Time: Tue Oct 29 11:35:39 1996
To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STOP STOP STOP STOP NOW NOW NOW NOW
Cc:
Bcc: cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens, cravens
MORE EVIDENCE HERE OF UNWANTED
AND UNSOLICITED EMAIL FROM YOU,
ROGER. STOP PLAYING DUMB.
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
At 01:31 PM 10/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>Nothing in the following is meant to be any sort of legal advice.
>Consult your lawyer. Use no hooks. Avoid heavy machinery.
>
>From: GREG MCNEIL
>Subj: US V Long Proof of no inc
>Conf: Flat_TAX (1308) Read: No Status: Public
>
> ---------------------------------------
>MAN FREED ON TAX CHARGES by Bill Keller
> ---------------------------------------
>
>This article is, of itself almost as remarkable as its subject. More than
>mere "patriot" theory, this article outlines a successful step-by-step
>strategy that defeated the IRS in court. The article lists the first case
>the defense use, and the argument that case proved. Then it lists the
>second case and second argument, and the third, etc. In sum, the article
>lists a logical chain of arguments that build on each other to persuade a
>jury that 1) Wages are not taxable income; 2) The IRS cannot tax a man's
>right to work for wages; and 3) Mr. Lloyd Long was not obligated to file
>or pay income taxes. The article contains information on how to order a
>complete court transcript of the Long case that can fill in the gaps that
>necessarily exist in the following
>brief outline.
>
>Of course, just because the strategy worked in one particular case before
>one particular jury, does not mean it will work in every case before
>every jury. Nevertheless, what has worked before, could work again, and
>at minimum, offers a preliminary how-to-do-it manual for locking horns
>with the IRS in court.
>
>begin:
>
>In an amazing court case involving the "income tax", a Chattanooga jury
>agreed with the argument by the defendant that the "income tax" is
>actually an EXCISE TAX and applied only to certain classes of people (US
>v. Long, Eastern District of Tennessee, CR 19391, October 15, 1993)
>
>Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama,
>assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended
>Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee who was charged by the IRS with
>willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1989 and 1990.
>
>In presenting the case for the IRS, assistant US Attorney Curtis Collier,
>assisted by IRS special agent Michael Geasley, declared that Mr. Long had
>gross income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years 1989 and 1990,
>and that he had "willfully" failed to file income tax returns for those
>years as "required by law".
>
>The defense admitted that Mr. Long did in fact have income in excess of
>$49,000 for each of the years in question, and that he did not file a
>return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt
>that he was not "liable" for an income tax, not was he "required by law"
>to file.
>
>Defense testimony presented a case entitled Brushhaber v Union Pacific
>Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court
>that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax
>any new subjects: it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax
>was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax
>on corporate privileges and privileged occupations.
>
>The defense then brought a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy, wherein an
>excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and
>consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue
>certain
>occupations and upon corporate privileges.
>
>Mr. Long's attorney also brought out a case entitles Simms v. Ahrens,
>wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax
>nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.
>
>The defense then brought up a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein
>the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be
>taxed for the mere privilege if existing, but that the individual's right
>to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot
>be imposed. Defense also noted studies done by the congressional research
>service showing the INCOME TAX to be an EXCISE TAX.
>
>Next the defense noted that in a Tennessee Supreme Court case Jack Cole
>v. Commissioner, the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to
>INCOME or EARNINGS, and that this right could not be taxed as a
>privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case, Corn v. For, the
>court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as
>partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and
>antecedent of the government. The prosecution did not
>challenge or attempt to refute any of the cases cited, or the conclusions
>of the courts.
>
>> TAKE NOTE ..This section
>
>Defense brought out in testimony that the fact nowhere in the entire IRS
>Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax! The IRS's own
>privacy act notice cites only three sections, and none of these sections
>makes anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an
>oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no
>one could misinterpret who was made liable for the alcohol tax.
>
>Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the
>income tax relied upon "voluntary compliance" and a statement from the
>head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which in essence
>showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol
>tax, which is 100% enforced.
>
>Mr. Long stated in 1988 he knew that; the income tax was in fact an
>excise tax; that he as not enjoying any corporate privileges nor engaged
>in any privileged occupation; that income or earning from the exercise of
>common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; that nowwhere
>in the IRS
>Code was he made liable for the tax and the income tax was voluntary. But
>Mr. Long was still so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his
>voluntary assessment. He then began a series of letters to the IRS
>explaining that he had
>no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He
>asked for direct answers to questions such as "Am I required to file
>federal income tax returns?" and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?"
>The IRS never gave a direct answer to any of his questions. Instead they
>inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and
>generally avoided answering. So Mr. Long testified that he decided to
>stop volunteering.
>
>The IRS brought in two "expert" witnesses. Both were actually IRS
>employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross
>examination by Mr. Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret
>code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record,
>showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a
>return. Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point
>that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. The other witness, upon
>cross examination by Mr. Becraft, gave testimony that conflicted with the
>privacy act notice.
>
>The government also attempted to insinuate "guilt by association" by
>claiming Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable
>character. They argued that the writers of some of the books he read, and
>people he knew, had
>been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact
>criminals.
>
>Mr. Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a
>crime by a court did not invalidate everything he said. To illustrate his
>point, he pointed out that the Apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by
>the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles. He added that
>he, Mr. Long did not rely on anything that he did not personally check
>out thoroughly. In summation, Mr. Becraft reminded the jury that Galileo
>was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with what everyone
>else knew was a "fact"; and that Columbus, acting on a belief that
>conflicted with what everyone else knew was a "fact" discovered something
>no else thought existed. The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr.
>Long "NOT GUILTY" on all counts, they have ventured into uncharted
>territory in their monumental decision. A Chattanooga TV station quoted a
>government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS
>will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be
>less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in
>their favor.
>
>Lloyd Long
>5048 Roarks Cove Rd.
>Decherd, Tenn 37324
>(615)967-1402
>
>* No person is subject to taxation on his income who is not SPECIALLY
>* DESCRIBED in the statute imposting the tax or not clearly within the
>* meaning of the general terms which the statute employs. A statute is
>not
>* to be extended by -IMPLICATION- to make liable persons other than those
>* comprehended within its terms..
>* 85 C.J.S. 1092
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail