The Income Tax Liability Question: The Big Picture Is Shouting the Answer

By ICE; April, 2007

In my early years of struggling with the income tax liability question,I was guided

largely by the facts and opinions of sincere, intelligent people who convinced me –

correctly, I believe – that the government

1) has been administering the income tax unlawfully and

2) aggressively suppresses any attempt to publicly examine the issue. These two

points by themselves are quite mind-boggling, and pursuing the relevant evidence

turns out to be life-changing, to say the least. There are, however, key questions

that I failed to ask or adequately explore for better than a decade. An examination

of these key questions, I believe, will go a long way toward explaining the “tax

protester experience” and hopefully will be pondered in the future by those who

encounter the income tax liability issue – or are still struggling with it. A few of

 these questions are:

1. Whatever the truth may be about the written Tax Code and the government’s

administration of it, it is a fact that the income tax has been an accepted system of

taxation in America for nearly a century. Is there any evidence that the general

public cares that a 90-year-old institution was implemented in a less than honest

manner? In fact, don’t most people take for granted that almost everything the

government does has some element of deception or corruption involved? For example,

the constitution makes no provision whatsoever for a “standing army.” One could argue

that the U.S. Army has been unlawful for most of the life of the nation; and that the

Army, as we know it, should therefore be disbanded. How much public support do you

believe there is for disbanding the U.S. Army? There are any number of things being

done by the government that find little or no Constitutional authority:

debt-based paper money; allowing Presidents to carry on wars without a Congressional

Declaration of War; and, for that matter, virtually the entirety of what is known as

“Administrative Law” (what amounts to legislation by departments of the Executive

Branch). How much sleep are Americans losing over the fact that their Constitution

does not provide for these things? If you are a strict “Constitutionalist,” are you

willing to put the welfare of your family or your very life at risk in some kind of

activist movement to “bring the government back into the bounds set for it by the

Constitution,” disband the army, throw out the money system, impeach a President for

conducting an unlawful war or do away with all government functions that fall under

Administrative Law – all this in spite of the fact that 99% of the public thinks you

are loony and would be just as happy to see you locked up? Is there a difference

between resisting any of these other unlawful government activities and resisting

the income tax?

2. The government carries on many activities in sloppy disregard for the written law.

The income tax is one of the ways the government raises the revenue for what it is

doing – also in sloppy disregard for the written law. These various unconstitutional

activities and the income tax share one thing in common: a virtually meaningless

level of resistance by the population – to the extent, in fact, that the vast

majority of Americans is quite content to have the government incarcerate people who

resist or disturb their familiar delusions – oh, and, by the way, kill them if they

refuse to “come along peacefully.” Are written laws, moral

principles or personal conscience anything more than mere window dressing in such a

 society?

3. It has been my experience that very few people are that picky about the functional

details of major controlling institutions in their lives such as government, or even

church, for that matter. Perhaps for a variety of complex psychological factors,

people bow to the impositions and accept the foibles of institutions they a) see as

being important “benefactors” and b) see little chance of resisting in any case.

They tolerate what is being done “for them” and “to them” based upon perceived self-

interest. When 99% of the people clearly don’t care about your issue, what is the

point of throwing your life away attempting to save them from themselves? Well,

there may be a point, but I doubt it has anything to do with being a “patriot” or a

“good citizen.”

The following thoughts are directed at those people whom the government and Media

like to call “tax protesters.” Of course, the term “tax protester” is largely a

misnomer, but it’s very existence and widespread usage is tied directly to the theme

of this article. Where do “tax protesters” come from? What causes someone to adopt

the ideas and attitudes that characterize a “tax protester”? I communicated with

literally thousands of tax protesters during my years spent studying, reporting and

wrestling with the income tax liability question. While I’m sure there are numerous

paths by which folks join the “Tax Movement,” two stand out in my mind. The most

common path seems to be where people have serious difficulties with the Internal

Revenue  Service and, while searching for a solution, stumble into information that

not only appears to provide a solution to their difficulties but, to their great

surprise, appears to reveal that there really is no law requiring the average

American to pay the income tax in the first place. Then there is another group of

people who, having no particular IRS difficulties, stumble into the income tax

liability question by way of a friend, a public lecture, a book or an Internet site.

The only “tax protesters” for whom I can say I have lost respect at this point are

 those who continue to make money off of the gullible and the

unwary by promoting the idea that the truth about the income tax

liability question somehow makes it safe and sane to not file income

tax returns and/or to engage in all sorts of clever schemes to obtain

“refunds” or “protect” assets from the government – and, of

course, the myriad variations on those themes that have resulted in so many ruined

lives, broken families, and good people in prison – not because they

were wrong about the income liability question, but because they were

naïve about the broader context and were taken in by people who should

have known better and whose underground subsistence – like so many

“multi-level” adventures – depends upon the next blind man’s

cash.

While rarely discussed in polite conversation, the vast majority of

people are deeply afraid of the Internal Revenue Service; so much so,

that they are uncomfortable just being in the presence of someone

questioning or challenging the “conventional wisdom” – i.e.,

“what everybody knows.” Because of this widespread uneasiness with the

subject, a relatively small percentage of the population has the

slightest clue about the income tax liability question and the

startling power and extent of the relevant evidence. Most people who do allow

themselves to examine the issue closely are quite disturbed, even

dumbfounded by what they learn. What they choose to do about it will

vary as widely as their personality types: cautious, skeptical,

curious, thoughtful, principled, combative, reckless, short-sighted … you name

it. The reckless or naïve may “sign up” on the spot, changing

their lives forever in ways they cannot begin to imagine. Near the other end

of the spectrum are the people who will a take a couple of years to

research the matter before reaching any conclusions or choosing any

course of action.

People with serious, ongoing IRS difficulties are among the most likely

to embrace a hoped-for solution; although, thanks to the intense,

networking nature of movements like the Tax Movement, long before their

IRS difficulties have been solved, these people will likely progress

through a few different strategies and points of view – none of which

may actually solve their problems, some of which may actually make

their problems worse and all of which will ultimately make them madder than

hell at the government … and sometimes at the Tax Movement as well.

The “tax protesters” I have known who spent months or years

investigating the income tax liability question have shared remarkably

similar experiences. Most have consulted with tax professionals,

attorneys and government officials ranging from Congressional

Representatives to IRS agents. In close to 20 years I have never met a

“tax protester” who reported any of those people actually citing

the statute that makes the average American, living and working in the 50

states, liable for the payment of an income tax. I believe it is safe

to say that had any of those questioned been able to cite the statute, the

vast majority of the investigators would not have become “tax

protesters.”

There is something far more powerful at work here, though – namely

the attitudes of those tax professionals, attorneys, Congressional

Representatives and IRS agents. One might assume that such people would

show genuine concern when they are challenged and find themselves

unable to cite the legal basis for their very professional existence. (This

may be a naïve assumption for reasons that will be addressed shortly.)

Instead, however, these folks are palpably uncomfortable even being

asked “the question.” Invariably they bury the question in an

exasperating psychological stew consisting of red herring, cheap

ridicule, utterly unsubstantiated “…because I’m an expert and I

say so” … oh, and raw intimidation – lots of intimidation (“You’ll wind

up in jail.”). This, again, from people whose job descriptions – one

would think -- tie them directly to the information being sought: i.e., the

law that clearly imposes a liability for the payment of an income tax

on the average American. Anyone with the slightest clue about human nature

begins to smell a rat in the woodpile at this point.

This is the point at which I believe many, if not most, “tax

protesters” make a fatal error. In fact, I believe I made this error myself. It is

related to the popular quotation from Voltaire, “It is dangerous to

be right when the government is wrong.” There is terrible and cruel

irony here. Generations of Americans have been brought up to believe that

their society – more so than any other in history -- is built upon

the principles of truth, justice and liberty, and that their government,

while not perfect, is genuinely committed to protecting and upholding

those principles. Over the last few years, I have watched in horror as

some of the most truthful, just and liberty-minded people I have ever

known have had their lives ruined by their government and, indeed, by

the society at large. Why? Because these fine people naively held to

the belief that, despite its flaws, America – its government and its

people – would awaken and right the wrongs they had so diligently and

bravely brought to the light of day.



Here I must take a brief detour for an important aside. Given that

virtually the entire American populace has cooperated with the income

tax, as they understood it, for nearly a century, one might reasonably

and safely assume that there would be no great risk in simply (and even

quietly) re-writing the Tax Code so that a crystal clear liability

statute were in place that would leave no doubt as to the liability of

the average American for payment of the income tax and filing of

returns as it is currently practiced. Nearly everyone accepts that the Tax Code

is and always has been an incomprehensible mess. In addition, there

have been virtually no tax protester-styled arguments coming out of any law

schools or accounting firms and the Establishment needn’t fear that

inserting some clear liability language in the existing Code would

attract any troublesome attention.

Some will argue that the government does not and cannot do this because

any such liability statute would be unconstitutional; which, they will

argue, is why the income tax liability has been based upon deception

all these years rather than clear, specific language. This, I believe, is a

huge stretch and entirely misses the point. Does anyone doubt that the

U.S. government could not insert such language without virtually any

public awareness? How can you doubt it? The Tax Code has sailed along

fine for nearly a century without so much as whimper from the law

schools, the Bar Association, accounting schools, Congress, the courts

or the Media. For that matter, not one major public figure of any note

whatsoever has ever stepped forward to even so much as lend credibility

to Tax Movement claims that the Tax Code fails to properly impose a

liability upon American citizens.



Furthermore, most of the key leaders of the “Tax Movement” over the last 20 years

have either spent time in prison, are in prison, are under injunction or have dropped

out of sight. The reality is this: the government, certainly at this point,

has nothing but contempt for the “Tax Movement” and, for all the

reasons previously stated, is not the slightest bit worried about a sudden

public awakening to the income tax liability question. It is, in fact,

for this very reason that IRS and other government spokesmen have for

so long simply refused to answer “tax protester” questions, instead

relying upon ridicule and threats. There is no meaningful public support for or

even interest in the income tax liability question … and they know

it.

As for the belief that there is some giant conspiracy at the IRS or in

the government generally to cover up “the truth about the Tax

Code,” I cannot subscribe to that view either. Do you realize how many

professional people are implicated in such a cover-up: every

Congressional Representative and Senator in the past century, along

with every attorney who worked on any state’s income tax laws (as these

are almost always tied to the federal liability); every accountant and tax

attorney to practice in the last century, along with every one of the

college and university professors that educated them; every judge who

has ever presided over a tax trial; and every attorney who has ever

worked for the IRS since 1913 – to say nothing of the countless,

brilliant business minds who have scoured the Tax Code since its

inception, searching for loopholes. The idea that all of these people

have somehow either been cowards, idiots, or a part of one giant

conspiracy to cover up “the truth” is absolutely ludicrous. I

believe that what tax protesters are experiencing has little to do with how the

Tax Code is written, and far more to do with the pitiful condition of

American society – a condition that is geometrically more

concentrated, the higher people rise in both the corporate and government power

structures. (Lord Acton comes to mind.)



And here we must return to the woodpile. You see that smell is not just

a dead rat; in fact, it is not a dead anything. That stench is from the

heaving, gasping, and gangrenous body politic of the United States of

America, unspeakably awful and most dangerous as it senses its own

death approaching. There’s a conspiracy all right, but not in the common

sense where the participants are conscious of it. It’s a conspiracy rooted

in madness – the kind of madness religious people like to refer to as

“hardening of the heart.”

In this one profound sense, the American people are surely being “represented” by

their government. For whatever set of reasons, the voting majority of the American

people

1) think in ten-second sound bytes;

2) thanks to the television remote control, can no longer tolerate even ten-second

sound bytes that do not “make them feel good”; and, therefore, 3) have conditioned

themselves to switch off virtually any unpleasant sound byte that comes their way

Politics and religion have long been the two taboo topics of conversation at

parties. Today, meaningful conversations that threaten to connect conscience to the

field of actual behavior are taboo literally everywhere.

Most people who carefully study the income tax liability question –

and especially those who pay careful attention to the responses of their

government to the questioners -- wind up seeing the income tax

liability question as merely the door through which a larger and vastly more

troubling context is revealed – a context fraught with problems that

make the income tax liability question seem rather simple by

comparison. I mean, after all, an income tax liability statute either exists or it

doesn’t. The very fact that for over 90 years an entire society has

had as much as half of the fruits of its labor taxed away without any of

its millions of accountants, lawyers, elected officials, bureaucrats or

Media truly understanding or being able to cite the legal basis for it

– well…, this is a far more complex consideration than the mere

existence of a statute. Earlier I mentioned a “fatal error,” one that I

myself had made. What is that error? I believe it was and is the failure, for

whatever reason, to consider the income tax liability question in its

full and accurate context. If that were as easy to do as it is to say,

I should have accomplished it myself.

Looking back at my own introduction to the income tax liability

question, considering the kind of information that came my way, the

investigations that I conducted, the “experts” that I consulted,

the dozens upon dozens of letters I wrote and the dumbfounding

(non)responses I received, I see no way that I could have behaved any

differently – unless I had been fortunate enough to meet someone who

had been down that road before, had lived to tell about it and could help

me integrate my mind-boggling experiences into a larger context. The

experience commonly had by those who study the income tax liability

question can be so shocking, the complexity of its implications so

overwhelming, that the experience quite literally creates its own

context – much like a really large mountain creates its own weather.

The problem, of course, for the climber caught up in the localized weather

of that really large mountain is this: the necessity of dealing with

the urgent and immediate challenges and dangers of the mountain make it

literally impossible to view the mountain in the larger context needed

to tell whether one’s actions on the mountain make any sense in the

world as a whole. Our mountain is an invisible liability statute that

currently causes the American people to part with over half of their

Gross Domestic Product. That’s a pretty big mountain, and, if you go

exploring the “closed” sections of the mountain, the “rangers”

who patrol the place are more likely to shove you into a crevasse than try

to help you reach the summit.

The critical lesson to learn is this: no matter how big the mountain,

it is only one mountain in a much larger world. Even on this huge mountain

known as the income tax liability issue there is the occasional

“clear day.” How could I (we, anyone) fail to take notice of the huge red

flares shooting in every direction? Flares such as: zero support from

public figures; zero institutional recognition of the situation;

glassy-eyed responses from every single person of any social or

political station whatsoever; and a country full of people who buy into

slogans such as “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave,”

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and “The world’s only

remaining super-power” and then “voluntarily comply” with a system of

taxation that confiscates over half of the Gross Domestic Product of the entire

citizenry!



I mean, think about that! You mean to tell me that there

isn’t something seriously wrong with the collective psyche of a

people like that? The red flares don’t answer the income tax liability

question; they do something far more important. They reveal that

critical, larger context in which one might make a truly informed

decision as to whether the answer to the income tax liability question

even matters and, perhaps more importantly, whether the answer is

actually worth the price. The red flares should alert every serious

investigator of the income tax liability question to conditions far

more serious than a flawed, falsely administered Tax Code. These conditions

must be addressed before any individual or group strategy can be

realistically devised; for, as long as those conditions persist, I

believe it will be impossible to solve the income tax liability

question. Furthermore, vested interests being what they are, and the

condition of American society being what it is, those who actually have

some success at garnering any noticeable amount of the limited public

attention that is possible will be visited with great suffering by

representatives of “The Great Society.” Granted, for some people

the stench in the nostrils is just too overwhelming to “stay in the

system”; but, when you stop and think about it, that really doesn’t have so

much to do with a dishonest Tax Code as it does with a dishonest government

carrying on a completely unacceptable level of immoral and unlawful

activities and claiming to “represent you” at the same time.

Few people are either emotionally or logistically equipped to deal with

the domestic terror the IRS and DOJ are capable of dishing out. A

better recognition and understanding of the red flares should keep the

ill-equipped out of their kamikaze uniforms and off of the battle

field. In sum: there has been a tragic misperception of reality that has

resulted in horrendous suffering when some really good people have

simply tried to live their principles. It is long past time to re-think

what is wrong, what should be done and what can be done. Given the

efforts, stature and accomplishments of some of the men and women in

the Tax Movement, I realize that it is a bit presumptuous of me to offer

such an opinion; but it is actually out of the great respect I have for

these people – as well as the heartache I feel for their suffering

– that I am compelled to share my strongly felt views.

First, I believe we must force ourselves to painstakingly ponder

reality today in America (and perhaps as much of the rest of the world as we

can get our heads around. Dr. John Coleman in his famous book

Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Committee of 300 made a statement I shall not forget:

(loosely paraphrasing) “You had better know what the rich and

powerful believe because, whether it is true or not, you are going to be

affected by what they believe.” I think Dr. Coleman should have added, “You

had also better know what the masses believe; because when the beliefs of

the masses are in sync with the agenda of the rich and powerful,

dissidents beware!” In that same vein, it does not matter what the

Tax Code says or, for that matter, what any written law says or what

morals, principles or traditions you believe the nation was founded upon or by

which you wish to conduct your life. If you are the typical “tax

protester” I have come to know, then realization “numero uno”

must be that you are tiny, isolated Tibet and the rest of America is Communist

China, complete with ruthless, despotic government. Actually, it is

worse than that, but I’m grasping for a model to grab your attention.

Unless you are quite willing to spend the rest of your life in various

states of persecution and suffering (or hiding), you had better pay

attention to the symptoms being displayed by this multi-cultural

society and its paranoid, two-party, nuclear-tipped government which is, by the

way, in search of enemies – a.k.a. “evildoers.” Are you getting

the picture? The place is a mad house.

You’ve heard the expression “The inmates are running the asylum.”

Not funny, really, especially when it’s true. At a time when England was

the “asylum,” there was the “New World.” Finding ourselves in what

appears to be a rather hopeless asylum, where are we to go? We are Americans.

We have lives, families, principles, beliefs. Many of us wish to “meet

our Maker” someday and be able to give a decent account of ourselves.

From that point of view, some will see no other choice than to apply their

minds and live what is in their hearts to the fullest. I believe that

in this way one may – if only in Eternity -- achieve personal

fulfillment no matter how the world responds.

Personally, I decided a good while ago that it is not only a waste of

time, but actually counterproductive, to continue making arguments

narrowly aimed at the income tax liability question. We’ve been at

that over 30 years and have virtually nothing to show for it but hundreds of

ruined lives and some brave, honorable men rotting in prison. The

percent of the general population that has responded to the best

arguments, to the pleading, to the protestation, or to the obscene

treatment of Tax Protesters by the government has been so small as to

amount to literally nothing. On the other hand, any realistic view will

admit that there has been a complete rejection of tax protester

arguments on the income tax liability question in every single corner

of the Establishment: government, Media, academia, the accounting and

legal communities, even the pundits – those intellectual talking heads

whose careers thrive on controversy and “debate.” Not so much as one of

them has had the courage (or been suicidal enough) to say, “Hey, you know,

those tax protesters have a legitimate beef. They at least deserve to

have their questions answered!”

There will be those who will want to throw that “sixty million

non-filers” figure at me and claim that credit for it goes to the tax

protesters. In the first place, I have never seen a speck of proof for

that sixty million figure. I seem to recall a figure of twenty million

that came out of a real IRS source a few years ago, but even that

figure did not come with any credible support – merely the typical

propaganda IRS news release we’ve grown accustomed to over many years. In my

opinion the vast majority of “non-filers” are not refusing to file;

they fail to file because their lives are so screwed up that they just never

get around to it. I would guess that they haven’t the foggiest clue

about the income tax liability question or the even the existence of

“tax protesters.” Based upon public and personal knowledge of the

size of the membership lists and e-mail lists in certain patriot

organizations, combined with a very good understanding of just how

downright difficult it is to function “outside the system” these

days, I would estimate the number of non-filing, genuine “tax protesters”

to be around 25 to 50 thousand. Now, for those tax protesters who find that

figure insulting, let’s get ridiculous and inflate it to 1 million. A

little quick math will put our situation in perspective: one million

equals one third of one percent (.33%) of the American people that are

walking their talk about the Tax Code being a fraud.

Reviewing a few key events in the Tax Protest Movement of the last

decade is instructive. One very brave and dynamic man actually ran a

series of full-page ads in a national newspaper, “USA Today.” The

ads were well done and contained more than enough information to alarm the

public both over the Tax Code itself and the government’s flat-out

refusal to respond to those who have questioned it. These ads must have

been viewed by many millions of American. The entire response to these

ads was fielded, for all intents and purposes, by one man on a single

line home phone.

I was personally involved in providing some 30 faxed pages of powerful

documentation to the producer of a CBS 60 Minutes II program that aired

a few years ago. I spent 90 minutes on the phone with this producer

who, by the end of the conversation, actually had me convinced that she was

genuinely interested in airing a fair representation of the income tax

liability question and in particular the stories of several tax

protester trial acquittals – the documentation for which I had

provided her. Well, as some of you may remember, that show was a complete

whitewash, a sell-out, an intellectual crime. Former IRS Commissioner

Rossotti was invited on the show, and the interviewer, knowing full

well Rossotti was lying through his teeth, allowed him to assert that the

IRS had achieved “100% success” against these (tax protester)

arguments.” There has never been a single program aired on the Media that has

fairly presented the income tax liability question and allowed those

representing the “tax protester” side to freely and fully present

their evidence. The only exception to this was the one or two occasions where

C-SPAN managed to let a Bob Schulz/We the People conference go on live

during mid-day. Other than there has been a complete black out of the

income tax liability issue – this after over 30 years of sincere,

capable people beating their brains out and sacrificing mightily.

Finally, over the last few years, nearly every “Tax Protester” type

organization in America has been shut down or effectively crippled by a

“civil injunction” strategy that, in legal terms is so baseless and

absurd on its face as to make any intellectually honest law student

blush. What is remarkable about this “strategy” is that it took the

IRS and DOJ so long to figure it out. One fine organization in Maryland

gave the IRS absolute fits for better than a decade by writing letters,

simply demanding that the IRS follow its own rules and regulations. IRS

responses to these letters ranged from off-point to downright

laughable. There was (and is) simply no way the IRS could begin to justify its

actions when challenged by case workers who understand the law as

written. Finally, after better than a decade, it seems clear that high

level management at IRS got together with their counterparts at DOJ –

and one must assume a few key administrative judges at the federal

circuits – and implemented a specious plan to use so-called “civil

injunctions” to acquire the court orders necessary to shut down those

who were giving the IRS employees such headaches by confronting them

with the illegalities of their procedures. The point here, sadly, is

not a positive one. There is a cruel reality here that must be faced

clearly and objectively and must be factored into anyone’s future strategy

with regard to the income tax liability issue: this diabolical “civil

injunction” scheme is, at a minimum, a fraud upon the court, and

arguably a conspiracy with the courts. Nonetheless, it has met neither

one single legal obstacle nor objections by any public figure, by any

organization of note, or even by any other group of activists outside

of the Tax Protest Movement. Other activist groups, it would seem, should

be horrified that the government can get away with such a blatant legal

shenanigan. Why are other activist groups silent on this matter?

Perhaps because they don’t know about it; but the bottom line is likely to be

that they are like most Americans: terrified of the IRS and unable to

overcome the cognitive dissonance that tells them the “tax

protesters” couldn’t possibly be correct.

What is the common thread in the last three paragraphs? “Tax

protesting” as usual hasn’t worked, and it hasn’t worked for thirty years.

“Insanity” is said to be doing the same thing over and over, all

the while expecting different results. It is difficult at this point to not

describe the Tax Protest Movement as anything other than insane. It is

very understandable to get caught up in the passion of what seems to be

such a paramount, central issue. Yet, I have come to believe that a

narrowly focused passion about the legal mess known as the Tax Code can

and does blind people to the larger context without which there can be

no true victory in the battle to clean it up. Certainly many so-called

“Patriot” organizations have had many issues in addition to the Tax

Code. Those issues often include the money system, jury nullification,

the right to bear arms, a return to the original intent of the

Constitution and various other offshoots of that. However, what seems

common to all these issues and concerns is a common inability to face

the reality of life in America – the prevailing attitudes, behavior

and reactions of the vast majority of the American people, their businesses

and corporations, along with local, county, state and federal

government. So-called “Constitutionalist” values – including the

will to address the income tax liability question – have made virtually zero

inroads into American government at any level, even local government in

rural America. Why? Because all government below the federal level has,

over the last few decades, become merely sub-divisions of federal

power. One organization has faced that reality and attempted a public

education campaign by way of a radio station. The intent has been noble; the

results have been predictably discouraging; and the outlook as of this

writing is bleak.

Surely not too many “tax protesters,” upon reflection, would argue

that the central, most important issue is the Tax Code itself. Isn’t the

real, basic issue what kind of government we will have or not have –

and, underlying that, will we deal honestly with each other or not? At

the core of that concern is this whole matter of the “living

Constitution” – i.e., rather than amend as needed to deal with

circumstances that didn’t exist in 1783, just “re-interpret” the

existing words, no matter how intellectually dishonest and self-serving

that might turn out to be. Yet, looking back upon the 30 years or so of

“tax protesting” (Patriot Movement, etc) activities of which I

became a student, invariably the Tax Movement kept up a constant drum beat of

“There is no law, there is no law,” a constant recruiting of new

“non-filers,” and constant attempts to push specific income tax

liability question through whatever Media outlet would provide an

opportunity. Anyone who has worked or is working to shed light on the

income tax liability issue certainly must realize that the message

needs an audience. If we do not understand what and how that audience thinks,

how can we possibly know how to present the problem we wish to have

addressed? If we do not correctly discern the reaction of our audience

and adjust our message and strategy as needed, are we to expect any

different or more successful results? Worst of all, if we stubbornly

cling to false hope based upon a flawed perception of how the American

people are actually reacting to our message, then we have become a

danger to ourselves and to those would fall for our misguided message.

First, let us consider the stark reality of what the American people

seem to believe in the present and how they have behaved for nearly a

century with regard to the income tax liability question. Can we

reasonably expect to attract the interest of a critical mass of the

American people to an income tax liability question when the income tax

itself has been a de facto, operational reality for the better part of

the last century? Do we not see the startling implications of just that

single fact? Should we not see that we must put the income tax

liability question into a much larger context – one that takes into account

what people believe (rightly or wrongly), how people tend to respond when

their “reality” is challenged, and what (if any) principles that

may yet resonate with the people that might cause them to make a connection to

our principles and our message. After all, if that connection is just

flat out impossible, would it not be better to know it, face it and

adjust our lives and actions accordingly?

Here is one way people think that needs to be considered. Many reasonable

 people wonder if there is any point in exposing error or fraud or other

crimes from the past, if 1) there is no way to provide a remedy to those

who were harmed and 2) most of the people responsible for the wrong-doing

are dead? Modern life has enough wrongs to right without including situations

where the culprits are dead and the victims don’t even see themselves as

victims. As an example, a number of years ago there was a big fuss over

 irregularities in the admitting of Ohio as a state. As I recall, President

 Taft was from Ohio, and folks were actually suggesting that legislation

he signed should be void. How myopic and irresponsible is that?

It is largely impossible to prove who did what over the decades while

the income tax acts were constructed, deconstructed and convoluted

beyond understanding. One thing, however, is for sure: if there has

been a conspiracy or string of conspiracies to deceive the American people

as to their liability for the payment of an income tax, the vast majority

of the culprits have been dead for many decades. Furthermore, it can be

argued that many or most of the current politicians, bureaucrats and

private sector tax professionals are merely carrying on what they were

taught as “new-hires” and continue to believe to be “our system.” It cannot be

ignored that only a tiny handful of “tax professionals”  has ever stepped forward to

challenge or expose the liability flaw in the income tax system. Remember this when

you are exasperated by that friend or neighbor who looks at you like you have three

heads when you try to share what you think you know about the income tax liability

question. In addition, remember that for decades both professional opinion and

public perception has been that the Tax Code is extremely complex and

difficult to understand. Given the foregoing, is it any surprise that

generations of “tax professionals” and “taxpayers” have continued to accept that

“this is just how it works” – in spite of the  vehement questions and arguments of

several decades of “tax protesters”? To rub salt in that wound, consider that the

relatively tiny number of people actually making a fuss about the income tax

liability question only serves to strengthen the common perception that there’s

probably not much to it.

It is an unarguable reality that the American people have acquiesced to

and generally cooperated with the “income tax,” warts and all, for

the better part of a century. Allegations that the current system came

about through a web of deception begs the question: so what? So President Taft was from Ohio, and Ohio’s admission to the Union was bogus? So what?

“President” Taft’s official acts stand and will continue to

stand. Similarly, refunding 94 years of income tax payments is both absurd and

impossible. Do reasonable people suddenly stop filing 1040’s and stop

paying the income tax merely because they discover that the current

system was dishonestly set up nearly a century ago? After all, rightly

or wrongly, most people believe that their income taxes are the primary

source of funding for the vast amounts of government services on the

federal and even state and local levels. Is there not a compelling,

moral requirement to consider a much larger context than a century-old

conspiracy in the imposition of the income tax? I believe there is such

a moral requirement and that it may well be one of the reasons that

“tax protesters” have had such a struggle sharing their message and,

indeed, defending themselves in front of that euphemistic “jury of their

peers.”

“Necessitas non habet legem”: Necessity has no law. Now this is

often referenced as the legal loophole through which government jumps when

the law is getting in the way of its agenda – mostly taken to mean

something that is both unlawful and detrimental to the people. But such a

one-sided view is not really fair and assumes that people in government

are always up to no good. If, for example, the Supreme Court were to

find that:

1) Ohio was not a state when President Taft was elected and

2) all of President Taft’s acts were void, then it might use those facts

as a “lawful” basis to set aside one or more of President Taft’s

acts. While arbitrarily setting aside a couple of acts might prove convenient

to someone’s political agenda, any wholesale setting aside of

President Taft’s acts would prove either irrelevant or a practical

impossibility. As difficult as it may be to admit, the same reasoning applies to the

problem with the income tax liability question. Given the

(dys)functional reality of the last century, responsible people are

going to insist on having certain larger issues addressed before

grabbing hold of the singular consideration that they might be able to

“get out of paying the income tax.” On its own, the deceptive

inception of the Tax Code has not gained any meaningful traction with the

American people, nor will it. Instead, what should be showcased are the

reprehensible attitudes and behavior of the people accountable with

respect to the income tax liability question – those people whose

ongoing violations of trust and abuses of power put at grave risk the

political concerns of Americans all across the political spectrum. The

legal facts of the income tax liability question are not the compelling

part of the story, as it turns out. The government’s response is far

and away more compelling – a phenomenon at least as deserving of the

title “Shock and Awe” as anything the U.S. military has done of late.

At the heart of this “larger context” of which I speak are two

things:  the purpose of government and the behavior of government. Until

sufficient numbers of thoughtful, responsible Americans can clearly see

a critical connection between the income tax liability question and

their own strongly held views regarding either the purpose of

government and/or its behavior, they will continue to view the income tax

liability question as of little more significance than the fuss over President

Taft and Ohio’s statehood. As long as most Americans see government

as operating within an acceptable range of its purposes and powers, and,

as long as most Americans do not find the moral character of their

government’s behavior completely insufferable, American juries will

continue to convict “tax protesters” 98% of the time – the 2%

exception coming when jurors simply find the government’s behavior in a

particular case to be completely insufferable. In the meantime the view of the

average American is going to be that government, while imperfect, is

necessary and must be paid for. Tax protester arguments to the

contrary, Americans will continue to believe that the income tax provides the

lion’s share of necessary government revenue and that any shenanigans

in the inception of the income tax nearly a century ago are – again –

about as relevant today as any flaws in Ohio’s statehood are to President

Taft’s presidency.

When you consider the American people as a whole, do you see any

strong, unified public will with regard to the limits or purposes of

government?  Can you infer from the platforms of either the Republican or Democratic

Party a statement of the purposes of government that even remotely

match your own? Think of the most well-known political activist groups. What

behavior of the government are they outraged about? As part of their

outrage, are they actually prepared to resist in meaningful ways that

could land them in prison? Are they outraged about anything that you

are outraged about? If so, have you contacted them with your information

about the income tax liability question? And their response was?



In the last couple of years I myself have attempted some networking with

activist groups other than the Tax Movement. I have yet to find one

group that does not think “tax protesters” are anything other than

cranks and cheats. Well, I know what I know, but how am I to work in or

with other groups – whose issues I may find important as well – if

I advocate one particular point of view that causes them to dismiss me as

a “crank”? Far and away the prevailing view of activist groups

seems to be that “The work of the government must be funded, and until a

better system is in place, it is completely irresponsible and unthinkable to

refuse to ‘pay one’s fair share.’” If this is far and away the

prevailing view amongst activists, for heaven’s sake, what makes

anyone think that there is some other “silent majority” that will awaken

to abolish the Tax Code if only the Tax Movement can find its voice? Well,

it’s had 30+ years and several outstanding voices, authors and

organizers. At some point the word “kamikaze” has to be considered.

It always seemed to me that many of the people in the “Tax

Movement” also subscribe to viewpoints embodied in the “Patriot Movement” or

“Constitutionalist Movement” or “Freedom Movement.” Let’s

have a look at the concept of “patriotism.” At the time I entered the Tax

Movement, I could have been fairly described as social and fiscal conservative,

albeit an ignorant one, to be sure. I was cynical about government, but

still believed that there were significant numbers of Americans who

value the principles embodied in the Constitution and would rise up if

something really outrageous was going on – sort of like what I saw

people do during the Viet Nam War or the Civil Rights Movement. After

more than a decade – and probably over 10,000 hours of effort, the

“movement” finally jolted me into seeing how dismally near-sighted

I had become. The Movement had become my world, and, being so entirely

immersed in it, I had lost all sense of perspective and

proportionality. Somehow I was able to press on year after year after year,

completely ignoring facts that were sitting squarely in front of me. What facts?

Well, for starters, the fact that the message for which I had so much

passion was accepted almost exclusively by “the choir” – i.e.,

those folks whom I ran into at meetings or on the Internet who already shared

my view. Most of the realities addressed in this essay were, for an

embarrassingly long period of time, either simply ignored or

rationalized as being unrelated to my belief that any sensible, honest

American should be outraged by the truth about the income tax liability

question.

As deeply and thoroughly as I was digging, I can still see it taking a

year or two to grasp the scope of the income tax liability question and

maybe another year to realize that America doesn’t care. The only

explanation I can think of for this taking well over a decade is that

outrage must have a tendency to lead to myopia. I still wonder how I

could have failed to notice the giant red flags that were waving in my

face and that I am finally getting around to writing about.

Without elaboration, here are just five additional factors that I

believe cannot be ignored in any campaign to reach the hearts and minds

of the American people:

1. Consider: the shocking percentage of Americans are on

anti-depressants and/or use mood altering substances regularly just to

keep from falling apart. Include prescription and non-prescription

medications, illegal drugs and alcohol. Expand that to include

addiction to the mindless distractions of video and computer games, the male

obsession with sports and sports programming, and the stream of Media

brainwashing so aptly referred to as “programming.” What kind of

human beings are we approaching with the income tax liability question?

Rational, well-balanced, thoughtful people who share your own social

values and principles of government? Which anti-depressant are you on?

2. Consider: that the “separation of church and state” doctrine has

penetrated American culture to the degree that far and away the vast

majority of church-going Americans and their ministers behave as if

their faith not only “saves” them, but conveniently relieves them

of any accountability for the behavior of their government, even making it

improper for them to question or criticize the behavior of their

government specifically on the basis of their religious beliefs and

values. These creatures of IR Code Sec. 501(c)(3) are understandably

eager to hear that the Tax Code is a fraud, which is why, of course,

representatives of the Tax Movement are so frequently asked to address

their local congregations. (Ha!)

3. Consider: the literal disintegration of the American family, both as

a functioning social unit and as the basis of values, beliefs and a

sense of how things should be; having been replaced by a statist,

public education that has taught at least three generations of Americans what

to think, rather than how to think.

4. Consider: the staggering degree to which dependence upon government

for basic necessities of life has increased in practice, in acceptance

and in expectation all across the political spectrum.

5. Consider: that #4 must be paid for – at least on paper (or on the

Fed’s computer ledger). I love the quote, “The best argument against democracy is a

five-minute conversation with the average voter.” What haunts me about it is a

reasonable corollary: “The best argument against the tax movement is

a conversation with the average taxpayer.”

Apparently, 49% of Americans believe it is perfectly all right for the

government to confiscate your property and re-distribute it “in its

infinite wisdom.” The other 49% think that’s okay too, just not as

much – and they would prefer to call it “compassionate conservatism.”

The other 2% are the lunatic fringe. That’s you and me: responsible

people who don’t want anything from the government except to be left alone.

In “The Land of the Free” (Oh, excuse me, I mean in “Our

Democracy”) that qualifies you as a lunatic – maybe even a potential terrorist. Face

it. America is so far gone into socialism and moral relativism that a

little thing like the income tax liability question, which certainly could

have started a civil war in 1860 every bit as well as slavery, is barely a

blip on the radar today.

Of course, people must decide for themselves, based upon the available

information and upon their own personal experiences, values and

beliefs, exactly what course to take regarding the income tax liability

question. My hope is only that these thoughts may help the interested reader more

realistically chart his or her best course, especially in how to

approach family, friends and neighbors. Again, I believe that the

singular message “There is no income liability for the average

American” has mostly fallen on deaf ears for good reason. The track record of the

so-called “Tax Protest Movement” itself demonstrates that, absent a

serious, responsible socio-political context, the singular message

“There is no law” continues to attract just enough reckless,

irresponsible, even irrational people to actually frighten away the few

otherwise interested, responsible Americans there are and keep any

movement badly fragmented and thoroughly discredited. Certainly, the

detailed and convincing evidence of fraud in the income tax liability

question -- compiled by remarkable people such as Irwin Schiff, John

Kotmair, Larry Becraft, Larken Rose and so many others -- continues to

be important, but not in any sense because it helps anyone “get out

of paying the income tax.” On the contrary, it’s best use is as the

door to that larger context – an honest and courageous consideration of what

the government has actually been up to; how and if it can be reined in;

what it should be doing; who should be paying for it and how! (…Okay, I

know, I know! I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth. Maybe it doesn’t

really have a best use after all. Maybe Schiff, Kotmair et al would have been better off researching how to build another Ark.)

My hearts aches because I can think of no grand strategy for any group

or movement to begin to restore Liberty, Responsibility and Honesty

into a society that has become so intellectually dishonest, morally

irresponsible and wholly dependent upon the coercive power of

artificial entities. I will conclude with a statement of my personal

“strategy” (for what that’s worth), but at present I see no public or group

strategy, centered upon the income tax liability question, that is

doing anything other than discrediting the far more important principles and

ideals that caused the question to be raised in the first place.

In conclusion I must tell you that (“As for me …”) after many

years of studying, reporting and wrestling with these matters, my attitude has

come down this: Having observed the behavior of numerous accountants,

attorneys, elected representatives, bureaucrats and Media types; having

watched friends and acquaintances inquire and argue in good faith time

and again, be ignored and stonewalled time and again, and be trampled

in sham trials in corrupt courts; I am – speaking solely for myself --

no longer even interested in the existence of an income tax liability

statute. Someone from the government could walk into my home tomorrow

and say, “Ooops! Sorry to take so long to come up with it, but

here’s the statute. Here it is in black and white! You’ve been wrong all

along. Pay up!” Of course this is not going to happen, because, if it could

have happened, it would have happened decades ago. But, if it did

happen, it would change nothing in my mind. I certainly cannot see into

their hearts, and I realize that it is possible that they are decent,

well-meaning folks who are just doing what they have been trained and

brainwashed to do. Nonetheless, I cannot abide a refusal to communicate

in good faith on the part of people who consciously choose to impose

their will upon me; who in the name of “the will of the majority”

attempt to confiscate the lion’s share of the fruits of my labor and

put much of it to uses that utterly violate my conscience – to say

nothing of their own so-called “Constitution.” If government has a purpose

in a “free society,” surely this is not it.

People in the American Establishment (government, Media and

 corporations) have had ample opportunity to demonstrate their integrity

and courage by publicly addressing the good-faith concerns of thousands

of fine Americans who have sacrificed so much in these past decades,

attempting to get to the bottom of this income tax liability question.

Yet, instead, what they chose to do was to trample good people under

their dishonest, cowardly, tyrannical feet. This is the American

Establishment – either corrupt or psycho, or some sad combination of

both. People who impose their will on others or manipulate others in

the name of “freedom,” who flatly refuse to answer fair and reasonable

questions and do not respect the honest grievances of those upon whom

they impose their power … well, each must listen to his or her own

heart, but my heart tells me those folks must be absolutely shunned and

resisted at whatever cost one’s heart and personal circumstances may

tolerate; or moral, decent society may be lost in America for as many

generations as the Creator waits to restore it. I will speak my mind

and heart in good faith to anyone, but, as my strength allows, I will

flatly refuse to voluntarily contribute one iota of the fruits of my labor to

those artificial entities that seek to impose their will on myself and

others and carry on their lies and tyranny over mankind. When they

starting speaking in good faith, I may reconsider “doing business”

with them; but I’m not holding my breath.

ICE

Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757

512/299-5001   www.constitution.org  jon.roland@constitution.org