From: Robert Schulz email@example.com
Subject: June 29th Conference. What shall we do?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000
The Executive and Legislative branches have reversed themselves and now refuse to participate in the June 29th conference on the income tax at the National Press Club in Washington DC.
What shall we do?
On June 2, 2000, Jason Furman himself answered the phone when I called him at the White House. After learning that it was I who was calling, and after some pleasantries, Mr. Furman said, "The legality of the income tax is not a high priority item at the White House. Therefore, we have decided not to participate in any conference on the subject."
Remarkable, but true. This was a complete reversal from his position on April 13, 2000. Here is the recent background for the benefit of those who have not been following this story.
On April 13, 2000, Joe Banister (former IRS special agent) and I, and our videographer, met with Jason Furman in the White House while a delegation of citizens representing all 50 states waited outside. Joe and I delivered a Remonstrance to Mr. Furman for President Clinton regarding the unconstitutionality of the income tax and the illegality of the operations of the IRS, along with an invitation to have the administration's most knowledgeable people on the subject participate in a June conference to explore the subject of the legality of the income tax. A comprehensive letter was used to transmit the Remonstrance to the President. Note: A copy of the April 13th letter to the President can be found at the end of this message.
The meeting with Jason Furman was recorded on our videotape. Note: a copy can be ordered from our web site at http://www.givemeliberty.org/
On April 27th, I sent a letter to Mr. Furman respectfully requesting that he let me know by the end of May, the names of the people who would be representing the Clinton administration at the June 29th conference and what their principal arguments would be in opposition to the propositions that were to be the focus of the conference: 1) that in 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox committed fraud when he declared that the income tax amendment (16th) had been properly ratified; 2) that only foreigners working in the U.S. or U.S. citizens working overseas are required to file and pay federal income taxes; and 3) that when one does sign a tax return, he voluntarily waives his 5th amendment right not to be a witness against himself. Note: a copy of the April 27th letter can be found at the end of this message.
On May 19th, I telephoned Mr. Furman to make sure that we were on track, but I was only able to leave a request for a return call on Mr. Furman's voice mail. He did not call back.
On June 2nd I telephoned again. This time Mr. Furman answered his own phone. After Mr. Furman told me that the legality of the income tax was not a priority item in the Clinton administration, I reminded him that during our April 13th meeting he promised to have our evidence supporting our position reviewed by the National Economic Council, White House lawyers and historians. I asked Mr. Furman if the review had been completed. He answered, "I've talked to a couple of people." I then asked Mr. Furman if he had written a report or an opinion letter. He said, "No," and that none would be prepared. I thanked him for his consideration. He thanked me for the invitation. The call was then terminated.
What about Congress? On April 13th, Joe Banister and I had also met with Dr. William Koetzle and Keith Hennessey at the Capitol. Dr. Koetzle is Legislative Director for Speaker Dennis Hastert. Keith Hennessey is Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's Policy Director. Joe and I delivered copies of the Remonstrance for Hastert and Lott. Both Koetzle and Hennessey promised to have their staffs and the staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees review the evidence in support of our position. They, too, were very amenable to having the appropriate experts from the House and Senate participate in the June conference. They, too, received letters similar in content to the April 27th letter I sent to Mr. Furman. They, too, received voice mail messages from me on May 19th. They, too, failed to return those calls. They, too, were called on June 2nd, when I again left voice mail messages requesting return calls.
On June 7th, I called both Koetzle and Hennessey once more. This time Koetzle returned my call. He needed to be reminded about his April 13th meeting with Joe Banister and me and about the delivery of the Remonstrance. He then said that he had not yet done anything about the issue. I asked him if we could expect a formal reply from the Speaker to our April 13th letter. He said, "No, we receive tens of thousands of letters. We can't respond to them all."
I am now more disgusted, disappointed and determined than ever.
It has been a year that we have been attempting to get knowledgeable representatives from the executive and legislative branches of the government to respond in some fashion, in some format, in writing or in oral debate to the allegations of fraud and illegal operations in the federal income tax system. The government has declined and ignored three opportunities to participate in conferences held in its own back yard at the National Press Club where it could refute and shoot down the research findings, arguments and allegations of several of the most well-known and notorious people who have been proclaiming the unconstitutional, fradudulent, and illegal aspects of the income tax and the IRS. The government could have availed itself of a chance to have its experts educate us as to how these allegations are in error, and to do it on national television.
Anyone who has been following this saga with the hope of being able to hear intelligent, rational rebuttals from government experts must be sorely disappointed by now. Each citizen must decide individually at what point it appears that the government has no argument to offer and is simply evading the issues, hoping they will go away or remain at such a low level of public consciousness that they won't cause any significant problems. There must be a point at which the evasion has to be regarded as a concession or an admission. We at the Foundation feel that there is no purpose to further attempts to organize academic or informative debates with the government on these issues. Its a matter of three strikes and you're out. What's more American than that?
That the government would not take advantage of the occasion of the June conference (or the symposiums we arranged last year for the purpose) to honestly, and in good faith, argue against the conclusions of Bill Benson, Larry Becraft, Joe Banister and Bill Conklin, is an indication that the government appears to be lacking men and women of intelligence and good will. This is disappointing in the extreme.
That the government would seek to acquire, through fraud and deception, the power to tax the wages and income of all ordinary citizens is disgusting.
The truth must now be told. It must now be proclaimed. The government has no defense against the people's claim that the operations of the IRS are illegal because there is no constitutional or statutory authority that requires most individuals in America to file and pay the income tax, or employers to withhold wages from the pay checks of most of their employees. If the government needs more money than it is receiving from its imposition of uniform, indirect taxes, it must be required to turn to the states for the additional funds it wants.
It is a matter of state's rights, an important issue of federalism.
The states should be taxing the people and sending the money to Washington on an as needed basis. The states should not be approaching Washington every year for their "fair share" of the federal funds illegally coerced from the people of all the states.
It is now a forgone conclusion that the federal government will not discuss the fact that it does not have the authority to impose an income tax.
The constitutional stipulations with respect to constitutional amendments were not complied with and the declaration with respect to the passage of the 16th amendment was fraudulent. The continuation of the current income tax practices by the federal administration, under the circumstances, is tyranny and it must be stopped.
What shall we do? We have the room reserved at the National Press Club. Shall we go ahead with three "empty chairs" and three presidential candidates and others who are already publicly on record as stating that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal: Buchanan (Reform Party); Phillips (Constitution Party); Keyes (Republican); and, Ron Paul (Congressman)? Getting two or more of these individuals together in the same room to elaborate on their statements would add strength and fame to the positions expressed by those who have already participated in our three previous conferences on the income tax issue.
In any event, the facts and analyses that are now a matter of record must and will be broken open to all appropriate State governmental agencies, all Universities, all law schools, and made available to all internet users and media outlets.No stone should be left unturned. There must be an upheavel based upon the professionally collected and analyzed information that we have on hand. This effort should be well organized and managed.
Soon, we will provide everyone with a list of 50 people who have volunteered to coordinate this activity and be a point of contact in their state. We are currently making the plans to take this action and will be communicating with you our progress in this regard.
Please help us decide what to do. Can any of you help us in our effort to get Buchanan, Keyes, Phillips and Ron Paul to attend?
Please consider yourself free to circulate this message.
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT
April 27, 2000
Mr. Jason Furman
Senior Director and Senior Economic Advisor
National Economic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
RE: June Conference on Income Tax Remonstrance
Dear Mr. Furman:
On behalf of the delegates representing all fifty states of the Union, who traveled to the capital to support the delivery, on April 13, 2000, of the Income Tax Remonstrance to the leaders of all three branches of the federal government, I thank you for the time and courtesy you extended on behalf of President Clinton that afternoon to Mr. Joseph Banister and me.
We appreciate your commitment to have the staff of the National Economic Council, White House lawyers and historical people review the issues and to identify person(s) to participate in our June conference, in Washington DC, to discuss the issues and the remedies.
We have chosen June 29, 2000 as the date for the conference, which we anticipate will require a full day with a break for lunch.
We expect the conference to focus on four propositions as follows: 1) that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the so-called income tax amendment, was not legally ratified in 1913, indeed, that it was fraudulently declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State, Philander Knox, just days before he left office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson; 2) that regardless of the 16th Amendment issue, there is no law or regulation that requires most citizens to file and pay income taxes or to have those taxes withheld from the money they earn; 3) that one cannot sign and file a tax return without waiving one's rights under the 5th Amendment not to be a witness against oneself; and 4) that the IRS routinely ignores and denies basic due process rights of citizens in its administrative and judicial proceedings.
The arguments supporting the above propositions have been provided to President Clinton along with our letter of May 5, 1999 and in our letter of April 13, 2000. If at all possible, please let us know by May 31st what principal arguments will be presented by the Executive representing its position on the above propositions, and whether you need additional copies of the research reports which we mailed to President Clinton along with our letter of May 5, 1999.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Schulz
cc: Income Tax Remonstrance Delegates
Joseph R. Banister
April 13, 2000
Hon. William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
An early response to this letter would be appreciated.
Pursuant to our letter dated February 1, 2000, we hereby deliver an original copy of the Income Tax Remonstrance, together with the names, city and state of those American citizens that have electronically signed the Remonstrance.
This organization is devoted to educating citizens about problems of governmental wrongdoing, especially when government behaves in violation of the State or federal constitutions or the law. For more that a year now, we have been focusing in particular on issues of illegal operations of the federal income tax system. We have been learning from many sources about numerous aspects of those illegal operations. As you know from our letters to you dated May 5, June 4 and October 13, 1999, last July, we held a symposium at the National Press Club to examine issues of illegal operations of the federal income tax system. The symposium was broadcast live by C-Span and rerun several times over the next few days. We held another conference at the National Press Club last November to further explore and discuss the income tax issues and what to do about them. Although, in each case, we respectfully asked you to send knowledgeable representatives to our meetings to refute allegations and arguments being presented, we got no response, not even an acknowledgment of our
requests. That has led us back to Washington this week for a third time to deliver to you, a Remonstrance enumerating the people's grievances over the illegal operations of the federal income tax system.
Well, what are those issues; what are those grievances; and what are the remedies? I will summarize as succinctly as I can.
Congressional hearings for years have been the forum for horror stories by citizens who have suffered all kinds of abuse at the hands of the IRS. Our grievances include those outrageous and arrogant behaviors by the IRS perpetrated by its agents, policies, and procedures. We are particularly distressed at the utter lack of respect for due process and the denial of due process in IRS procedures, including the unwillingness of the IRS to provide information about our due process rights, the denial of our rights to see the evidence against us, to confront and cross-examine those who have testified against us, and denial of our rights against illegal seizure of our property by the IRS because of an unconstitutional anti-injunction law, 26 USC Section 7421.
But as bad as these behaviors are, they are only a small part of it; the problems are much deeper and they started early in the 20th century. Our grievances largely deal with issues of hoax, fraud, and deliberate deception.
It has been well established since 1985, and unrefuted, that the 16th amendment, the so-called income tax amendment, did not even come close to being legally ratified in 1913. It was, indeed, fraudulently declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State, Philander Knox, just a few days before he left office to make way for the Wilson administration. Knox's motive is easy to see. He had for many years been attorney for Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and the Vanderbilts, and had put together the largest of their cartels. He was paving the way for the Federal Reserve Act that was passed later in 1913. The central bank would want a more reliable flow of revenue to assure payment on the debt that the government would be incurring. Knox had already had practice in this method by his role in taking over the tax collection systems in Honduras and Nicaragua to assure payment of loans to those governments. Senator Nelson Aldrich, spokesman for Rockefeller and Morgan, had pushed the income tax amendment through the Senate in 1909, and, as a result of a meeting he convened on Jekyll Island among several of the nation's most powerful bankers representing Rockefeller, Morgan, and the Rothschilds, he designed the Federal Reserve legislation that passed in 1913, under the guise of banking reform.
The research that conclusively revealed the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment was done by Mr. Bill Benson, a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue who spent a whole year among the archives of all 48 states and the federal government. For some of his findings, see the attachment to this letter, "Examples of States That Failed to Ratify the 16th Amendment."
What has been the government's response to Benson's work? Well, one senator, until recently a presidential candidate, tried, through an aide, to pay Mr. Benson -- offered to make him a millionaire if he would only not publish the results of his work, turn over all 17,000 certified documents he had obtained from the archives, and agree never to talk about his research again. However, to Mr. Benson, our republic is not for sale. He published, and every member of Congress received a personal copy of his two-volume report. As you probably know, we provided you with a copy along with our letter of May 5, 1999. Other responses by Congress have been produced by the Congressional Research Service in the form of a report written in 1985 by Thomas Ripy about the 16th amendment issue and in a 1996 report by John Luckey titled "Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax." Neither report mentions or addresses the key issue of fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment. They are, therefore, non-responses.
The courts have refused to address the fraud issue, calling it a political question for Congress, even though fraud is clearly a matter for the courts and is not subject to the normal statute of limitations. Congress has said that it is a matter for the courts. We say it is an issue for all three branches, and it must be addressed. The government must not stonewall on this issue any longer.
The IRS has addressed the 16th amendment question in it's publication titled "Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes?" This is sort of a mini-version of the Luckey Report, and can be found on the Internet. Its answer to the argument that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified is to state that the 16th amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, and then to quote the words of the amendment. This, of course, is a non-response to the question and means nothing. It is pathetic and insulting (and the date is wrong; it was February 25).
Another major issue and grievance is that the IRS operates in such a way as to collect income taxes from almost all citizens even though no law or regulation requires most citizens to file and pay income taxes nor to have those taxes withheld from the money they earn. The IRC and its regulations make liable for the income tax only "foreigners here and citizens abroad," but not most of us, unless we have income earned abroad. This has been demonstrated of late by those, especially employers, who have carefully studied and exercised the rules as written and have succeeded in making the IRS abide by them.
The standard response of the IRS to the liability argument is to quote 26 USC Sections 1,6001,6011,or 6012, which the IRS uses as the all-encompassing filing requirements. Section 1 imposes the tax on "taxable income;" Section 6001 says, "Every person liable for any tax imposed under this title...shall keep such records... make such returns...and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe;" Section 6011 says, "When required by regulations...any person made liable by any tax imposed by this title shall make a return;" Section 6012 says, "Returns... shall be made by...[e]very individual having...gross income which exceeds the exemption amount..."
These, again, are non-responses that merely beg the original question of just who is liable. The crucial question becomes: What is "gross income?" And when we follow the disjointed, disconnected, and deceptive trail through the code and its regulations, we find in CFR 1.861-8(f)(1) that gross income is income derived from foreign sources, i.e., foreigners here and citizens abroad. When we follow the trail of withholding law to find out what kind of income is subject to withholding, it takes us to the same place and the same conclusion: foreigners here and citizens abroad. The same is true regarding liability for the Social Security tax, derived from the International Labor Agreement of the 1930s. All three trails lead to the same result.
Congressional response to the question of just who is liable is exemplified in a 1989 letter from Senator Inouye to a tax consultant constituent who asked about the precise provisions of the IRC that render an individual liable for income taxes. The letter says: "Based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which...requires an individual to pay income taxes." The letter goes on to say that Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and then makes the astonishing assertion that, "Accordingly, the IRC need not specifically state that individuals shall be liable for income taxes because it is inferred from the Congress' authority to so levy and collect." This letter would have us believe that there is no need to bother with the inconvenience of actually writing laws or regulations or anything like that! Further, the letter then points out that Section 7201 et al. sets forth penalties for failure to pay taxes owed. The key word is "owed," but the letter does not explain how it is determined what taxes are actually owed or by whom. Once again, we are given a non-response that simply begs the question, along with a heavy-handed threat of prosecution. The letter tries to give us the impression we can be prosecuted for not doing something that no law or regulation requires us to do.
It is significant that employers are learning of the scam, as they are key to the whole system, along with the denial of due process rights for individual citizens. The IRS uses the false statements from employers (W-2s and 1099s) as prima facie proof that employees have earned gross income that is taxable. The IRS then makes it impossible in their procedures for an employee to challenge the incorrect testimony of the employer by refusing to issue summons so the employee can confront and cross-examine the employer. Tax law 26 USC Section 3402 does not protect employers from submitting false information. But the IRS has bullied and coerced employers since the 1930s to do so. Employees are then coerced into filing tax returns based on false information submitted by employers and to "voluntarily" and unknowingly waive their 5th amendment rights when they sign their 1040 forms, in order to get some small portion of their money refunded.
What are the remedies?
The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment must be addressed, not evaded, by the federal government. Besides that, the government must act to remove the obstructions that prevent citizens from invoking the protections of their constitutional rights when dealing with the IRS in both administrative and judicial proceedings. The due process issues and abuses must be resolved. The remedy is to make the IRS and its agents obey the tax code and regulations and respect citizens' constitutional rights to due process, especially in administrative procedures. Denial of due process is the main factor in the abuses by the IRS, because it prevents people from defending themselves against those abuses. Three changes to the code can go far towards accomplishing this goal. All are in Chapter F (Administration): Sections 6326,6404(b), and 7421. Sections 6326 and 6404(b) effectively enable errors or abuse by IRS employees to go uncorrected and obstruct the IRS Commissioner from properly controlling employees. Section 7421, as already mentioned, prevents judicial intervention and review of illegal seizures of property by the IRS in violation of our constitutional rights. No statute can overrule the Constitution. Many of the horror stories and abuses you hear about might be averted if it were not for the obstructions to correcting erroneous or malicious actions of subordinates by those above them or by the courts.
We are sure you will agree that the evidence is compelling and that these are matters of utmost importance, and cannot be long tolerated if Americans are to remain free. With that in mind we will return to Washington a fourth time -- in June-- to discuss the remedies to this problem. We respectfully request your participation, or that of your staff. It is with the utmost respect that we ask for an early response to this letter and that you identify those people that you would expect to participate in the June meeting.
May we hear from you soon?
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Schulz
ATTACHMENT: EXAMPLES OF STATES THAT
FAILED TO RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings show beyond doubt that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox did not just commit an error, but committed fraud, when he declared it ratified in February 1913. The following is based largely on Benson's research.
Philander Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified in February 1913. It was required that 36 of the 48 states at that time approve it. Of the 42, Knox acknowledged that four had rejected the amendment, bringing the number down to 38 that he said approved it.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor. (The amendment was sent to the governor of each state in 1909 for transmittal to their state legislatures.) The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon deleted the words "on income" from the text of the amendment, so they were not even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out, the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander, inexplicably, counted Kentucky as approving it.
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they approved and sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change the amendment in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have published that if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its process of approving the 16th amendment, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. With that in mind, let's look at some other states.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the Tennessee legislature from acting upon any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution received from Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a chance to influence the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve ideas just because they're trendy. You can probably guess that I am about to tell you that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the 16th amendment until after the next election, and you would be right - they didn't. That means they violated their own state constitution; their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now our number is down to 33.
Thirteen states, including Tennessee again, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read three times over a period of at least three days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. So we must subtract a dozen more states, bringing our number down to 21.
Several states returned unsigned, uncertified, or unsealed documents back to Knox, and did not rectify their negligence even after being notified and warned by him. The most egregious offenders, were Minnesota, Ohio, California, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Minnesota did not send any copy at all, only a note from the governor's secretary, so Knox could not have known at all what they voted on. Four of these five states were already disqualified above, leaving California to be subtracted, which brings our number down to 20, which is 16 fewer that the number required. These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the charge of fraud against Knox, in that he absolutely knew they should not be counted.
We could go on, but with the number down to 20, this is a suitable place to rest.
We the People Congress, in meeting assembled
in Washington, DC on November 13, 1999?
We, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, acting in good faith and impelled by our devotion to our Constitutional-Republic, present this Remonstrance to the leaders of our federal government in order to draw attention to and express deep concerns that have accumulated over many years regarding the federal income and social security tax system.
Our grievances are several:
The proof is manifest for all to see that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was illegally and fraudulently proclaimed to be ratified in 1913 by a lame-duck Secretary of State just days before he left office. An official attempt by a leading, currently-sitting U.S. Senator to pay to have the evidence suppressed, to avoid publication and to maintain secrecy, has been exposed at this meeting this day.
The federal courts for decades, ruling in cases challenging the constitutional validity of the 16th Amendment, have issued a series of largely unintelligible rulings that fail even to recognize the basic question of whether the income tax is a direct tax or an excise tax, suggesting, for instance, that the income tax is "in the nature of" an indirect, excise tax, reflecting the mood of powerful special interests of that day.
Again, the federal courts since 1985, on hearing cases challenging the ratification of the 16th Amendment as being fraudulent, have ruled that the issue of fraudulence is political and, therefore, non-justiciable -- to be dealt with by Congress. This obviously constitutes an evasion of responsibility by the courts, since fraud is a legal, rather than a political question. In ruling in this way, the courts have abdicated their constitutional responsibilities under our system of checks and balances.
Congress, in turn, has called this issue of fraud to be a matter for the courts.
In addition to the 16th Amendment ratification issue, there simply is no law or regulation that makes most citizens liable to file and pay federal income and social security taxes nor to have those taxes withheld from the money they earn, yet, the Internal Revenue Code is enforced by the Executive as though the taxes were, indeed, compulsory, imposing interest and penalties, including incarceration for willful failure to file the voluntary tax.
Citizens have the right to clear and precisely worded laws that are not vague. Yet, the income tax laws are deliberately written in the most disorganized manner imaginable, with the frequent use of double-negatives, circular reasoning, disconnected sections without reference or cross-reference, and other legal gimmicks that intentionally obfuscate and confuse matters beyond comprehension of even highly trained professionals. It must be concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in 1916, attempted to keep the income tax constitutional by suggesting that it was "in the nature" of an excise tax, if required to rule today on the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, would in no way be able to find the 1999 tax constitutional on the simple basis that it is clearly not uniform, which is a constitutional mandate for excise taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says the income tax is voluntary. This is an obvious fiction. In their application and enforcement, the tax code and the regulations have all the force and effect of compulsory law. Yet, the notion that the tax is voluntary has been confirmed by a federal appeals court. Few people know that the tax is voluntary and that when they "voluntarily" submit their tax forms they also "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. This is a form of coercion to which the courts have turned a blind eye, ruling that the waiver of 5th Amendment rights was "voluntary."
Many outrageous IRS practices have been revealed and detailed to the public by congressional hearings, but little has been done about it.
Thousands of citizens are jailed or financially destroyed by the IRS for not paying taxes that are not expressly sanctioned by law, while being denied their most basic due process rights. And, since the courts have ruled that the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment is a political question, by definition, those in jail are political prisoners, a condition that is illegal in this country.
The IRS is conspicuously used by the Executive to carry out retribution against political adversaries. This is a growing threat to fundamental freedoms.
Federal judges, members of Congress, and other government officials are themselves afraid of the IRS, which compiles and maintains secret files on them.
The abuses and lawlessness exemplified by the governmental conduct described above undermine the foundations of our nation and tear apart the very fabric of our Constitutional-Republic.
Therefore, we hereby petition the leaders of our federal government to take immediate and forthright action that will result in the redress of these grievances. We call for a thorough overhaul of the IRS and its administrative procedures to make its operations and agents completely accountable to the Constitution and constitutional law. We demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. We call for the creation of a Judicial Review Commission to hear and decide on complaints against federal judges who make rulings that support violations of the rights of citizens which are rooted and grounded in the Constitution and constitutional law.
(Signature pages follow)