Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To take the link you pasted in context, which addresses the cases in your IRS "past cases"...www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf (broken link)
The motion supported in these 109 pages was of course dismissed by the courts, just like the three that preceded it. Cryer's case indeed followed the same disastrous path of other so-called tax protesters, save for the fact that in light of his history of emotional and financial problems and the disabled and dependent state of his wife, the government ultimately dropped prosecution of two counts of tax evasion, pressing only two of willful failure to file. Tax law differs from standard criminal law, in that the government must prove that the defendant knew his conduct to be illegal. With some appeal to jury nullification included in summation, Cryer was able to earn acquittal on both counts on the basis of the jury's belief that his copious research had honestly led Cryer to believe, despite established opinion to the contrary, that his failure to file was not illegal. From time to time, one tax protester or another is able to get off on such grounds. The vast majority is not. The verdict did spare Cryer the necessity of serving of any jail time for his actions, but did not of course relieve him in any way of his obligation to make payment of the taxes that he owed. Plus interest.
It must be remembered that the court is not the people---the court is a set-aside group of people who act in their own interests and the government controls their interests through the power of the purse. Which is why tax levy in general will always be reinforced by the courts, regardless of its legal merit.
Consider this simplified, hypothetical example. A citizen files a lawsuit alleging that judges ought not be paid, but should act voluntarily in the unselfish interest of reinforcing the citizen's constitutional right to due process. By whom will your suit get a fair hearing?
The same thing happens if tax protestors petition the courts to bite the hand that feeds them.
It must be remembered that the court is not the people---the court is a set-aside group of people who act in their own interests and the government controls their interests through the power of the purse. Which is why tax levy in general will always be reinforced by the courts, regardless of its legal merit.
Consider this simplified, hypothetical example. A citizen files a lawsuit alleging that judges ought not be paid, but should act voluntarily in the unselfish interest of reinforcing the citizen's constitutional right to due process. By whom will your suit get a fair hearing?
The same thing happens if tax protestors petition the courts to bite the hand that feeds them.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise
....america is a nation of whiners.
Then obviously you agree with that other 'genius', McCain's top economic adviser, Phil ("we don't need no stinkin' regulations") Gramm, who also said, "we have become a nation of whiners" and "the Recession is Mental".
It must be remembered that the court is not the people---the court is a set-aside group of people who act in their own interests and the government controls their interests through the power of the purse. Which is why tax levy in general will always be reinforced by the courts, regardless of its legal merit. Consider this simplified, hypothetical example. A citizen files a lawsuit alleging that judges ought not be paid, but should act voluntarily in the unselfish interest of reinforcing the citizen's constitutional right to due process. By whom will your suit get a fair hearing? The same thing happens if tax protestors petition the courts to bite the hand that feeds them.
A stretch. For one thing, the facts in this case, as in most others of the type, were tried by a jury, and for another, while his role is to rule on the law and hence on such motions as were linked to earlier, no judge's salary is actually imperiled by the positions of any tax-protester, even if those would do away with the income tax entirely. Governments have many sources of revenue, and if they were to lose one to a legal challenge, they would simply create another of equal value to replace it. There is no perceived chance of the judiciary at any level going out of business or of seeing the funding of established salaries cut off, hence there is no motivation toward the biased hearing of cases related to taxation that is suggested.
Speaking of salaries, no case to end judicial salaries would be accepted by any court as a matter of jurisdiction. Legislatures have responsibility for judicial salaries, and your hypothetical plaintiff would have to trudge his way down the street to plead his case before lawmakers instead. Good thing actually, as any salary-earning judge who did somehow manage to find jurisdiction would immediately have to recuse himself from hearing the case over an evident conflict of interest...
Not entirely, but a facet in this dilemma called the "income tax"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
For one thing, the facts in this case, as in most others of the type, were tried by a jury, and for another, while his role is to rule on the law and hence on such motions as were linked to earlier, no judge's salary is actually imperiled by the positions of any tax-protester, even if those would do away with the income tax entirely
So, what's the big deal then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Governments have many sources of revenue, and if they were to lose one to a legal challenge, they would simply create another of equal value to replace it.
Again, what's the big deal then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There is no perceived chance of the judiciary at any level going out of business or of seeing the funding of established salaries cut off, hence there is no motivation toward the biased hearing of cases related to taxation that is suggested.
Really, what's the big deal then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Speaking of salaries, no case to end judicial salaries would be accepted by any court as a matter of jurisdiction. Legislatures have responsibility for judicial salaries, and your hypothetical plaintiff would have to trudge his way down the street to plead his case before lawmakers instead. Good thing actually, as any salary-earning judge who did somehow manage to find jurisdiction would immediately have to recuse himself from hearing the case over an evident conflict of interest...
Alright, point taken...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said!
