Plan to go after DOJ employees

[Demosthenes]

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2009
Suing Government Operatives for Income tax Abuse.
Possible Non-Rebellion Path to Justice, by Bob Hurt.

Let us examine some facts regarding income tax in America. The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to apportion direct taxes among the states according to percentage of the population. Congress created confusing tax laws that make it seem as though everyone who earns money must pay a tax on profit, and their own labor has no value in that profit calculation.

People who “smell a rat” in this concept and study it in depth discover the reality that people generally do not owe an income tax. They find out that government operatives abusively demand it, collect it, and condemn everyone who refuses to pay it because they don’t owe it. Those who organize, lead, and the resistance to unconstitutional and unlawfully implemented income tax comprise a “tax honesty movement.”

Government operatives have aggressively attacked people in the “movement,” contriving to get them incarcerated for writing and selling books about the movement and how to participate in it by refusing to pay any unowed tax. The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), at the continued behest of the President of the United States, have established a culture of persecution of people in the movement. Government operatives, including judges, refer to them variously as Tax Defiers, Tax Protestors, Tax Cheats, etc. Government operatives have thus besmirched the image of the tax honesty movement and its adherents in the minds of the sheep-like people of America who blindly believe “everybody ought to pay income tax on their earnings.” Government operatives don’t do this merely to win in disputes against tax honesty advocates, but to defame and destroy them in the mind of the public.

This must stop.

An attorney friend wrote me about this yesterday:

“We, meaning several of the attorneys in the movement, are looking very hard at several ways to mount a counter-offensive against the DOJ sponsored assault on the movement. That is, however, not as simple a matter as it appears. If the defamatory component in their assault were as cut and dried as in [an anti-tax-honesty attorney’s] case, then that would definitely be in the works, but it's a glancing blow, open for argument.

“We are also, however, planning on issuing a challenge to this bunch to put up or shut up. More on that once we get the wrinkles ironed out. We're already shopping for a sponsor to promote and conduct the showdown.”

I fully endorse such a plan of action. After all, even a glancing blow can give people the heart to mount a more aggressive and effective attack against the abuse. To that end, I supplied my friend with a list of facts in support of the cause of action. I present it to you for review and encourage you to add any items you think I have missed. Send them to me and I shall forward them to my friend. Once you examine the list below, you will see why my friend might prefer a little anonymity.

1. The IRS creates frivolous argument penalties out of thin air. Congress has the exclusive power to decide whether an argument is frivolous, but only within the constraints of the First Amendment.

2. The whole official tax world seems to believe USDC and USCCA judges are gods who never err, but you can prove non-unanimous panel court rulings show that even judges don’t know what the law means, and sticking people with a majority ruling still does not solve the problem that the law MIGHT mean what the dissenters say it means, This proves that the legislature has let the people down by creating laws even judges don’t understand and therefore the common people have no obligation to try to decipher and obey them.

3. Court rulings get overturned all the time, and shenanigans by the DOJ and judges prevent most people from appealing bad decisions because they simply run out of money. This appears to constitute part of the DOJ strategy for beating down people who don’t agree with the implementation of the income tax or interpretation of the confusing tax laws. If a ruling gets overturned, that means people cannot trust the judgment of judges.

4. The DOJ could not possibly win so many criminal Income Tax cases unless it suborned the jury and/or judge.

5. The secret cash awards amount to bribes to create more prosecution of tax protestors, and to do any illegal make the victim of IRS abuse lose the court case.

6. DOJ prosecutes instead of showing people the law. That amounts to criminal racketeering and SLAPP violation, and a refusal to respond meaningfully to a petition for redress of grievance.

7. A judge’s ruling demonstrates opinion, not fact, particularly when the judge flat prevents juries from learning that they can judge the law, and the judge tells them what the law means, and the judge and DOJ prevent their victims from entering evidence.

8. The USDC judges NEVER require the prosecutor to submit evidence that proves the 7 elements of jurisdiction in tax crime cases.

9. Judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents are all prejudiced because they are taxpayers who must “return” a kickback to government for the privilege of performing a government job. This prejudices them, and prevents the people from getting fair trials before them. The jurors have similar prejudice and NEVER have non-taxpayers as half the members.

10. No duly authorized assessment officer EVER signs a statement under penalties of perjury that the assessment reflects an accurate amount of tax owed, due, and payable by the named taxpayer.

11. NO COURT seems to have the authority to declare that any given person does not have “taxpayer” status. That violates Amendment 1 (petition for redress).

12. Judges’ threatened and real sanctions and disciplinary actions against attorneys prevent the people from IRS victims from having available or obtaining an aggressive, vigorous, OR COMPETENT defense.

13. The American Condition guarantees the eventuation of evil and iniquitous judges through

a. Unconstitutional judicial immunity from prosecution for crimes and torts in both ministerial and judicial functions,

b. historical meaninglessness of “good behavior” controls,

c. lack of any law that punishes violations of the loyalty oath or Code of Judicial Conduct,

d. virtual impossibility of honest and prompt impeachment proceedings,

e. actual impossibility of empaneling juries of knowledge and integrity,

f. impossibility of a citizen’s submitting evidence of judicial crimes to grand juries without DOJ interference,

g. Integration of the bar into and regulation of the practice of law by State Supreme Courts, along with the farming of state judges to populate the federal judiciary.

As you well know, the people can achieve liberty from abusive government only through

1. litigation that obtains judicial punishment of the abusers,

2. political action that installs good elected officials who eliminate bad laws, and

3. separation from the iniquitous abusers, such as through armed and violent rebellion.

As shown in the above lists, America now provides apparently hopelessly

1. hamstrung grand juries,

2. corrupt judges who enjoy immunity they should not have,

3. legislators who make unconstitutional laws even the judges cannot understand, and

4. iron-willed executive officers who exceed authority and abuse the people at will.

In addition, America suffers from an irresponsible and relatively stupid electorate because of

1. massive immigration and unchecked procreation of low-IQ people, and

2. giving every irresponsible, indigent, ward-of-the-state non-felon citizen over 18 the power to vote.

In other words, the courts and political process no longer provide Americans with remedy. Abuse by government operatives has skyrocketed as a consequence. That leaves only one option with any hope of working - separation from the abusers, as exemplified by the nation’s founders in the Declaration of Independence, the text of which I provide below as a reminder of YOUR OBLIGATION to America.

On the other hand, I hope our attorney friends will demonstrate the ability to take effective legal action against the perps in Government. And I shall support their efforts because
1. I consider it the right thing to do, and
2. Violent rebellion is SUCH a pain in the ass.

Will you join me in this?

[ASITStands]

... unchecked procreation of low-IQ people ...

Sometimes words speak more truth than intended. Witness the tax [dis]honesty movement.

[Judge Roy Bean]

“We are also, however, planning on issuing a challenge to this bunch to put up or shut up. More on that once we get the wrinkles ironed out. We're already shopping for a sponsor to promote and conduct the showdown.”

I'm wondering what kind of a challenge they can mount that they haven't already mounted ad nauseum.

[wserra]

Will you join me in this?

Sure. Let's set the land speed record for being declared vexatious litigants.

[grixit]

In addition, America suffers from an irresponsible and relatively stupid electorate because of

1. massive immigration and unchecked procreation of low-IQ people, and

2. giving every irresponsible, indigent, ward-of-the-state non-felon citizen over 18 the power to vote.

Hey Bob, the National Eugenics Enforcement Council has finished its evaluation. Good news-- you're getting a free vasectomy! And you don't have to worry about making time to go to the polls any more. And don't feel bad for your friends, they've all qualified too!

[bmielke]

On the other hand, I hope our attorney friends will demonstrate the ability to take effective legal action against the perps in Government. And I shall support their efforts because
1. I consider it the right thing to do, and
2. Violent rebellion is SUCH a pain in the ass.

What is with these people and violent rebellions?

First we have Truthseeker67 seeking a tax revolt now we have Bob Hurt saying they are a pain in the ass. A rebellion takes a poplar movement first. From what I have seen of the tax protesters they could organize a street fair much less a rebellion. They need to take it off the table it is not now nor will ever be an option.

I will say they might be able to organize an armed stand off. I haven't been following this that long and from what I understand of the Browns, they were armed, the Marshalls just played with them for a while.

[Duke2Earl]

I think this fool needs to be sliced up with Occam's razor.

[Nikki]

Okay, folks, place your bets.

On one side we have an extensive cadre of highly experienced attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who do absolutely nothing but work civil and criminal cases in the ederal courts.

In the black trunks, we have a motley aggregation of dissatisfied attorneys who are barely scraping out a living handling DUI cases and divorces.

The match will never be broadcast since it wouldn't even last past the first commercial.

[LPC]

People who “smell a rat” in this concept and study it in depth discover the reality that people generally do not owe an income tax.

Yes, people who form a conclusion, and then look to justify their conclusion, are usually able to do so.

As my brother (who has a Masters degree in Social Work) recently pointed out to me, "If I hadn't believed it, I never would have seen it."

“We, meaning several of the attorneys in the movement, are looking very hard at several ways to mount a counter-offensive against the DOJ sponsored assault on the movement. That is, however, not as simple a matter as it appears. If the defamatory component in their assault were as cut and dried as in [an anti-tax-honesty attorney’s] case, then that would definitely be in the works, but it's a glancing blow, open for argument.

“We are also, however, planning on issuing a challenge to this bunch to put up or shut up.

You mean like, a challenge in court? Haven't we already seen that?

More on that once we get the wrinkles ironed out.

You mean like, how to avoid the Rule 11 sanctions?

In addition, America suffers from an irresponsible and relatively stupid electorate because of

1. massive immigration and unchecked procreation of low-IQ people,

Fortunately, massive immigration will eventually solve the other problem.

One of the predictable concerns of the Bob Hurts of the world is the real fear that they are on the losing side of all of the current ethnic, genetic, economic, political, intellectual, social, cultural, and legal trends.

It's accept, adapt, wither, or die, and they're planning on withering or dying.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hurt''s diatribe reminds me of a story about the nature of things and how some plants become extinct because they fail to adapt to conditions brought about by forces they have absolutely no cognizance of.

[Lambkin]

An attorney friend wrote me about this yesterday:

...

“We are also, however, planning on issuing a challenge to this bunch to put up or shut up. More on that once we get the wrinkles ironed out. We're already shopping for a sponsor to promote and conduct the showdown.”

So kids, what does "sponsor" mean to you? To me it means they are looking for someone to put up some cold hard cash to fund their run at the windmill. Bob is game but will he put up the cash? Well no, because for TP nutters holding onto cash is their raison d'être, the whole reason why they are in the game.

[grammarian44]

If a ruling gets overturned, that means people cannot trust the judgment of judges.

So the only trustworthy legal system would be an infallible legal system?

Judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents are all prejudiced because they are taxpayers who must “return” a kickback to government for the privilege of performing a government job. This prejudices them, and prevents the people from getting fair trials before them.

So it would be a good idea to exempt judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents from having to pay taxes?

A judge’s ruling demonstrates opinion, not fact, particularly when the judge flat prevents juries from learning that they can judge the law, and the judge tells them what the law means, and the judge and DOJ prevent their victims from entering evidence.

What else would a judicial opinion be, if not a statement of opinion?

[Noah]

So it would be a good idea to exempt judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents from having to pay taxes?

As I remember there was a case or cases that a group of Federal Judges did sue that they were exempt from the tax imposed upon their income due to the fact that it effectively lowered their compensation which was specifically prohibited. The outcome was I believe was the ax swung both ways......they could not have their salary decreased on the other hand congress did not have to give them any increases !!!!

So the deal was if the Judges recieved or accepted any increases they agreed to became subject to the tax imposed upon their income....go figure This goes back a long ways and I remember the principle an not the details.

[Thule]

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2009
Suing Government Operatives for Income tax Abuse.
Possible Non-Rebellion Path to Justice, by Bob Hurt.

A last minute entry to the "Idiot of the Year - 2009".

[Quixote]

So it would be a good idea to exempt judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents from having to pay taxes?

As I remember there was a case or cases that a group of Federal Judges did sue that they were exempt from the tax imposed upon their income due to the fact that it effectively lowered their compensation which was specifically prohibited. The outcome was I believe was the ax swung both ways......they could not have their salary decreased on the other hand congress did not have to give them any increases !!!!

So the deal was if the Judges recieved or accepted any increases they agreed to became subject to the tax imposed upon their income....go figure This goes back a long ways and I remember the principle an not the details.

From Dan's Tax Protester FAQ:

Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

The ruling in Woodrough was not based on any deal, but on common sense. "To subject them to a general tax is merely to recognize that judges are also citizens, and that their particular function in government does not generate an immunity from sharing with their fellow citizens the material burden of the government whose Constitution and laws they are charged with administering." O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277, 282.

[Noah]

The ruling in Woodrough was not based on any deal, but on common sense. "To subject them to a general tax is merely to recognize that judges are also citizens, and that their particular function in government does not generate an immunity from sharing with their fellow citizens the material burden of the government whose Constitution and laws they are charged with administering." O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277, 282.

From O'Malley v. Woodrough:

By means of Section 22 of the Revenue Act of 1932, Congress sought to avoid, at least in part, the consequences of Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 , 40 S.Ct. 550, 11 A.L.R. 519. That case, decided on June 1, 1920, ruled for the first time that a provision requiring the compensation received by the judges of the United States to be included in the 'gross income' from which the net income is to be computed, although merely part of a taxing measure of general, non-discriminatory application to all earners of incomes, is contrary to Article III, 1 of the Constitution, U. S.C.A., which provides that the 'Compensation' of the 'Judges' 'shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

No harm no foul...besides it is likely the salary increases outran the assessments on said salary.

[Paul]

As I remember there was a case or cases that a group of Federal Judges did sue that they were exempt from the tax imposed upon their income due to the fact that it effectively lowered their compensation which was specifically prohibited.

Pikers. A couple of years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that failure to give them a cost of living adjustment violated the state's constitutional prohibition against reducing their salaries.

[Noah]

As I remember there was a case or cases that a group of Federal Judges did sue that they were exempt from the tax imposed upon their income due to the fact that it effectively lowered their compensation which was specifically prohibited.

Pikers. A couple of years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that failure to give them a cost of living adjustment violated the state's constitutional prohibition against reducing their salaries.

How did they make out? The Federal Judges won the first round. The second round was lost because of the mootness of adding the Judges salaries into gross income was specifically noted. Why shouldn't they be allowed the opportunity to contribute the fair share that Congress decrees ?

[fortinbras]

The general trend of thought is that, when everybody pays, then judges also pay. So, for income tax, Social Security, and the like, judges pay their taxes just like everyone else. But the judges cannot be made to give up money for something that, more or less, focuses on them as judges; so a special professional tax on lawyers cannot be collected from judges.

[Paul]

How did they make out?

They got their COLA, of course. The other state employees got zip, as the general assembly said they should.