From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:35:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Forwarded mail...
Message-ID: <199711022231.QAA06224@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:10:11 +0100 (MET)
> To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)

> Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for 
> Justice.  Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU.  They've 
> accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of 
> freedom-minded individuals everywhere.  (note: I'm not connected with them
> in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization
> in sync with our views)
> 
>  "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market
>   solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute
>   for Justice.  When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and
>   bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the
>   Institute for Justice brings them to account in court."
>   -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/

Thanks, I'll check them out as I am unaware of their position.

> >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or
> >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment
> >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to
> >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. 
> >
> >I don't know.   But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of.
> 
> Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law 
> That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax 
> Amendment) and how it was ratified.  According to the information he has 
> uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals 
> of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of 
> the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info)
> 
> Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the 
> courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole.  He even sells a package (or at 
> least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the 
> non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax 
> case.  According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when 
> the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on 
> this point.
> 
> I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to 
> the Supreme Court without success.  The Court refused to hear it.
> 
> Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't 
> even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was.  Think 
> about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a
> legal fiction.  That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance.

Actualy, his research is one of the reasons that I am so interested in an
actual lawsuit.

What if somebody were to go for several years with no contact at all with
the IRS, and no intention of making contact. Then when approached that
person makes enough noise to guarantee that they will be going to court.
What would it then take to bush-whack the beggars? What is the absolute last
point that your defence must be revealed prior to your presenting your case
to the jury? The reason I use the first person is because to me it seems
critical that no lawyer is actualy used in the defence. As I understand it,
and I ain't no lawyer, there are some actions that a defendent may do if
representing themselves that lawyers are prohibited from doing. Among them
is stating the obvious fact, if the jurors don't believe the law is just
they may refuse to find for that reason. If the Constitution and the actual
record of votes in concert with the general feeling of excess regarding this
matter doesn't prove the case, what will?


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
   |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|