test
test
Free Dick Simkanin

Thursday, January 15, 2004


No Defense Allowed



The Dick Simkanin "tax crimes" trial illustrated yet again a simple,
stunning reality: judges get away with railroading people.


Read more here.

Thank you Jon Davis.

Doug Kenline reporting.


Tuesday, January 13, 2004


Comments from Larken Rose



Subj: The desired effect
Date: 1/13/04 11:21:07 AM Central Standard Time
From: larken@taxableincome.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Dear Subscriber,

Remember that analogy about playing football against a team who owns the
referee? Well we just saw a fine example of that down in Texas. Even with
the other team AND the ref cheating their rear ends off, the game still
looked hopeful for Mr. Simkanin. So the "referee" (Judge McBryde) right
near the end cheated even MORE, mangling the jury instructions beyond what
the Supreme Court allows, and basically ORDERING the jury to find Mr.
Simkanin guilty. And on most counts, they did. However, the "judge"--and I
use that term loosely--cheated so badly that it looks very likely that the
convictions will be overturned at the appeals level.

Soon I'll give a more detailed report of what happened at the trial, but
first I wanted to address the overall significance (or lack thereof) of what
happened. If you want to "mourn" the fact that Mr. Simkanin now has to go
through even MORE government-sponsored terrorism (though I believe he will
eventually be acquitted of everything), then by all means do so. I'm sure
he could still use support, whether in words and/or dollars, and here is the
place to do it:

http://www.arrowplastics.net

But if you're mourning over the defeat of the truth, DON'T. If Mr. Simkanin
had been found not guilty, it would have given the truth a boost. But this
verdict will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the collapse of the "income tax"
fraud. There are two UNRELATED factors here: 1) whether people are so
scared that they pay/file/withhold, and; 2) whether they think the LAW
requires that. While all the IRS and DOJ thuggery, including in the
Simkanin case, can accomplish some in category #1, it does NOTHING to
category #2. And category #2 is ALL THAT MATTERS in winning the overall
war. (I know lots of you don't believe that yet.)

In short, the feds have been reduced from effective propagandists to simple
thugs, and simple thuggery CANNOT for long control the American public. I'm
reminded of a scene from the movie Braveheart.

"After the beheading, William Wallace's body was torn to pieces. His head
was placed on top of London Bridge, his arms and legs sent to the four
corners of Britain as a warning. It did not have the effect that Longshanks
planned..."

After a certain point, tyrannical thuggery ENRAGES the citizenry, instead of
subduing it. We are at that point now. If those in government weren't so
short-sighted and power-happy, they would already see the writing on the
wall, and there would be a race to see who can "jump ship" before everyone
else. But history shows that tyrants tends to be... well... stupid.

I only just got back home (which is why you heard nothing from me for a
couple weeks), and I have a lot to do. So for now, I'll just say this: do
not let the feds' most recent thuggery in the Simkanin case discourage you,
or make you think the war is lost. On the contrary, we are seeing the
actions of "the last desperate elements of a doomed regime," and the overall
war is about to look very different.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.theft-by-deception.com


Monday, January 12, 2004


129 Years For Asking to See The Law



From We The People Foundation:

1-10-04

Perfectly Illegal: Non-Withholding Employer Simkanin

Convicted in Rigged Trial There is no doubt: Dick Simkanin was illegally convicted. The law cannot be used, or more appropriately, abused -- to penalize the citizens of this nation for failing to do something that NO specific law obligates them to do.

Dick Simkanin studied the details of the U.S. tax laws, he repeatedly asked the government to “show him the law” and when it refused – he acted upon the words and letter of the written law.

With the law as the only significant issue of contention before the court, and with defendant Simkanin facing a sentence for his life in federal prison, USDC Judge John McBryde, in direct violation of Simkanin's due process Rights, prevented him and his legal counsel from presenting ANY substantive defense based upon on the actual written laws of this nation. McBryde simultaneously denied the jurors their unalienable Right to exercise their discretion and judgment regarding the proper application of the law as it applied to business owner Simkanin.

In the end, twelve women and men of Fort Worth, through their own misperceptions of the law, ignorance of our constitutional system of justice, and the unlawful manipulation of the trial by a tyrannical judge, unwittingly aided and abetted the unlawful prosecution and conviction of defendant Dick Simkanin.

These Texas jurors unknowingly conspired with a corrupt government intent on imprisoning Simkanin as a political prisoner and making him the federal “poster child” for any American that dares ask, “What specific U.S. law requires me to file, pay or withhold?”

Although tragic, the long and heroic story of Dick Simkanin is continuing. With our help and commitment, he will overcome this judicial farce and justice will ultimately prevail.

Although tragic, his trial was instructive. In that Fort Worth courtroom, we stared into the eyes of the despots and witnessed firsthand, the corruption and fear of a police state, dependent solely on an unsustainable illusion for the continuation of its existence, -- a vast deception upon our People that withers further and further each day.

We saw the power of the truth and heard men of honor and integrity testify for the defense. Unfortunately, we also saw the staggering (and pathetic extent) to which those that “guard” the public trust will go to contain the truth in their flailing to delay the demise of the income tax fraud.

We experienced the raw, vicious abuse of the Peoples’ delegated powers. We observed firsthand, a “trial” that until recently, could have only occurred behind the Iron Curtain or in Communist China.

With the definition of our problem more clearly defined than ever, the solution is now likewise, more clearly perceived -- and hopefully – within our grasp.

Take another look at a U.S. Senate letter we posted to this column in July, 1999, from Hawaii Senator Inouye to one of his constituents, a tax consultant.

This official letter says it all: First it establishes that there is NO provision in the law that specifically requires citizens to file and pay income taxes, but then goes on to state that the IRS regulations set forth "penalties" for failure to pay, what must therefore by the written law, be a “voluntary” “tax”.

Incredulous? Yes. According to a U.S. Senator and the IRS regulations, citizens can (& will) be penalized for not filing, collecting and paying to our servant government the so-called “income tax”, even though there is NO provision in U.S. law which specifically, and unequivocally, requires an individual to pay income taxes.

This is nonsense. We are a free people and the government is our servant.

It may not happen tomorrow, but these errant servants will shortly be held directly, and personally accountable for the mayhem, mischief and damage they have done to our once-great Republic.

We will say it again: under the circumstances we are faced with, it is now un-American to further encourage our government or facilitate the abuse of our People by sending it any money.

As you read this article, consider who are the real enemies of freedom and pose the real threats to our Republic and our liberty. Remember, it is the true patriot who rises to protect his country and his freedom from the most insidious and dangerous menace that can exist – his own government.

Click here for more...


The Simkanin Trial: Was it a Lawful Trial by Jury?



Sunday, January 11, 2004
Posted 3:06 PM
by Al Thompson


The Simkanin Trial: Was it a Lawful Trial by Jury?

As a friend of Dick Simkanin, I am distressed at the actions of both the attorneys
and trial judge, regarding Dick being found guilty of all the charges regarding
federal withholding.

There is a big difference between a "court of record", which is a proceeding according
to the course of the common law and the magistrate is independent of the court,
to what is called a nisi prius court, or a court of no record, of which the parties consent to the action.

Under the common law, the line of authority comes first from God's law. Then comes the common law, the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the subordinate Constitution for the United States. The Bill of Rights applies to the limitations of government which is established by the people.

God created man, man then creates the government, and the government is subject
to the people, and not the other way around.

Simkanin was tried as an artificial entity RICHARD MICHAEL SIMKANIN, or another term
for this is a fiction at law. A fiction has no rights, whereas the man, Richard Michael Simkanin,
as a sovereign man, does have rights, however, they don't help if the man doesn't
secure them.

So if the Constitution was not operative in the United States District Court, then what
actually happened in this case? Was it really a criminal case, or was it a civil case,
disguised as criminal? I believe it was the latter and I'll explain my reasons for saying
this.

First of all, the so-called grand jury indictement didn't comport to the requirements
of a real grand jury composed of 25 sovereigns. No attorneys would be present,
but in Simkanin's case, the prosecuting attorney was present on all three indictment
hearings. On the last grand jury, the opposing attorney refused to let Dick testify,
although he was ready with his paperwork and evidence.

How can this happen? It's really quite simple. People are hoodwinked into "contracting" into
these courts by inadvertently appearing or participating in the court proceedings. In Dick's
case, there appeared to be no Constitutional violation, nor was there ever a statute presented
that would have put a taxing liability on him. However, it is my belief that these courts
are not judicial in nature, but that they are administrative, and that one isn't obligated
to appear without his or her consent.

Here in California we have a very telling section in the Constitution of the State of California
1849 Article VI, Section 13 which states:

Sec. 13. Tribunals for conciliation may be established, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law; but such tribunals shall have no power to render judgment to be obligatory on the parties, except they voluntarily submit their matters in difference, and agree to abide the judgment, or assent thereto in the presence of such tribunal, in such cases as shall be prescribed by law.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/archives/level3_const1849txt.html

So we know that these tribunals are discretionary for anyone who wants to use them.

Now let's look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a moment, and take a look at Rule 39 Trial by Jury or by the Court

"(a) By Jury. When trial by jury has been demanded as provided in Rule 38, the actin shall be designated upon the docket as a jury action. The trial off all issues so demanded shall by by jury, unless (1) the parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record, consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury, or (2)the court upon motion or of its own initiative finds that a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States."

The only way Dick Simkanin could have had a lawful trial by jury is if he had violated the Constitution, such as treason, piracy, counterfeiting, or treaty law. In his indictment he was charged with codes and not statutes. His attorney, to his credit, entered a motion to get to the taxing statutes, but the judge denied his motions as the nature of the court wouldn't allow it, because it is not a Constitutional court with judicial officers.

Now let's look at Rule 39 (c)
"Advisory Jury and Trial by Consent In all actions triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury or, except in actions against the United States when a statute of the United States provides for trial without a jury, the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial with a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury had been a matter of right.

I believe that the Simkanin trial was under Rule 39(c), however, I don't believe that Mr. Simkanin was ever informed about the consentual nature of the trial. Go back again and look at 39(a) and you'll see that there would have to be a violation of the Constitution or statute, and of course, Dick wasn't charged with a statute violation. Dick Simkanin did NOT have a Constitutional or lawful trial by jury. He was on the receiving end of a JUDICIAL LYNCHING and the whole premise is that Mr. Simkanin, according to the "court", agreed to it by implied "consent."

Although the jury verdict would have the "same effect" as a jury trial by right, the problem is that the advisory jury is just that, it is advisory in nature and this suggests that a judge could reverse the jury's decision if he wished.

Although some might say, yes, but that's in the Civil Procedure, and not Criminal, I submit that the two are essentially the same. Without the taxing statute or a Constitutional violation, Dick Simkanin could not possibly be charged or indicted and maintain his rights, which are protected from government infringement by the Constitution for the United States.

So remember, in a court of record, it is a common law proceeding and the magistrate is independent of the court. In this kind of court, all rights of all parties are preserved. However, in a court of no record (nisi prius), the parties consent to the tribunal, and the magistrate has complete discretion. The latter, is what Dick Simkanin ran into, and he was completely run over.

In conclusion, Dick had an advisory jury in a court of no record, and the worst of it is that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, as his counsel should have known this information. Dick inadvertently entered into an unconscionable contract which has destroyed his business, family, and himself.

And the most evil part of this is that the "judge" is the gatekeeper of the evidence, and that's exactly what happened to Dick. If it was a real trial by jury, the jury would be the judges and the jury could examine all the evidence and the law. It is absolute tyranny to allow a judge to be the "gatekeeper" of the evidence.

These courts of no record depend upon the man to tie the noose, stand up on the chair, and then jump off and hang himself. Unfortunately, with the help of his attorney, this is exactly what happened. And it makes me physically ill that this has happened to my good friend, Richard Michael Simkanin.


For additional information on how a jury trial is supposed to work, got to http://www.lysanderspooner.org

Copyright under the Common Law by Al Thompson
(Permission is granted for use as long as it is not edited in any way.)


Facts escape Lieber, Star-Telegram



From: Tony Smith [mailto:editor-in-chief@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:21 PM
To: harral@star-telegram.com
Cc:host@americanradioshow.us; info@givemeliberty.org;
larken@taxableincome.net; dick@arrowplastics.com;
wturner@star-telegram; jwitt@star-telegram;
rseline@star-telegram; inorder@star-telegram;
grav@star-telegram; leewilliams@star-telegram

Subject: Facts escape Lieber, Star-Telegram


10 January 2004


Mr. Paul K. Harral
VP/Editorial Director
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
400 West 7th
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Dear Mr. Harral:

I have followed your newspaper's online reports of the
trial in your community of Dick Simkanin and I commend
Max Baker for his straightforward and presumably
accurate reporting of the events.

However, as a fellow journalist and editor I am very
disappointed by the sarcastic tenor of Dave Lieber's
opinion column, "Bedford anti-tax
advocate is movement's new hero" (January 9, 2004), not
to mention the lamentable dearth of objectivity.

Mr. Lieber is certainly entitled to his opinion, a right
he enjoys thanks to the Constitution of the United States
of America and its First Amendment. I am sure he would
scream loudly and long, and justly so, should the
government attempt to deny him the right of free speech.
But what I cannot understand is why he has chosen to
exercise his right so prejudicially. I refer, of course,
to Mr. Lieber's incomprehensible silence while a clearly
biased federal judge allows the federal government to
strip a respected citizen of your State of his rights and
liberty.

While I recognize that opinions are not subject to the
same standards as news stories, nevertheless, Mr. Lieber
is entrusted by your paper with frequent and regular
opportunities to shape the opinions of the
Star-Telegram's readers and patrons. Journalistic
integrity demands that incumbent upon that privilege is a
responsibility for Mr. Lieber to make sure he has his
facts straight. But, at least in the column in question,
he has clearly not done his homework about the facts
disputed in the Simkanin trial. He relies instead on
insinuation and clever remarks and his skill as a writer
to dismiss Mr. Simkanin and his defenders as crackpots
and malcontents.

It seems, too, that Mr. Lieber has forgotten -- or
perhaps never knew -- that the people are the true
sovereigns in this nation, that all power devolves from
them to the States and then from the States to the United
States government. I refer him to Chisholm v. Georgia, 2
U.S. 419 (1793),widely regarded as one of the first great
tests of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, wherein the
panel flatly rules and declares, "[T]he sovereignty of
the nation is in the people of the nation, and the
residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each
State."

Conversely, Mr. Lieber's inflammatory comment about
"federal income-tax haters, some of whom don't recognize
the authority of the United States
government" leads us to believe that in fact he considers
the federal government to be our true sovereign. It is
apparent by this remark and others that Mr. Lieber feels
the government is infallible, that it can do no wrong and
that its decisions and actions are always just and
correct.

This raises the question: Who is paying Mr. Lieber's
salary?

Is it the Star-Telegram?

Or is it the federal government?

I have studied tax law for more than three years and find
nothing in the United States Code that makes me or you
liable to pay a tax on wages earned by exercising our
unalienable right of common occupation. I have done this
on my own, quite apart from any group which might be
labeled a 'tax protest' or 'tax honesty' group. As part
of my research I have written the IRS repeatedly, just as
Dick Simkanin did, asking them to point out for me the
specific laws and regulations that supposedly require me
to pay such taxes.

After all, they should know; should they not?
Nevertheless, after three years, I have received not one
responsive answer.

In point of fact, over the last few years, thousands of
citizens have written to the IRS asking the same
questions: What law requires me, as a citizen of the
United States of America, to pay a tax on my personal
earnings from domestic sources or to file a return?

To my knowledge, not one of those citizens has received a
responsive answer. Why not? If such a law exists, why
shouldn't the IRS simply point it out and end the
discussion?

Here in Tennessee, there have been two recent trials in
U. S. District Courts of individuals who refused to file
returns and who did not pay taxes on substantial
earnings. They are United States v. Lloyd R. Long (1993)
and United States v. Vernice Kuglin (2003). Long was
charged with multiple felony counts of
Willful Failure to File. Kuglin was charged with multiple
felony counts of both Willful Failure to File and Income
Tax Evasion -- as a pilot for Federal Express, she had
lucrative earnings of nearly $1 million over a six-year
period and did not pay taxes on one thin dime. In both
cases, the defendants were able to show they had written
several letters each to the IRS asking the Service to
specify the laws that supposedly made them liable to file
returns and pay 'income taxes.' The evidence proved the
IRS was not responsive to either defendant, and after
lengthy deliberations their juries acquitted them on all
counts.

The complete, official transcripts of both Long and
Kuglin are available online, free of charge. If you take
the time and trouble to read them, you will find,
incredibly, that during the course of both trials, the
government failed to produce into evidence the law that
it claims makes every citizen liable to file a return and
pay a tax on personal earnings. It did not even attempt
to do so.

Again, an intellectually honest individual must ask, why
not?

A win by the government in either case would have settled
the issue once and for all, and after Long one would
think they surely would have been prepared for Kuglin.
All that would have been required to convict in either
case was to cite the controlling law, and yet twice the
government failed to support its position with that
critical evidence. As Franklin Roosevelt once observed,
nothing that happens in politics is accidental, so one
must presume that the government's failure to cite the
law in either of these two highly political cases was no
accident.

I have met Lloyd Long in person and I can tell you that
to this day he does not file and that he does not pay
taxes on his personal earnings. If the law requires him
to do otherwise, why has the IRS not continued to
prosecute him for these supposed offenses and forced him
to comply? Lloyd is not hiding out; he owns a successful
small business and his phone number is listed.

The answer and the truth is simple and inescapable, yet
most people --including Mr. Lieber -- cannot grasp it:
under Title 26 of the United States Code only a relative
handful of people are "made liable" to pay income tax on
their personal earnings. These people do not include
citizens of the United States of America whose earnings
are primarily from domestic sources.

This is not mere opinion; this is documentable fact. But
don't take my word for it; the law is available for
anyone with the intelligence and the inclination to study
and learn the truth for themselves. It's too bad that
group didn't include Mr. Lieber and, by association, the
Star-Telegram.

Here, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the
government is correct when it asserts there is nothing
unconstitutional about Title 26, commonly known as the
Internal Revenue Code, and that any argument to the
contrary is frivolous. What the government is not saying,
however, is that the Code is exceedingly difficult to
comprehend, almost always misapplied and that the public
is laboring under a misconception about just who is and
who is not "made liable" by it.

None of this is accidental and it is exceedingly naive to
believe otherwise. Remember, the IRS itself acknowledges
that it relies on the "voluntary compliance" of taxpayers
and so, by happy coincidence, it cannot be held
accountable if one mistakenly believes he is a taxpayer
and 'volunteers' to pay. Furthermore, thanks to our
representatives' and our governments' lust for money and
power, the IRS has no incentive and no mandate to educate
the people as to the true and correct application of the
tax laws.

So, then, since the Internal Revenue Code is indeed
constitutional, exactly who are the people who are "made
liable" to pay 'income taxes'? I'll give you a hint: GW
wants to grant amnesty to about 10 million of them.

The issues raised by so-called 'tax protestors' or 'tax
honesty' supporters have little or nothing to do with
finances. Simkanin is an excellent example of this. A man
who had a successful business and once led a reasonably
affluent lifestyle, he has essentially thrown it all away
in the name of truth and freedom. Freedom is all Dick
Simkanin wanted but now, obviously, it will be unjustly
denied him. There is some consolation, though; by taking
a stand for his principles, the name Simkanin takes its
rightful position alongside the names of other great
American tax protesters, like Adams, Hancock, Hale,
Henry, Jefferson and Washington.

In closing, I'd like to lay down two challenges to the
Star-Telegram, or for that matter any citizen who may
read this letter:

First, if you can show me in Title 26 of the United
States Code the law that requires me to pay a tax on my
personal earnings, I will get on a Southwest smoker to
Fort Worth and buy you and your spouse the best steak
dinner in town.

Second, write the IRS and ask them the same question. If
you get a responsive answer -- one that identifies the
law in question by title, chapter and part of the Code --
then that steak dinner is also yours.

I was born in Texas, and I love it and Fort Worth and
steak, too. But I'm confident I won't be enjoying the
pleasures of any one of them as a result of having just
thrown down those two gauntlets.

Now more than ever our rights and our freedom are in
grave peril. This threat is not and never was posed by al
Qaeda or Saddam Hussein -- or any other external power,
for that matter. No, the principle threat to the freedom
of Americans is contained solely within the borders of
the District of Columbia, and the seat of its power is
found in Washington at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is
our duty as patriots to protect our nation from the
threat which resides there.

Newspapers like the Star-Telegram are America's last line
of peaceful defense against federal tyranny. Let us hope
and fervently pray they will have the courage to avoid
the easy temptation of parroting the government line and
return instead to the fine tradition of investigative
journalism that is truly the sword the First Amendment
protects our right to wield.

There can be no more important issue with which to begin
than this one, and I hope you will accept the both the
challenge and the responsibility.

With sincere regards,

Anthony E. Smith
Editor-in-Chief
Private Air Magazine
6135 Airways Boulevard
Suite One Thousand
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421

Tel: 423.485.4738
Fax: 423.899.6393
Cell: 423.718.3843

editor-in-chief@earthlink.net


Sunday, January 11, 2004


Ed Fyffe

Guitar pickin' Ed Fyffe down Texas way has some commentary for us today.

I know you don't know me and maybe someday soon we can meet. I would be honored to meet you. My hat is off to you for doing what you have done for Dick. I know without you he would have been lost. The reason I called you today was to give you a strategy that will ensure Dick's victory either at his sentencing or on appeal.

Good work.

Thanks for blogging Ed Fyffe.

Doug Kenline reporting.

UPDATE: Ed Fyffe sends out another email regarding above.

I know the attorney cannot be party to effectuating this statement, but if Arch is worth his salt he will just step aside and let Dick do it of and by himself.

Read more here.


Facts escape Lieber, Star-Telegram



From: Tony Smith [mailto:editor-in-chief@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:21 PM
To: harral@star-telegram.com
Cc:host@americanradioshow.us; info@givemeliberty.org;
larken@taxableincome.net; dick@arrowplastics.com;
wturner@star-telegram; jwitt@star-telegram;
rseline@star-telegram; inorder@star-telegram;
grav@star-telegram; leewilliams@star-telegram

Subject: Facts escape Lieber, Star-Telegram


10 January 2004


Mr. Paul K. Harral
VP/Editorial Director
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
400 West 7th
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Dear Mr. Harral:

I have followed your newspaper's online reports of the
trial in your community of Dick Simkanin and I commend
Max Baker for his straightforward and presumably
accurate reporting of the events.

However, as a fellow journalist and editor I am very
disappointed by the sarcastic tenor of Dave Lieber's
opinion column, "Bedford anti-tax
advocate is movement's new hero" (January 9, 2004), not
to mention the lamentable dearth of objectivity.

Mr. Lieber is certainly entitled to his opinion, a right
he enjoys thanks to the Constitution of the United States
of America and its First Amendment. I am sure he would
scream loudly and long, and justly so, should the
government attempt to deny him the right of free speech.
But what I cannot understand is why he has chosen to
exercise his right so prejudicially. I refer, of course,
to Mr. Lieber's incomprehensible silence while a clearly
biased federal judge allows the federal government to
strip a respected citizen of your State of his rights and
liberty.

While I recognize that opinions are not subject to the
same standards as news stories, nevertheless, Mr. Lieber
is entrusted by your paper with frequent and regular
opportunities to shape the opinions of the
Star-Telegram's readers and patrons. Journalistic
integrity demands that incumbent upon that privilege is a
responsibility for Mr. Lieber to make sure he has his
facts straight. But, at least in the column in question,
he has clearly not done his homework about the facts
disputed in the Simkanin trial. He relies instead on
insinuation and clever remarks and his skill as a writer
to dismiss Mr. Simkanin and his defenders as crackpots
and malcontents.

It seems, too, that Mr. Lieber has forgotten -- or
perhaps never knew -- that the people are the true
sovereigns in this nation, that all power devolves from
them to the States and then from the States to the United
States government. I refer him to Chisholm v. Georgia, 2
U.S. 419 (1793),widely regarded as one of the first great
tests of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, wherein the
panel flatly rules and declares, "[T]he sovereignty of
the nation is in the people of the nation, and the
residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each
State."

Conversely, Mr. Lieber's inflammatory comment about
"federal income-tax haters, some of whom don't recognize
the authority of the United States
government" leads us to believe that in fact he considers
the federal government to be our true sovereign. It is
apparent by this remark and others that Mr. Lieber feels
the government is infallible, that it can do no wrong and
that its decisions and actions are always just and
correct.

This raises the question: Who is paying Mr. Lieber's
salary?

Is it the Star-Telegram?

Or is it the federal government?

I have studied tax law for more than three years and find
nothing in the United States Code that makes me or you
liable to pay a tax on wages earned by exercising our
unalienable right of common occupation. I have done this
on my own, quite apart from any group which might be
labeled a 'tax protest' or 'tax honesty' group. As part
of my research I have written the IRS repeatedly, just as
Dick Simkanin did, asking them to point out for me the
specific laws and regulations that supposedly require me
to pay such taxes.

After all, they should know; should they not?
Nevertheless, after three years, I have received not one
responsive answer.

In point of fact, over the last few years, thousands of
citizens have written to the IRS asking the same
questions: What law requires me, as a citizen of the
United States of America, to pay a tax on my personal
earnings from domestic sources or to file a return?

To my knowledge, not one of those citizens has received a
responsive answer. Why not? If such a law exists, why
shouldn't the IRS simply point it out and end the
discussion?

Here in Tennessee, there have been two recent trials in
U. S. District Courts of individuals who refused to file
returns and who did not pay taxes on substantial
earnings. They are United States v. Lloyd R. Long (1993)
and United States v. Vernice Kuglin (2003). Long was
charged with multiple felony counts of
Willful Failure to File. Kuglin was charged with multiple
felony counts of both Willful Failure to File and Income
Tax Evasion -- as a pilot for Federal Express, she had
lucrative earnings of nearly $1 million over a six-year
period and did not pay taxes on one thin dime. In both
cases, the defendants were able to show they had written
several letters each to the IRS asking the Service to
specify the laws that supposedly made them liable to file
returns and pay 'income taxes.' The evidence proved the
IRS was not responsive to either defendant, and after
lengthy deliberations their juries acquitted them on all
counts.

The complete, official transcripts of both Long and
Kuglin are available online, free of charge. If you take
the time and trouble to read them, you will find,
incredibly, that during the course of both trials, the
government failed to produce into evidence the law that
it claims makes every citizen liable to file a return and
pay a tax on personal earnings. It did not even attempt
to do so.

Again, an intellectually honest individual must ask, why
not?

A win by the government in either case would have settled
the issue once and for all, and after Long one would
think they surely would have been prepared for Kuglin.
All that would have been required to convict in either
case was to cite the controlling law, and yet twice the
government failed to support its position with that
critical evidence. As Franklin Roosevelt once observed,
nothing that happens in politics is accidental, so one
must presume that the government's failure to cite the
law in either of these two highly political cases was no
accident.

I have met Lloyd Long in person and I can tell you that
to this day he does not file and that he does not pay
taxes on his personal earnings. If the law requires him
to do otherwise, why has the IRS not continued to
prosecute him for these supposed offenses and forced him
to comply? Lloyd is not hiding out; he owns a successful
small business and his phone number is listed.

The answer and the truth is simple and inescapable, yet
most people --including Mr. Lieber -- cannot grasp it:
under Title 26 of the United States Code only a relative
handful of people are "made liable" to pay income tax on
their personal earnings. These people do not include
citizens of the United States of America whose earnings
are primarily from domestic sources.

This is not mere opinion; this is documentable fact. But
don't take my word for it; the law is available for
anyone with the intelligence and the inclination to study
and learn the truth for themselves. It's too bad that
group didn't include Mr. Lieber and, by association, the
Star-Telegram.

Here, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the
government is correct when it asserts there is nothing
unconstitutional about Title 26, commonly known as the
Internal Revenue Code, and that any argument to the
contrary is frivolous. What the government is not saying,
however, is that the Code is exceedingly difficult to
comprehend, almost always misapplied and that the public
is laboring under a misconception about just who is and
who is not "made liable" by it.

None of this is accidental and it is exceedingly naive to
believe otherwise. Remember, the IRS itself acknowledges
that it relies on the "voluntary compliance" of taxpayers
and so, by happy coincidence, it cannot be held
accountable if one mistakenly believes he is a taxpayer
and 'volunteers' to pay. Furthermore, thanks to our
representatives' and our governments' lust for money and
power, the IRS has no incentive and no mandate to educate
the people as to the true and correct application of the
tax laws.

So, then, since the Internal Revenue Code is indeed
constitutional, exactly who are the people who are "made
liable" to pay 'income taxes'? I'll give you a hint: GW
wants to grant amnesty to about 10 million of them.

The issues raised by so-called 'tax protestors' or 'tax
honesty' supporters have little or nothing to do with
finances. Simkanin is an excellent example of this. A man
who had a successful business and once led a reasonably
affluent lifestyle, he has essentially thrown it all away
in the name of truth and freedom. Freedom is all Dick
Simkanin wanted but now, obviously, it will be unjustly
denied him. There is some consolation, though; by taking
a stand for his principles, the name Simkanin takes its
rightful position alongside the names of other great
American tax protesters, like Adams, Hancock, Hale,
Henry, Jefferson and Washington.

In closing, I'd like to lay down two challenges to the
Star-Telegram, or for that matter any citizen who may
read this letter:

First, if you can show me in Title 26 of the United
States Code the law that requires me to pay a tax on my
personal earnings, I will get on a Southwest smoker to
Fort Worth and buy you and your spouse the best steak
dinner in town.

Second, write the IRS and ask them the same question. If
you get a responsive answer -- one that identifies the
law in question by title, chapter and part of the Code --
then that steak dinner is also yours.

I was born in Texas, and I love it and Fort Worth and
steak, too. But I'm confident I won't be enjoying the
pleasures of any one of them as a result of having just
thrown down those two gauntlets.

Now more than ever our rights and our freedom are in
grave peril. This threat is not and never was posed by al
Qaeda or Saddam Hussein -- or any other external power,
for that matter. No, the principle threat to the freedom
of Americans is contained solely within the borders of
the District of Columbia, and the seat of its power is
found in Washington at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is
our duty as patriots to protect our nation from the
threat which resides there.

Newspapers like the Star-Telegram are America's last line
of peaceful defense against federal tyranny. Let us hope
and fervently pray they will have the courage to avoid
the easy temptation of parroting the government line and
return instead to the fine tradition of investigative
journalism that is truly the sword the First Amendment
protects our right to wield.

There can be no more important issue with which to begin
than this one, and I hope you will accept the both the
challenge and the responsibility.

With sincere regards,

Anthony E. Smith
Editor-in-Chief
Private Air Magazine
6135 Airways Boulevard
Suite One Thousand
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421
------------------------------------------------------
Tel: 423.485.4738
Fax: 423.899.6393
Cell: 423.718.3843
------------------------------------------------------
editor-in-chief@earthlink.net


Home