Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • rebel382003
    Dear Mr. Becraft, Thanks for the opportunity to exchange views with you on the validity of current income tax indictments/ informations as related in your
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mr. Becraft,

      Thanks for the opportunity to exchange views with you on the validity
      of current income tax indictments/ informations as related in your
      recent email. I believe your concept the courts are citadels of
      justice in condoning indictments citing IRC 7201 et al. as
      identifying a duty for an income tax is poorly placed

      As a first point, the Supreme court has acknowledged IRC ##7201 to
      7217 (Chapter 75, Part 1) are applicable to ALL taxes collected, and
      the court relied upon the Congressional Record for this position:

      "Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions (26
      USC §7201 through §7217) in the same part of the Code because it
      wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes."
      Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 348 citations omitted. By the
      words of the Supreme Court and Congress itself, a citation of Part I
      of Chapter 75 cannot identify a specific tax the defendant can
      violate. The citation of such a statute therefore cannot identify
      a "known legal duty" for any tax as is required for a valid
      indictment. Ref. United States v. Pomponio, 429 US 10.

      The Congressional Record of the 1954 rewriting of the tax code relied
      upon by the Sansone court reads: "In this Chapter [75] all criminal
      offenses [within Title 26] are brought together, as are all other
      offenses, and all provisions relating to forfeitures, except those
      relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain firearms." Senate Report @
      p147; House Report @ p108. Duplicated in: U.S. Revenue Acts, 1954
      Legislative Histories, Vol. 1, 2, KF6275.8, 1982, for easy access.

      This analysis of Sansone is not known to have been presented to, or
      rejected by, any federal court.

      A list of 100 appellate and SC cases that have used Chapter 75
      statutes for other than income tax cases is available. These cases
      consistently identify a known legal duty outside of Chapter 75. How
      is it that courts require a known legal duty to be identified outside
      of Chapter 75 for non-income tax cases but apply Chapter 75 to income
      tax cases without such a citation ???

      The mere claim of an "income" tax within criminal process is
      nebulous. That an unidentified income tax statute imposes liability
      is a conclusion of law that has no standing.

      Taxes can only be imposed by statute. Where would you consider the
      requirement that the defendant has been shown to be legally required
      to file a tax form is being alleged in criminal process ???
      Regulations, whether identified or not, do not suffice. If it is not
      alleged in the process, the statute has not been submitted to
      contestation with the burden of proof on the government and is not a
      question before the court. But this is how the government avoids a
      constitutional challenge to the income tax.

      You have inserted part of the Vorman case in your correspondence. It
      includes the following statement relating to complying with the
      supreme court's adjudication of Hamlin:

      5] The offense of failure to file an income tax return under
      26 U.S.C. § 7203 requires the government to prove three elements: THE
      return and the failure was willful. (emphasis added)

      The wording of the above paragraph clearly indicates 7203 is not the
      statute that requires an individual to file a return. Where does the
      government allege the statutory requirement to file a return ???
      Where does the government identify why a sovereign citizen
      is "subject" to any tax requirement and is therefore identified as
      a "taxpayer" ?? I do not see it.

      It is undoubtedly agreed that Hamlin was not an adjudication of
      whether a statute imposing a legal duty was, or was not, averred in
      the process. The question before the Hamlin court was what had to be
      proven to show a violation of the statute submitted to contestation
      as required by due process. An offense was identified. A legal duty
      that can be violated is not identified in income tax cases.

      Your correspondence also included the following:
      [4] An indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it "first,
      contains the elements OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED and fairly informs a
      defendant OF THE CHARGE against which he must defend, and, second,
      enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future
      prosecutions for the same offense." Hamling v. United States, 418
      U.S. 87, 117 (emphasis added).

      Hamling required the identification of a charge. Hamling does not
      condone an indictment that does not allege the violation of a
      statutory obligation---the offense charged.

      The Vorman court you cite additionally suggests 6012 imposes the duty
      for an income tax. Is this not an acknowledgement 7201 etc does not
      identify the known legal duty ??? Is this not an attempt, after
      conviction, to amend the indictment by Opinion to include what is
      deemed to be the known legal duty ??? Is it not correct that PA's are
      not permitted to supplement a substantive issue into an indictment,
      nor may a court add such a provision to justify a conviction ????

      We are not discussing an issue of an alleged violation of one statute
      with conviction of violating another statute which requires a show of
      prejudice for reversal. Where NO statute imposing a lawful duty is
      alleged, prejudice is a non sequitur. Patton v US, 281 US 276, 292;
      Harris v US, 149 F3d 1304, 1308; Kelly v US, 29 F3d 1107, 1113-1114.

      .The Constitution of the United States authorizes jurisdiction for
      the federal courts to "cases and controversies." Criminal process
      must present a case. Supreme Court citations are legion that criminal
      process that does not identify a known legal duty does not present a
      case to the court. Without a case, there is nothing for the court to
      exercise jurisdiction over and the proceeding is void from its
      inception. Procedural rules cannot be used to abolish a
      constitutional restriction on jurisdiction.

      Larry, I recognize you are merely informing me of what the courts
      have declared in the past, and I appreciate the information. I
      respectfully submit that what the appellate courts have written to
      uphold convictions of income tax cases is not in accord with the
      Sansone court or with Due Process. The courts are perverting the
      judicial system to enforce an unconstitutional infringement on the
      citizens' right to pursue a livelihood as secured by the clause of
      Liberty. It is the courts that are violating the historic safeguards
      of Due Process and the requirement to expose a tax statute to
      contestation and the government's requirement to carry the burden of
      proof of its validity. The objective is to extort the wealth of the
      people under pretense of law.

      It is impossible to disprove the validity of an unidentified putative
      The courts have declared that if the authority to tax exists, it is
      not a matter for the courts if the tax destroys the object of
      taxation. If the income tax is constitutionally valid, it has
      replaced the sovereign people with "subjects" responsible for an
      income tax that can be increased to 100% of the earnings of the
      people by a mere act of Congress. The land of We the Sovereign People
      has been replaced with a land of slaves. The Constitution has been
      totally perverted by one legislative act.

      Perhaps it is naive to believe the courts will rectify the mis-
      adjudication such as the Vorman case. I am assured a singular
      challenge will not be successful nor will non-professionals prevail.
      Brown v Topeka was accepted by a reluctant Supreme court only after
      numerous cases forced consolidation. There appear to be numerous
      citizens who would volunteer to be defendants for an income tax
      challenge. Failure to make a challenge leaves only two known
      alternatives. One option is slavery for my children. I decline to
      accept that option.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Larry Becraft
      To several recipients and bulletin boards.
      Subject: Alleging a "Duty"

      Lots of those who are, in my view, "new" to the freedom movement have
      absolutely no conception of what has been litigated in the past, and
      most follow rumors on the Net without making any effort to engage in
      legal research to determine the substance of various arguments.
      Furthermore, "rumor and hearsay" about what happens in cases spread
      throughout this movement, and it appears far easier to start a rumor
      rather than simply go over to Pacer and actually look up a case to
      see what has been filed.

      Since last year, many have been making loud pronouncements about an
      alleged requirement that criminal tax indictments must allege the
      legal "duty" relevant for the case; and, of course, it is asserted by
      these "newbies" that nobody in the past ever made such challenges.
      Let me be the first to point out the incredible flaw in this
      contention. Since the early 80s, the defense in tax cases has done
      this. However, all an indictment needs to allege are the elements of
      the offense. The problem with this argument is that it has been
      rejected. See the Vroman case below. There are other cases.

      Of course, people can file these types of motions; I just know the
      outcome. So does Minarik (the Sloan case, Bob).

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.