IOW, tax honesty people aren't protesting taxes; they are demanding government strictly obey its own laws, while challenging that enforcement actions of invalid or expressly unConstitutional interpretations or applications of subordinate and preempted law are inherently illegal actions by government, and arguably violent crime by government.

To clarify one issue raised here, based on how (former IRS special agent and firearms trainer) Joe Banister described his understanding of it in person behind the scenes peripheral to a conference outside DC, the IRS per se did not actually buy the over a thousand riot shotguns and assault rifles some attribute to them around the same time it launched its "customer service" propaganda campaign. Instead, the Dept of Treasury transfered the former IRS unit which bought those items for use in home invasions and general strongarm thug coercion racket tactics into separate legal status in Treasury, such that the IRS could have plausible deniability when they used it, and the BATFucks could have equal access to a shared resource.

==

To answer one of Brad's earlier questions, I don't consider myself primarily a tax protester per se, since I do respect the court's reasons for holding tax protests as not legal even when 70-90% of Federal budgets for most recent years cannot be justified Constitutionally. There are also serious defects in rulings from the Rehnquist bigot court such as "Secondary Effects Doctrine", where IMHO it's defective precedent in Barnes v Glen Theatre inc, or Erie v Pap's A.M. dba Kandyland, to endorse fraudulent rabid fundy Christo-fascist financial evidence disproven in some cases as fraud, and hold that in effect worship of money as the great Amerikan religion trumps enumerated civil rights. That's reason (among others) to topple larger economic policies which go far beyond tax systems, or government, but not a primary reason the IRS itself is and cannot exist without being a criminal conspiracy.

I do identify with the tax honesty movement, though many who do have been driven psychotic to some extent by malicious, systemic tactics in which the IRS intentionally engages, to make futile many political and judicial avenues to which citizens are entitled as peaceful means to force the government to comply with its own laws. The IRS system is so conflicted within itself that it by design is impossible for most people to fully and honestly comply with all layers of law existing as parts of that system, such that even if most people aren't aware of the extensive details, there's a choice of filing and signing returns which are not accurate under the law (a felony perjury crime under 18 USC 1001 generic criminal law regardless of any other 26 USC or 26 CFR or other legal issues), versus the misdemeanor crime of violating filing regulations which are at odds with law defining filing to be voluntary and a citizen option to challenge results of the returns and bills the Secretary of the Treasury is required by law to prepare but does not, except after the fact in punitive forms which maliciously cherry pick pieces of law to follow or ignore, in violation of the law. Absent cleaning up massive defects in Tax Code, too extensive for a forum such as this but widely documented (if one makes the effort, and sorts through the religio-crazies diluting the serious discussions), the only way to fully comply is to change one's lifestyle to live largely outside the mainstream economic systems so far below the povery level most people don't understand how it is possible, which in turn in most cases results in other major civil rights violations when government imposes the de facto oppression of that being the only way to not act as one form or another of defined criminal for perfectly normal life choices.

I've met Bill Benson and gone over his collection of 17,000 or so copies of state archival documents, and am convinced he has taken a valid position that the 16th Amendment was never validly ratified, for enough different reasons that the claim is still supported even if the punctuation and other trivial issues are ignored, but ones like a state voting against ratification being certified as if ratifying, or states voting to ratify by invalid votes because of state Constitutions invalidating any such vote absent first amending the state Constitutions. The failure of transmittal of formal certification of a ratification vote to DC by one state impresses me as valid as well. It's amazing how the IRS scheme is today marketed as if something desirable to the poor, when Philander Knox (the Sec. of State who certified the 16th Am. as if ratified in a lame duck period before leaving office) was a friend of the Rockefellers, and the IRS design was crafted as a related political deal by several competing "robber baron" era industrial elite factions, to tamper with political favor trades within their own circles in ways which raise many due process and equal protections issues.

Irwin Schiff being given "diesel therapy" by Fed's trying to kill him to silence his publications about the IRS mafia impresses me as fundamentally criminal, other than by Feds operating outside the law as if some king's men, a larger problem in our legal system where IMHO sovereign (or renamed "official") immunity should be pierced against cops, politicians, and bureaucrats, under similar standards as exist for corporate officers or employees. While I don't see all the tactics Irwin's advocated as being entirely legal, I trust that he was 100% accurate when I've seen him stand up after a presentation by a former Federal Reserve lawyer making some IRS related comments after an otherwise valid depiction of the history of the Federal Reserve and why it's not entirely legal, nor clearly illegal either, and challenge that what the lawyer said about Tax Code is wrong, because "the IRS does not play by those rules" (of US law and its own Tax Code or related regulations). Irwin impresses me as taking the "diplomatic" approach to the "IRS Mafia", that of saying "nice doggy" while trying to pick up a rock.

Larken Rose, Tom Clayton, and other such "861" educators, impress me as making accurate legal claims. Those claims should be moot were the 1895 SCOTUS precedent holding an IRS predecessor scheme unConstitutional to be honored, based on the 16th Am. certification as if ratified being a fraud. I do not recognize the other basis for all amendments 13-17 being invalid, which Reconstruction protesters sometimes assert, though their positions raise interesting thoughts on the entire USA being formed from theft and genocides against Native Americans. The difficulty with 861 issues is that they require such extensive study as to be beyond the comprehension of most people without strong motivation plus education at the post-doctoral level, including in systems of legal hierarchies. Most such people are so strongly vested in the "religion of predatory money systems" as to have incredible prejudices against the facts such study reveals, which includes many dishonest judges and corrupt lawyers on various political sides. There's yet to be a good adjudication of those issues, as it takes substantial financial and emotional resources for a citizen to survive litigating them, plus the Fed's shop for corrupt judges and courts which routinely suppress the core evidence juries need to both see, and have explained in enough detail to grasp how IRS agents and US Attorneys plus their "experts" routinely perjure themselves before courts.

The IRS has admitted in some cases that it cannot implement the Tax Code from Congress without ignoring the 4th and 5th Amendments. Oddly, they've managed to judge shop well enough to be given a pass on those defects, rather than be told, along with Congress, to try again and design statutory law and related regulations capable of operating in compliance with Constitutional law, as the legal hierarchy invalidates statutes or regulations which do not comply, contrary to the IRS positions that their regulations or interpretations not even subject to Rulemaking Proceedings somehow trump the Constitution.

There are additional issues of 1st, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights which when applied to many closely held small businesses where personal assets overlap business assets and the government is not entitled to audit or know about the pesonal side of that, or minority religions (including large ones like atheism or secular humanism as defined in law even if not common perception, many pagan paths, and some splinter xtian sects), which make it impossible to create an auditable definition of "income" which does not inherently conflict with a range of civil rights. As such, the Constitional obligation of law when other tax systems which can comply with those legal preemptive standards exist, is for Congress to do so, rather than run roughshod over civil rights.

Under any and all of those issues, there's a key difference between a "tax protester" whose intent is to disobey law whether because of other illegal government actions on the spending side or for other than legal personal reasons, and "tax honesty" proponents whose intent is to fully obey the law, but who demand that the law be fixed so that it's possible to do so, as a fundamental legal obligation of government and a right of every citizen to demand of it.

One of the positions this New Hampshire couple has taken is that of "show me the law". It's curious that the IRS won't point to specific laws justifying most of their tax enforcement actions, but only to extortive enforcement regulations. Tax honesty movement people generally will not recognize a dishonest judge causing corrupt government violence on that basis as valid and legal actions, but rather as violations of law by the very government charged and entrusted with its enforcement. It's a form of tyranny, which promotes violent revolution in the sense JFK depicted as the consequence of making peaceful revolution to obtain or preserve justice impossible.

Also curious in this New Hampshire case is how US Marshalls are lined up ready to steal private assets in a case where the kangaroo court has yet to issue sentence findings. About two years ago the 2nd Circuit finally ruled that another common IRS thug racket tactic is not legal, that of stealing bank and securities accounts or other liquid assets based on administrative letters to financial institutions, which it intimidates into cooperating despite no court ruling to support such actions as required by law.

About the only legal argument to support how many Federal courts have acted to support the IRS crime scheme I can see as compelling them is that were they to act honestly, and given their past actions, they'd have to find the White House, Dept of Justice, Dept of Treasury, numerous Federal courts, and a number of other agencies, had all engaged in such extensive violent criminal conspiracies, that their present and past elected, appointed, and employed officials and staffers all belonged in prison for multiple lifetimes, or executed as career violent felons. There's a bit of a conflict of interest when government that corrupt acts to preverse the corruption, and call that "justice".