Dogwalker writes from prison

[Bud Dickman]

The comments are great.

Letter

The Browns are political prisoners
Daniel J. Riley, Boscawen

For the Monitor
July 26, 2009

One must inquire why the government just didn't just show the law that made Ed and Elaine Brown liable for the voluntary income tax to avoid the expense and danger of a standoff. I say "voluntary" because the IRS's own literature informs you the income tax is based on voluntary compliance. No bureaucrat will ever assess your income; you do it yourself, voluntarily, waiving your Fifth Amendment right when you sign that 1040.

The 1040 instruction booklet, the Paper Reduction Act Notice and Privacy Act Notice all tell you that you only have to pay taxes you are liable for. Well, 26 U.S.C. 4404, 5505, 4786 are the liability clauses for tobacco, alcohol and wagering taxes. Where is the liability clause for the income tax? That's what the Browns respectfully asked for over and over, only to be shown the barrel of a gun.

The Browns didn't want to voluntarily waive their rights, but instead stood on them. They were willing to pay every penny, as soon as they were shown the law that made them liable. The Browns paid all their other taxes.

The people have a right to ask questions and get answers. This is found in the First Amendment. A maxim of law is "no answers - no taxes." It's the people's way to peacefully control an out-of-control government.

The Browns were justified and are now political prisoners.
DANIEL J. RILEY

Boscawen

(The writer was sentenced to 36 years in federal prison last fall for building bombs and bringing guns to the Browns at their home in Plainfield.)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /907260337

[Brandybuck]

The people have a right to ask questions and get answers.

The answers to their questions have been asked over and over and over. And over. Everyone who has asked has been answered. Everyone. But the nuts refuse to listen. My patience is wearing thin. It took me all of thirty seconds to find the answer on the intertoobs.

[Pottapaug1938]

The people have a right to ask questions and get answers.

The answers to their questions have been asked over and over and over. And over. Everyone who has asked has been answered. Everyone. But the nuts refuse to listen. My patience is wearing thin. It took me all of thirty seconds to find the answer on the intertoobs.

They won't listen because they are demanding specific magic words, such as "every person receiving income within the United States, unless excused by statute or law, is liable to pay tax thereon". Of course, I suspect, they would then find yet another excuse to avoid payment; Dogwalker's selective use of the "voluntary compliance" words and their misuse of the Fifth Amendment (note to Dogwalker -- you have to report your income; you just don't have to say where you got it. If you are an illegal gunrunner, you can say that you get your income from "sales" and, as long as you pay all related taxes, the IRS won't care about the origin of your income) suggests that he and the :Browns just plain don't want to pay taxes. They pay the other taxes, as Dogwalker notes, because they can't get what they want without doing so.

[LPC]

The people have a right to ask questions and get answers. This is found in the First Amendment.

Ask questions, yes. Get answers, not so much.

See We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140, 2007 TNT 90-9, No. 05-5359 (D.C. Cir. 5/8/2007), cert. denied, Nos. 07-680 and 07-681 (1/7/2008), rehearing den. (2/25/2008) (holding that the first amendment does not require a government response to "petitions for grievances.").

[Thule]

They won't listen because they are demanding specific magic words, such as "every person receiving income within the United States, unless excused by statute or law, is liable to pay tax thereon".

More like "Congress passes into law that Daniel John Riley is liable for income tax. Yes, you, Dogwalker, not the other Daniel Riley, not some strawman or anything. Just you, you need to pay".

But even then, he would probably have objections.

[webhick]

They won't listen because they are demanding specific magic words, such as "every person receiving income within the United States, unless excused by statute or law, is liable to pay tax thereon".

More like "Congress passes into law that Daniel John Riley is liable for income tax. Yes, you, Dogwalker, not the other Daniel Riley, not some strawman or anything. Just you, you need to pay".

But even then, he would probably have objections.

I was more thinking that any additions to the wording would have to say, "All persons (and this means pasty white dough boys, too), are liable for income tax." Then it would basically describe a lot tax deniers.

[Thule]

I was more thinking that any additions to the wording would have to say, "All persons (and this means pasty white dough boys, too), are liable for income tax." Then it would basically describe a lot tax deniers.

Yeah, but then we would have the same old "I'm not a person as defined by the IRC".

[webhick]

I was more thinking that any additions to the wording would have to say, "All persons (and this means pasty white dough boys, too), are liable for income tax." Then it would basically describe a lot tax deniers.

Yeah, but then we would have the same old "I'm not a person as defined by the IRC".

But they are pasty white dough boys.

[jkeeb]

But then Beale and Jackson and Snipes would have their day!

[kepsir]

Actually, under the DiVarco standard, ( see United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673), the source of income was determined by the district court to be the second most important item on the return, behind only the amount of tax due. If you put down "sales" or some other form of obfustication for your illegal activities, you have perjured yourself. Your only real option is to put down something like "5th amendment" and wait for the audit and federal investigators.

But at least you would have invoked your rights and can fight back in court. Noone ever said crime was easy.............

[Imalawman]

Actually, under the DiVarco standard, ( see United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673), the source of income was determined by the district court to be the second most important item on the return, behind only the amount of tax due. If you put down "sales" or some other form of obfustication for your illegal activities, you have perjured yourself. Your only real option is to put down something like "5th amendment" and wait for the audit and federal investigators.

But at least you would have invoked your rights and can fight back in court. Noone ever said crime was easy.............

um, welcome, but what is your response in reply to? Second, where are on the 1040, do you put down the "source" of your wages? Are you talking about a schedule C or something? Not following you there...

[kepsir]

Sorry for being unclear. I was responding to Pottapaug1938's statement about the hypothetical gunrunner putting down "sales" on his 1040 under occupation ( see IRS Form 1040, signature line). There is now a whole bunch of fun case law where folks did what Pottapaug1938 described and they earned some rest time at the crossbar hotel for doing it.

Then again, one could always put down "gunrunner" on the occupation line under the assumption that the IRS will respect your privacy & not forward it to BATF.............

[Arthur Rubin]

Actually, under the DiVarco standard, ( see United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673), the source of income was determined by the district court to be the second most important item on the return, behind only the amount of tax due. If you put down "sales" or some other form of obfustication for your illegal activities, you have perjured yourself. Your only real option is to put down something like "5th amendment" and wait for the audit and federal investigators.

I thought that was completely wrong. If you are in sales of illegal merchandise, you're supposed put down "sales". At least, that's what I recall from the last tax seminar which mentioned the issue.

[kepsir]

We can let the case speak for itself:

http://openjurist.org/484/f2d/670

[Imalawman]

We can let the case speak for itself:

http://openjurist.org/484/f2d/670

But that's not the main point of the case. There's clearly allowed a "5th amendment return" for illegal source income - See - United States v. Johnson, 577 F.2d 1304, 1310-11 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that requiring disclosure of income, even income derived from illegal activity, on a tax return does not violate the Fifth Amendment, noting that the individual retains the option of disclosing the income without revealing its source) See also, United States v. Roush, 466 F.3d 380, 388 (5th Cir. 2006). One must be careful about filing a 5th amendment return. However, what your case says, indirectly, is that you cannot lie about the source - you either claim 5th amendment or not at all. I think that if you sell drugs and put down sales, that would not be misleading or perjury - but you couldn't put down sales when in fact you were money laundering - or put down sales of legal items when you were selling illegal items.

[Gregg]

They won't listen because they are demanding specific magic words, such as "every person receiving income within the United States, unless excused by statute or law, is liable to pay tax thereon".

More like "Congress passes into law that Daniel John Riley is liable for income tax. Yes, you, Dogwalker, not the other Daniel Riley, not some strawman or anything. Just you, you need to pay".

But even then, he would probably have objections.

you're talking about his strawman/legal fiction there

[Quixote]

They won't listen because they are demanding specific magic words, such as "every person receiving income within the United States, unless excused by statute or law, is liable to pay tax thereon".

More like "Congress passes into law that Daniel John Riley is liable for income tax. Yes, you, Dogwalker, not the other Daniel Riley, not some strawman or anything. Just you, you need to pay".

But even then, he would probably have objections.

He would probably decide that was a bill of attainder.

[wserra]

We can let the case speak for itself:

http://openjurist.org/484/f2d/670

But that's not the main point of the case.

Imalawman is certainly right. The Seventh Circuit in DiVarco doesn't make it clear what the false statement was. However, the DC did: the defendants "each reported income from commissions paid them by Chemical Mortgage & Investment Corporation never having received any income from such a source, thereby falsely stating the source of their reported income". United States v. DiVarco, 343 F.Supp. 101 (DIL 1972). A drug dealer who states that his income is from "sales" is not lying, and has a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to admit to criminality. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927). Perhaps kepsir could cite a case "where folks did what Pottapaug1938 described and they earned some rest time at the crossbar hotel for doing it". DiVarco isn't that case.