Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links
Broadcasting the Information Revelation
www. Tax-Freedom.com
(This is a little messy in format right now, but we are working on it.)
1 LEGAL TO DECREASE TAXES
The legal right of a tax payer decrease the amount of
what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within
the law permits, cannot be doubted, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293, US 465.
2 DECISIONS AGAINST W4, W4E AND 1040
The requirement of an offense committed willfully is
not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior
decision of this court.
3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief
Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803).
5 TIPS ARE GIFTS - NOT TAXABLE
Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. Olk vs.
6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of personal
property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common
law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs.
7 RIGHT TO TRIAL
By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears
before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial.
8 DUE PROCESS
Law in it's regular course of administration through
courts of justice is due process. Leeper vs.
10 TAKING OF PROPERTY
The meaning of the above works, is that no man shall
be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney V.
Beverly, 2 Hen. & M(VA)
381, 336.
11 SURRENDER OF RIGHTS INTOLERABLE
We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be
surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs.
12 DUE COURSE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of
law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of
administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co.
v. Dunmeyer 19
13 FIFTH AMENDMENT
Amendment V of the Constitution of the
14 SELF INCRIMINATION ILLEGAL
The adoption of the XIV amendment completed the circle of protection against violations
of the provision of Magna Carta, which guaranteed to the citizen his, life,
liberty, and property against interference except by the "law of the
land", which phrase was coupled in the petition of right with due process
of law. The latter phrase was then used for the first time, but the two are
currently treated as meaning the same. This security is provided as against the
15 FIFTH IS RESTRAINT ON GOVT.
"It is not a little remarkable that while this provision has been in the Constitution
of the United States, (Fifth Amendment)....as a restraint upon authority of the
federal government....see Lent vs. Tillson 140, U.S. 316,10SUP.
16 PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, protected by
the IV Amendment, are those arising out of the nature and essential character of
the federal government, and granted or secured by the Constitution; and due
process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws
operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise
of the powers of government.
SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.
17 TAKING OF PROPERTY
It implies conformity with the natural inherent
principles of justice and forbids the taking of one's property without
compensation, and requires that no one shall be condemned in person or property
without opportunity to be heard. Holden vs. Hardy, 169,
18 DUE PROCESS
In Brown v. Levese Com'rs, 50 MIS 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions
do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution
took effect; but they refer to certain fundamental rights which the system of
jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of
these are disregarded in the proceedings by which the system of jurisprudence
of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are
disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of
property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it
has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without
due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can
through an act of legislature.
19 NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
The essential elements of due process of law are
notice and opportunity to defend; Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP.
CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165;"In determining whether such rights were denied, we
are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.;
20 INSPECTORS MUST HAVE WARRANT
See v. City of Seattle 387 U.S. 541 (1967) Citizen was arrested for not allowing
a fire inspector inside without a warrant. Ruling was in favor of Mr. See. The
inspector has to have a search warrant, describing the particular type, thing
and date.
21 OBJECTION TO STATEMENTS ON RETURN
If the form of the return provided, called for answers that the defendant was
privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but could
not on that account, refuse to make any return at all.
22 ADMISSIONS THAT TEND TO INCRIMINATE
Whether such admissions by themselves would support a
conviction under a criminal statue is immaterial and that the privilege also
extends to admission that may only tend to incriminate. Empak
vs.
23 COURT CANNOT DECIDE INCRIMINATION
He must be the sole judge of what his answer would be. The court cannot participate
with him in this judgment because they cannot decide on the effect of his
answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the
judges, would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he
claims. Issaacs v.
24 FIFTH AMENDMENT - GOOD FAITH
This 'willful" qualifications fully protects one whose refusal is made in good
faith and upon grounds which entitle him to the judgment of the court before
obedience is compelled. Federal Power Commissions v. Metropolitan
Edison Co. 304
25 EXERCISING A RIGHT CANNOT BE CRIME
The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v.
26 MIRANDA
The Miranda Decision: Ernesto A. Miranda v.
27 TRIAL BY JURY
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of Constitution rights. Sherar vs.
Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973).
28 TRIALBY JURY
A trial by jury is granted by the 7th Amendment and
29 UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
An unconstitutional law is null and void, unless passed. 16 AM JUR 2D (Volume16
American Jurisprudence, Second Series, SECT 177.)
30 PEOPLE ARE SUPREME
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of
Savanah, 60 Georgiaat 93.
31 TRIAL BY JURY
Right of privacy-----Boyd vs. U.S. 116, U.S. 616, 630, 29 LED 746, CT 524,1886.
32 TRIAL BY JURY
Right to trial by jury; Dairy Queen vs Wood 369 U.S. 469, 2S CT,. 894, 8L ED 2 44 1962. Also 369
33 TRIAL BY JURY
Jury trial is a right! Hill vs Philpott, 445 F 2 D 144; Juliard vs.
Greenmen,110 U.S. 421; Kansan vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, (1907); Reisman vs.
Caplan,375, U.S. 440, (1964); U.S. vs. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1993); U.S. vs
Tarlowski,305 F. SUPP 112 (1969).
34 TAKING OF PROPERTY
No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense.
Kinney vs.
35 CIVIL RIGHTS - DISTRICT COURT
Civil Rights..."Civil action for deprivation of rights, 28 U.S.C 1343, gives
U.S. District court original jurisdiction.
36 SECURITY OF LIFE LIMB & PROPERTY
Security of life, limb, and property. Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S.
97,24 L. ED. 616....Lent vs. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, II SUP CT. 825, 35 L ED419;
Palmer vs. McFarland, 1330, U.S. 660, 10 SUP CT., 324, 33 L. ED. 722.
37 TWO YEAR LIMIT ON IRS COLLECTIONS
Due process of law..... Simon vs. Craft 182,
38 TWO YEAR LIMITATION - IRS
Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus
notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. Miller vs.
39 COOPERATION WITH IRS
Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative
taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his
Constitutional rights.
40 KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT
You can, and must keep your mouth shut for protection under the 5th Amendment. Belnap vs. U.S. et al.,
41 FIFTH AMENDMENT SHIELDS ALL
The Constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent, as
well as the innocent and foresighted. Marchetti vs.
42 GOVT. CANNOT DECLARE INFO PUBLIC
....the government's anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual
does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would
remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp
information with a public character that the government has formalized its
demands in the attire of a statue; if this alone were sufficient, the constitution's
privilege could be [sic] entirely be abrogated by any act of Congress. Page 57, 390
43 FIFTH IS NOT JUST VERBAL
The privilege is not limited to testimony, as
ordinarily understood, but extends to every means by which one may be compelled
to produce information which may incriminate. Boyd vs. United States,
Supra" Brown vs. Walerk, 161,U.S. 591; Distinguishing Hale vs. Henkel, 201
U.S. 43; Wilson vs. U.S. 221,U.S. 612; United Station vs. Sischo.262 U.S. 165;
McCarthy vs Arndstein,266 U.S. 34; United States vs. Lombardo, 228 Fed. 980;
44 FIFTH AMENDMENT ON RETURN
If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged
from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on
that account refused to make any return at all.
45 FIFTH MUST BE CLAIMED
The privilege must be specifically claimed on a
particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination
as to the validity of the claim. Heligman vs.
46 IRS CANNOT GET RECORDS
The chief error in defendant's position is his blanket
refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or
expenses for the years in question.
47 FIFTH OVERRIDES STATUTES
We are clearly of the opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness
subject to prosecution, after he answers the incriminating question put to him,
can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution
of the United States...In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory
enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future
prosecutions for the offense to which the question relates. Counselman vs.
Hitchcock, 142
48 FIFTH - RARE TAX PAYER KNOWS IT
Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he
could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. United
Station vs. Dickerseon,413 F 2D 1111.
49 FIFTH - CORP HAS NO RIGHT - INDIVIDUAL DOES
...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular
between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to
refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the
state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He
is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to
the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to
an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such
duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection
of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the
land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with
the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and
the immunity of himself and his property from arrestor seizure except under a
warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer
incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... Hale vs.
Henkel, 201
50 FIFTH & IRS
Mr. Long of
Criminal cases have been veiled in civil clothing to obtain information illegally.
Taxpayers have been bullied and threatened, especially small tax payers and
those without legal assistance.
What should taxpayers do when faced with such a situation? Do all lawyers even
know what the obligations of taxpayers are as to record keeping, record producing,
and question answering?
The answer seems to be "no." For this reason, I wrote to Commissioner
Cohenon April 17, 1967, and received his reply on
"Good faith challenges in the form of Constitutional and other federally recognized
privileges are of course recognized by the service. For example, the privilege
against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment may be a basis by an
individual taxpayer for refusing to answer specific questions or to furnish his
records."........before recommending prosecution under Section 7201 or
7203, the service must usually develop enough information to show a substantial
tax liability that was not met in addition to criminal intent. The constitutional
rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and
observed.
51 MIRANDA - PRIVACY
Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right
to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation
underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the
government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its
citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be
witness against himself cannot be abridged. Miranda vs. State of
52 FIFTH DOES NOT ELIMINATE NEED TO FILE RETURN
....The quick solution to the plaintiff's claimed desire to file a federal income
tax return is to either file an honest return or if the form of return provided
called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have
raised the objection in the return, but he could not on that account refuse to
make any return at all, we are not called on to decide what, if anything, he
might have withheld.. it would be an extreme if not an
extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man
to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in a
crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should
have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw
a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to
write any word upon the governments blank would bring him into danger of the
law.
53 RELYING ON SUPREME COURT IS NOT A CRIME
Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement
of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a
taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court.
54 FIFTH ALSO APPLIES TO CIVIL TRIALS
The government insists broadly that the Constitutional
privilege against self in crimination does not apply in any civil proceeding.
The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily
dependent upon the notice of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or
is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, whenever the
answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility he who gives it. The privilege
protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.
It protects, likewise, the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding.
McCarthy vs Arndsten (CF Counselman vs. Hitchock, 142 U.S. 547,563, 564, 352 ED
110, 114 e inters, COM., REP, 816, 12 SUP. CT. REP 195)
55 FIFTH COVERS LINKING FACTS
The Supreme Court declared that "the privilege afforded not only extends to
answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal
statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of
evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime...the claimant is
not required to prove the precise danger since by so doing he would be forced
to disclose those very facts which under the privilege protects. Hoffman vs.
56 STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION
The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained
in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable
in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a
denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan,378
57 FIFTH OK IN ROUTINE MATTERS
The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents
under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. "The
difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to
justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory
conclusion, "Indeed, he added," the black opinion suggested that the Miranda
warnings are require through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently
lead to criminal inquiries." The Mathis Decision, (No.
726, May6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (
