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

Bob Gregory responds to attorney Rebecca on IRS

Expand Messages
  • legalbear7
    Bob didn t see fit to post this to Tips & Tricks so I am posting here. Bear You wrote: I am saddened by the cult thinking that permeates tax protester groups.
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Bob didn't see fit to post this to Tips & Tricks so I am posting here. Bear

      You wrote:

      "I am saddened by the cult thinking that permeates tax protester groups.  I guess that there is nothing that I can do to help after all."


      Rebecca:

      I am not convinced that cult thinking permeates tax protester groups, though your terms may be somewhat restrictive.  First, the better informed people questioning the income tax are not protesters against the law but people insisting on proper application of the law and asking for truth and openness from the government.  Second, not nearly all such people are organized or clustered into "groups."  Third, "Cult thinking is as cult thinking does" as Forrest Gump might say, or perhaps better, "Cult thinking is in the eye of the beholder."  If a person concentrates on carefully reading the laws and placing them in context with other laws and court rulings and not attempting to apply weird or goofy interpretations, I doubt that he could properly be accused of cult thinking.

      As a further comment/question based on your e-mail to Bob Hurt and Marty, since the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any additional powers of taxation nor extend taxation to any new subjects, and since Congress has had plenary power of taxation since adoption of the original Constitution, I am not sure what effect you would expect from repeal of the 16th Amendment.  The only effect the amendment had, according to the Supreme Court was to "clarify" (That's a laugh.)  that income taxes fall into the classification of excises.    Direct taxes bear on persons and property.  Direct taxes are still subject to apportionment according to the Supreme Court.   The problem with income tax, as I see it, is the way the law is improperly applied and administered.  I certainly do not oppose repealing the 16th Amendment, but, to give an odd simile, it would be like attacking Iraq after 9-11 when Iraq didn't do anything and 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  (In case you're interested, I did oppose attacking Iraq.)

      I certainly agree with your ideal of restricting the federal government to its constitutional limits, but I do not see this as separate from the income tax matter.  The legislative and jurisdictional limits of the federal government are grossly exceeded by the administration of income tax matters and in courts adjudicating tax matters. 

      Most of the statutes are drafted to comply with the constitution, as are most regulations.  However, the codification of the statutes into 26 USC twists and intentionally confuses through a number of techniques. 

      When one points out that Title 26 is not positive law, people start viewing him as wearing a tinfoil hat, but the point is very important.  In titles not made positive law, only the Statutes at Large (or earlier revised statutes) are proper evidence of law for use in federal courts.  This is the law, not just my thinking. 

      As I have earlier pointed out to you (and you have not replied), the codifications in Subtitle F of Title 26 lump together administrative requirements for several different taxes.  And they do not even attempt to make clear which taxes they apply to.  It is most convenient for the IRS and DOJ to claim that they apply to every tax equally.  It is for that reason that the DOJ and IRS choose to ignore regulations, claiming that they are irrelevant, without regard to the FRA, the APA and regulations implementing them.  However, the Secretary apparently does not produce regulations with that approach.  He implements some code sections in 26 CFR, some in 27 CFR and some in both 26 and 27 CFR.  That is because the statutes underlying the codes sections only relate to certain taxes and not across the board.  If you consider the logic of it, you will realize that a number of statutes were enacted in the late 19th century when there was no income tax.  None of those statutes could apply to income taxes because they were enacted in connection with taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc.  Yet they comprise several of the statutes codified in 26 USC Subtitle F.

      I encourage you to look in greater depth at the question of true applicability of many of the code sections that you are impressed are fully applicable to everyone.  This is how you could help.

      I hope I have not sounded too cultic in my presentation.

      Bob

    • wm@greenes.us
      Well, one of the people I respect the most tells me I really blew it with my “Amended Motion For Preliminary Injunctive Relief” which is attached for your
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        Well, one of the people I respect the most tells me I really blew it with my “Amended Motion For Preliminary Injunctive Relief” which is attached for your review.

         

        I submitted it on May 30th and I made a few dumb mistakes like having a page number listed wrong on the Table of Contents and failing to make the “See Exhibit #” connotation for Exhibit #67 which is shown in the “Listing of Exhibits” section.  But as I said, one of the people I respect the most tells me I really blew it, and after my wife saw what he wrote she said “I told you so” and a lot more.

         

        Anyway, so I guess everything is not as it should be, but it is nevertheless attached for your review, and now I guess I’ll wait for the court to take me apart.  Sh*t happens.

         

        Blessings,

        Bill

         

         

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