May 14, 2002
| <<Previous |
|
| May 14, 2002 | ||
|
|
The Report http://www.taxfreedom101.com A Weekly Internet Publication - May 14, 2002 - The Constitutional Revival Movement's News Source |
UPDATES: - A New Project in Development - Constitutional Quiz Question of the Week NEWS: - The Infamous 16th Amendment INFORMATION: - Tax Court is a 'Court' by Name Only! | Why The Tax Freedom 101 Report? "An immense effect may be produced by small powers wisely and steadily directed." - Noah Webster, Founding Father of American Education Support this work! If you appreciate this newsletter why not donate a Federal Reserve Note* to keep it alive. Past issues of the Tax Freedom 101 Report are archived here. Dear Netizen: Do you find the The Tax Freedom 101 Report interesting, useful, educational, or surprising? You do? Great! Then why don't you recommend this newsletter to a friend or two. They don't have to be a crazed liberty-lovin "radical" like you and me - even raging communists and everyone in between enjoys reading this newsletter! So spread the word... the forward button is just a click away... | ||||||
UPDATES: - A New Project in Development Well another tax season has come and gone. You may have noticed that we have not published The Tax Freedom 101 Report since our April 15th edition. However we have kept ourselves busy in the past few weeks, and we can catch our breath now that the the usual tax season rush of citizens wishing to flee the welfare state has passed. Typically the late Spring and Summer months tend to be slow to say the least, so we focus our attention in other areas. Please don't be surprised if The Tax Freedom 101 Report is not published every week during these months. We here at Tax Freedom 101 are currently working on expanding our efforts for the benefit of existing Save-A-Patriot Fellowship members. A needed tool that has been lacking is one that allows the existing thousands of fellowship members to network efficiently and privately on a solely local basis. Because the fellowship strictly protects and respects its members' privacy, locating members who reside in your local area in order to network has been difficult. Typically if a member wished to contact other members within his or her area, that requesting member would need to contact fellowship HQ, and request that a mailing be sent from HQ to other members within their geographical location alerting them to the member's request. Members who were contacted by letter carrier could then decide to contact the requesting member if they so wished for additional local fellowship and support. Needless to say it is a costly time consuming process protecting a member's privacy while at the same time alerting them that another member within their immediate area is desiring fellowship. We hope to change that situation! The advent of the Internet has allowed people to conjugate freely in chat rooms, bulletin boards, discussion groups, etc. and share whatever information they wish, and usually with a good level of privacy. However, not all of the "free" services provided on the Internet that allow such networking and communication is completely private, nor will it remain completely free for long. In addition, many services require information that one would rather just not give. Besides the loss of some private information, a Netizen usually ends up dealing with all the other junk associated with the same service, which can get somewhat annoying. That is why we're evaluating building and maintaining our own private server for the express purpose of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship members to rendezvous and network. Of course participation on the fellowship member network will be solely elective on the part of the member. A comforting note is that a member will have the option to share simply an email address if they so wish with other members in his or her general location to communicate, and perhaps in the future make further arrangements to meet in private. Any other information a member would like to share with others is at their discretion. We're also looking into providing private email addresses to members to make the network and those utilizing it anonymous and as private as possible. The option we're studying will also allow a member to send and receive mail messages from their home computer. Members who do not have access to a computer with Internet access will be out of luck, and they will need to pursue the old cumbersome method of routing the request through fellowship Headquarters which will still be available. Later, after we have built the server and have tested the software fully with current members who we know are already networked and meet regularly on the Internet, as well as in their home state via private meetings, we will announce the launch of the networking service. Once the service has been completed and provides a level of privacy to our satisfaction, access details to use the service will be distributed in the printed only version of the fellowship member's only newsletter The Liberty Tree. So make sure you read this literary gem when it arrives in your mail box. We will be keeping our current subscribers posted of our progress periodically in this weekly report as well. Please note that access to the service when completed will be for members of the fellowship only. If you're not a member of the fellowship yet, and would like to learn how to become a member visit the Enrollment Information page at the Tax Freedom 101 web site for details, or just click here. - Constitutional Quiz Question of the Week This week's question: How was the disagreement about the election of the chief executive (now called President) compromised during the Constitutional Convention? MAXIM #1: SAFEGUARD YOUR PROPERTY AND EARNINGS Investigate asset protection, estate and business planning secrets. Prevent "bad-guys" from taking assets; regain financial privacy; avoid probate; lower business tax liability!!! Do it today! Learn more here. NEWS: An important point we would like to make before we share this letter written by Warren S. Richardson, J.D. to Bill Benson, the author of 'The Law That Never Was' is that the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship does not argue the validity of the 16th Amendment when defending its members - even if the Amendment was ratified fraudulently. Why? Simply because the 16th Amendment did not alter the Constitution to allow for a Direct Tax without apportionment as many claim. If the Sixteenth had changed the Constitution then the article (Amendment) as written and now portrayed by government, the media, and 'higher' education would have had to contain language repealing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 - if the Sixteenth was indeed referring to Direct Taxes, but it was not. The Constitution would be in conflict with itself otherwise. For the principle please read the 21st Amendment in the Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment. The fact is the 16th Amendment was nothing more than Constitutional window dressing as the Supreme Court related in not so many words (see Fact #10 through Fact #16 on our $10,000.00 Reward page for details). This is why the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship does not use the 16th Amendment as a basis for argument that citizens living and working exclusively in the states of the Union are not liable for a tax on their personal domestic source income. The argument is irrelative since the law remains intact. No doubt curious that the Income Tax Act, the Federal Reserve System, and the 16th Amendment came into being within 8 short months of each other. No doubt an illusion was created for the public to sustain a system of paper money, when such an economic standard was expressly prohibited by the bills of credit clause as the Federal Constitution refers to it when the States of the Union are concerned in Article 1, Section 10, and the notes and writings of James Madison during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Bill Benson certainly deserves credit in bringing the facts forward regarding the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment which is why we are making note of it in this issue if only to substantiate the fraud and underhanded means in which the money powers had to use to destroy our nation of law. To read the letter by Warren S. Richardson, J.D. written to Bill Benson click here. Run Your Personal and Business Affairs in Private! ~ Offering check cashing, bill paying, and wire services ~ ~ Private mail receiving and shipping services ~ ~ NO SSN's Required! ~ For a FREE electronic information package email: mpc@officeservices.coxatwork.com?SUBJECT=Send_Free_Info_Pak INFORMATION: Just a quick preface to this article, which is actually titled: 'Tax Court is Not a Real Court' in The Liberty Tree. Tax Court is a 'real' court by name only when applied to the functions as contained solely within the Executive Branch of government. Tax Court is not an Article III Court governed by the functions of the Judicial Branch of government. Understanding why the separation of powers within government is so important when the issue of 'courts' is involved will become blatantly obvious once you read this article in its entirety. The article will also provide potential members an idea why the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship does not petition Tax Court for relief on behalf of its members. THE LIBERTY TREE Vol. 4. Number 4 - April 2002 Tax Court is Not a Real Court by: Jim Kerr, senior staff paralegal There is a story about Abe Lincoln as a young trial lawyer, arguing a case with a lawyer whose version of the facts came more from his imagination than the testimony. Lincoln, in his argument, turned on him and said, "Tell me, sir, how many legs has a sheep got?" "Why, four, of course," the fellow answered. "And if I called his tail a leg, then how many legs would that sheep have?" Lincoln asked. The answer came, "Then he'd have five." "No!" Lincoln roared, pounding the jury rail, "he'd still have just four legs. Calling his tail a leg won't make it a leg. Now let's look at the actual testimony and see how many tails you've been calling legs." This story provides a fitting opening as we examine the true character of tax court. So many government officials insist that tax court is a for-real court, but it isn't. However, calling tax court a bona fide judicial branch court - even repeatedly - does not make it one. Tax court is merely an executive tribunal, nothing more, nothing less. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of people on the federal payroll who insist otherwise, such as Randolph L. Hitter, an attorney of the Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice. One of our members availed himself of the remedies found in Title 26 U.S.C. § 6330, since the IRS was attempting to unlawfully assess him for a Subtitle C employment tax that he was not liable for, and make a levy against him. With the assistance of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship paralegal department, this member filed a petition in the United States District Court. In that petition, in his jurisdictional statement, the member pointed out that the regulations expressly barred tax court jurisdiction over an employment tax matter; he stated: "The United States Tax Court does not have jurisdiction because Title 26 C.F.R. § 601.102 states in relevant part, IRC § 6330 confers jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court where tax court jurisdiction is lacking. Yet even though an employment tax was clearly at issue here, Mr. Hitter insisted that the Tax Court did indeed have exclusive jurisdiction because the type of tax involved was an income tax, subject to the deficiency procedures of the Internal Revenue Code. He stated: "Although the Tax Court is not an Article III court and its jurisdiction is not identical to that of the district courts, Congress, in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, § 951, 83 Stat. 739, altered the Tax Court's status as part of the executive branch and established it as an Article I 'court of record. * * * The court has jurisdiction to decide issues of both fact and law, and it decides issues of law on a regular basis." Mr. Hitter then went on to cite Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991) and IRC § 7441. 26 U.S.C. § 7442 states in pertinent part: "The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939…." In Freytag v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court explained the Tax Courts' functions stating that: "The Tax Court is indistinguishable from my hypothetical Social Security Court. It reviews determinations by Executive Branch officials (the Internal Revenue Service) that this much or that much tax is owed -- a classic executive function. For 18 years its predecessor, the Board of Tax Appeals, did the very same thing, see H. Dubroff, The United States Tax Court 47-175 (1979), and no one suggested that body exercised 'the judicial power.' We held just the opposite. (Emphasis added) The Court in Freytag further stated that: "The Board of Tax Appeals is not a court. It is an executive or administrative board, upon the decision of which the parties are given an opportunity to base a petition for review to the courts after the administrative inquiry of the Board has been had and decided. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, 725, 49 S.Ct. 499, 502, 73 L.Ed. 918 (1929) (Taft, C.J.) The Court in Freytag gives us more insight as to the actual nature and functions of the Tax Court. The Court went on to say: "Though renamed the Tax Court of the United States in 1942, it remained an independent agency in the Executive Branch, 26 U.S.C. § 1100 (1952 ed.), and continued to perform the same function. As an executive agency, it possessed many of the accoutrements the Court considers quintessentially judicial, ante at 2645. It administered oaths, for example, and subpoenaed and examined witnesses, § 1114; its functions were reviewed in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury, §1141(a); This Court continued to treat it as an administrative agency, akin to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). See Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489, 495-501, 64 S.Ct. 239, 243-247, 88 L.Ed. 248 (1943). When the Tax Court was statutorily denominated an Article I Court in 1969, its judges did not magically acquire the judicial power. They still lack life tenure; their salaries may still be diminished; they are still removable by the president for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, 26 U.S.C. § 7443(f). (In Bowshar v. Synar, supra, 478 U.S., at 729, 106 S.Ct. At 3189, we held that these latter terms are very broad and could sustain removal... for any number of actual or perceived transgressions.) How anyone with these characteristics can exercise judicial power independent ... [of] the Executive Branch is a complete mystery. It seems to me entirely obvious that the Tax Court, like the Internal Revenue Service, the FCC, and the NLRB, exercises executive power. Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 56 U.Chi.L.Rev. 443, 451, n. 43 (1989). See also Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S., at 113, 102 S.Ct., at 2893 (WHITE, J., dissenting) (equating administrative agencies and Article I courts); Samuels, Kramer & Co. v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d 975, 992-993 (CA2 1991) (collecting academic authorities for same proposition). (Emphasis added) The controversy in § 6330 is the amount of unpaid tax or the existence of the underlying tax liability for any tax period. This is what a "taxpayer" can contest at an appeals conference and what he can appeal to either the Tax Court or District Court. Our member chose the U.S. District Court because he was contesting the existence of the underlying tax liability, not how much tax he owed. He first must be made liable to owe any tax. The Tax Court could not address whether he was liable for any tax in the first instance and therefore it did not have the authority and jurisdiction to decide the issue at hand. Again the Court in Freytag stated that: "The Tax Court... reviews determinations by Executive Branch officials (the Internal Revenue Service) that this much or that much tax is owed, a classic executive function." Administrative law is discussed in 2 Am Jur 2d § 29. It states: "Administrative agencies are not courts. They are not part of the judicial system, nor are they judicial bodies or tribunals. However, administrative bodies may be called courts, and this does not change their nature. Thus, bodies which have been designated courts of industrial relations, workers compensation courts, and county courts, are nonetheless, administrative agencies. Similarly, the Tax Court of the United States is not a court, but an independent agency of the executive branch of government." This is verified by the Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 88 L.Ed 139, 64 S.Ct. 184, 43-2 USTC & 9673, 31 AFTR 764, which stated: "The Board is but an independent agency in the Executive Branch of the Government, and the legislative pattern of its jurisdiction is clear and unambiguous. The Board is confined to a determination of the amount of deficiency or overpayment for the particular tax year as to which the commissioner determines a deficiency and as to which the taxpayer seeks a review of the deficiency assessment." (Emphasis added) The case of Commissioner v. Gooch, supra, was argued and decided in 1943 when the Tax Court was known as the Board of Tax Appeals. Careful reading of 26 U.S.C. § 7441 et seq. indicates that prior law shows that The Board of Tax Appeals was continued as an independent agency in the Executive Branch of the Government, and is known as the Tax Court of the United States. Can there be any doubt that the Tax Court is an administrative court? It is interesting to note that the case of Commissioner v. Gooch, supra, has not been overturned in its 57 years, but cited in every Federal circuit (417 F.2d 288). Thus, even if the Tax Court is authorized to make judgments of fact and law, that doesn't alter the fact that they do not, and can not, exercise any part of the judicial power of the United States. Furthermore, Congress lacks any legislative power to vest the judicial power of Article III in the executive branch, or to vest it in themselves, for that matter. Since the executive branch can not exercise the judicial power, the Tax Court, which is an executive branch Article I court, can not exercise it. This would result in our member, wishing to invoke the judicial power of the United States, to be deprived of the right to have a jury (if there were disputed issues of fact) decide the issues of fact by Congress' intent to restrict him to courts which do not afford jury trials. Be this as it may, the District Court declined jurisdiction, saying that tax court had jurisdiction over this employment tax issue, never mind § 601.102. And the 6th Circuit upheld the decision. Neither of these courts could really explain the basis of their decision. The restriction to Tax Court deprived the member of the original jurisdiction of the judicial power of the United States and restrict him to its appeals jurisdiction. Our courts are very corrupt. If it can be held that Congress can limit the Petitioner's access to the judicial power, then surely this would result in the citizens of this country being completely cut off from access to the judicial power of the United States, thereby being subjected to only executive and legislative courts to obtain justice. Obviously, this would be and is tyranny in action. Wishing you a tyranny-free day, The Tax Freedom 101 Staff | |||||||
The Accelerated Adult Home-Study Program To subscribe: Simply fill in the email address you wish to receive the newsletter at in the "enter email address" below and then hit the purple "Join Now" button. A confirmation notice will be sent to you shortly afterwards asking you to confirm your subscription by reply email.
or simply send an email to: The-Tax-Freedom-101-Report-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Do you have a product or service available that our educated and faithful readership would be interested in knowing about? Many of our readers understand the intent of Article 1 Section 10 as written in the Constitution and are eager to do business and network with others who share they same understanding. To learn more about advertising in this weekly Internet publication click here. | |||||||
|
| |||
  | |||
| |||
| DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility. | |||
 | |||
