|
Corruption Doesn't Get More Serious, Or More Transparent, Than
This
"Freedom of
thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every
other form of freedom."
-Benjamin Cardozo
FACED BY A GROWING HOST of American men and women withdrawing
consent and support in the manner intended by the Founders and as provided
for by law, and yet unwilling to abide the re-imposition of Constitutional
restraints on its power, the federal government has descended to a new
depth of despotic corruption. In an effort to beat these men and women
into subordination and silence, and to discourage others from joining their
ranks, the feds have begun levying fines on Americans who fail to affirm
a government-dictated orthodoxy under oath.
Nothing like this has ever happened
before in our history.
Even during the dark days of the Wilson administration, when
those arguing against the legality of the World War I draft were punished
for doing so, no one was fined or otherwise punished for refusing to
declare a belief that the draft was legal and proper. Even those who
chose to evade the draft themselves, and were punished for doing so, were
not faced with demands that they declare themselves properly subject to the
conscription, on pain of further harm for refusing the Orwellian edict. But
that's exactly what's being done now.
This new crime being committed by the
feds is prompted by the fact that large numbers of Americans have learned
the actual Constitutional and statutory limits of federal taxing authority
over the last decade. Tens of thousands of these folks, at least, have been
applying that understanding in making simple testimonial declarations as to
whether their earnings qualify as subject to federal (tax) claims. These
declarations are made on legal instruments specifically designed by the US
Treasury Department for the purpose of making exactly these personal-belief
statements.
The declarations of personal belief made by these educated
Americans impose no obligation or hindrance on the government-- unless the
declarant's beliefs are correct. When this is so, the government is
prevented from claiming ownership of a portion of the declarant's earnings.
But this is only so in these cases because the government has no legitimate
claim to pursue.
On the other hand, when the declarant's belief is NOT correct,
there is no imposition or hindrance on the government whatever. The law
provides an authority (and obligation) for the government to create its own
contrary sworn declaration in such cases, by virtue of which the state is
permitted to exercise its legitimate claims as though the original
declaration had never been made.
In short, not only is the right of the
citizen to declare his own belief inherent under the most basic legal
principles and fully provided for by law, but his doing so is not the least
hindrance to the government in doing anything it is legally authorized to
do.
Further, his doing so is necessary in order to keep the government from possibly
imposing a tax where it really doesn't belong, even while in no way
preventing taxes from being imposed where they DO belong.
There's the rub, of course. The fact is, the government
frequently pursues tax claims where they do not really apply. It has
been able to do this because most Americans have failed to register
educated conclusions about the tax-related character of their earnings, and
have instead let themselves be herded into making government-claim-favoring
declarations.
Now that understanding of the
declaration process and its effects, and of the actual limits to which the
federal taxing power is subject, is spreading, more and more Americans are
testifying more thoughtfully. The government's response is to corruptly demand that these
folks continue to declare what is convenient for the state's purse, even
though the declarant no longer believes it to be true. Like heretics facing
the Inquisition, those failing to profess as the state wishes face
punishment simply for exercising freedom of conscience.
The pretenses used by the state for
"justifying" the fines are so patently and self-evidently absurd
as to underscore the fact that the punishment is being used purely for the
illegitimate purposes of evading the declarant's claims and coercing
testimony convenient to the state.
These include (among other, equally specious nonsense):
that "zero" is not a number (at least, not if it
appears on the "income received" line of a declaration)1;
that a payer's assertions that a payment is of "taxable
income" has to be simply accepted as true (because the payer COULDN'T
have been wrong...)2; or
that these inconvenient attestors don't really believe what
they say (because they said something different in previous years)3.
These ridiculous justifications could only be made more
transparently crocodilian than by their simple recital if the smirks with
which they are doubtless typed out in the "determinations" in
which they appear were seen as well. Indeed, even the notices by which these
fines are first threatened (along with an outright invitation to the target
to spare himself the pain by changing his testimony) are exercises in studied mendacity.
No effort is ever made at any point in the process to dispute
the content of the testimony (as in disputing the conclusions by these
folks that their earnings don't qualify as subject to the federal tax
authority), even though that is the whole and sole issue actually relevant
to the matter. After all,
Isn't the real question whether "zero" IS the
correct number? (And isn't the ludicrous assertion that "zero" is
not a number just an obvious evasion of this real question?)
Isn't the real question whether the payment really WAS of
"taxable income"? (And isn't arguing that a mere assertion that
it is should be simply taken as gospel just a blatant evasion of that real
question?)
Isn't the real question whether what the attestor says is
TRUE? (And isn't the unprovable and grossly impertinent assertion that the
attestor doesn't believe his sworn declaration just an evasion of that
plainly- and exclusively-relevant real question?)
To heighten the irony, the very fact that the government finds
necessary the punishment of people who fail to attest as it wishes in
furtherance of its purpose proves the illegitimacy of that purpose. After
all, if the government had legitimate issues with the testimony it
disfavors, there would be no bothering with efforts to discourage
(especially in light of the inherent illegitimacy of any state effort to
punish, inhibit or control speech).
As noted, the government has statutory provisions equipping it
to make and pursue its own claims contrary to testimony which it believes
to be incorrect. The government seeking to discourage Americans from
testifying as to what they believe if it really believes otherwise is like
a litigant in a lawsuit spending a sweaty hour trying to browbeat his
opponent into surrender to save himself the slight effort of opening his
briefcase and producing evidence proving his case. No one would do that--
unless they didn't actually have the evidence...
Here, the government simply wants what it isn't entitled to
have-- control over the professed beliefs of all Americans, so that it can
exercise control over the resources of all Americans. To get this, it has
stepped into a real cesspool of corruption, and seeks to use its ugly
threats to coerce itself some company down there. Everyone should be on
their feet shouting "NO!", and denouncing this monstrous step
across the line of decency and the law.
Everyone should be ringing the phone off
the hook at the ACLU, the "alt media", and every public interest
legal group that can be found, raising the roof over this assault on the
most fundamental rights of a human being (and rights explicitly secured by
the United States Constitution). If an American can be punished for not declaring his earnings
to be subject to a tax, he can be punished for not declaring himself an
unfit parent, or guilty of a crime, or anything at all. In any event, being
punishable for not declaring a government ownership interest in one's
property is bad enough all on its own.
Raise the roof.
"Never do
anything against conscience even if the state demands it. "
-Albert
Einstein
"I cannot and
will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor
safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."
-Martin
Luther
"But it is
necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself.
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists
in professing to believe what he does not believe... When a man has so far
corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime."
-Thomas Paine
1"[A] Form 1040 ... which ... indicate[s] zero income ...
[does] not constitute a return “because [it fails] to include any
information upon which tax could be calculated"."
2"Here, taxpayers submitted amended returns for 2004,
2005, and 2006 in which they replaced the income they previously reported,
which was consistent with third-party information provided to the IRS, with
zeros ... that directly contradicted W-2s and other forms submitted by
third parties to the IRS. The taxpayers admittedly took no action to obtain
“corrected” third party forms that would corroborate their claims of zero
taxable income."
(Note the court's careful use of the phrase "taxable
income" rather than "money", in implicit acknowledgement of
the distinction...
Note further that not only is the court "reasoning"
that the "third party forms" are to be accepted as correct unless
the same "third parties" change them, but it simultaneously
suggests that the claimants in the case bear a burden of corroborating
their testimony. The first of these is, as already noted, absurd on its
face. The other is directly contrary to specific statutory mandates placing
on the government the burden of attempting to prove that the such claimants
are wrong.
Here the government must prove that what these folks received
actually DID qualify as "taxable income". No attempt whatever was
made to bear this burden, which is why the complicit court resorts to this
nonsense instead of what any rational person recognizes it must be able to
declare in order to rule against the couple: "The government has
proven that what the claimants received was, in fact, "taxable
income" in the amounts reported.")
3"Thus, the taxpayers' amended returns for 2004, 2005, and
2006, ... do not implicate an honest and reasonable intent to supply
information required by the tax code."
All of these examples are from the ruling in a 2011 suit
brought in the Federal Court of Claims to compel the IRS/Treasury Dept. to
issue refunds owed to an educated couple over their amended declarations
for 2004, '05 and'06. The court ultimately denied the claims in a 42-page
ruling which distilled down to the contorted rationale that if the amended
returns could be taken to be "frivolous" (by deeming the
"third-party" assertions to be gospel and therefore the
"zeros" self-evidently wrong-- with the absurd "zero is not
a number" thing thrown in as a fallback pretext; and that in light of
the foregoing the sincerity of their claim was impeached-- with the
nonsense implication that the change from their previous declarations
evinces the insincerity of their newly-professed belief thrown in as a
fallback pretext), then the court lacked jurisdiction to hear what would
therefore be an invalid claim.
The IRS is now seeking to collect "frivolous return"
penalties from these folks, citing the outcome of this case as having
established that the declarations qualify for that status. Other educated
claimants have been or are being threatened with these penalties-- and some
have even had property seized-- but usually without any
rationalization/explanation whatever. Instead, the government simply
alleges that the penalty applies to the disfavored testimony using a carefully-designed mis-statement of the statutory
provisions involved. It invites the target to recant and be spared the
punishment, and then bulls ahead with "collections" protocols
when the upstanding, rights-valuing target sticks to his or her testimony.
Usually these assaults simply stop when faced with adamant
refusal to be taken-in or intimidated. See examples of how this plays out
in the 'Every Which Way But Loose' collection. But lately is
appears that desperation in the face of the growing host of
CtC-truth-tellers has prompted an abandonment of all restraint, as in the
case discussed above. Gandhi explained to us: "First, they ignore
you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
It seems we're in the "fight you" stage.
|
