🚀 go-pugleaf

In <E2GwsJ.HEv@eskimo.com> paulmaf@eskimo.com (Paul Maffia) wrote:

evansdb@netaxs.com@netaxs.com  (Dan Evans) writes:

>In <58tqpd$o38@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>, jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>>
>>Daniel J. Lavigne <taxfree@planeteer.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Gee if income tax were legal why in 1991 did the 
>>>>Supreme Court rule that if you honestly believed in 
>>>>"not" paying income tax you cannot be sent to prison?
>>
>>That person was refering to Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
>>In that case, the Supreme Court held that a good faith misunderstanding
>>of the tax laws may prevent the court from finding that the defendant
>>acted willfully, which is necessary to convict the defendant of
>>criminal tax evasion.

>And it should never be forgotten that John Cheek won the battle but lost
>the war, because he was retried and convicted the second time as well,
>probably because he had spent so much time in litigation with the IRS 
>and so much time studying the tax laws that it would have been almost
>impossible for any jury to believe that he did not understand that the 
>law required him to file a return.

>So one of the ironies of the "Cheek" defense is that if you know enough
>to know about it, you probably know too much to use it.

(At which point paulmaf@eskimo.com (Paul Maffia) responded to
evansdb@netaxs.com@netaxs.com  (Dan Evans) comments:

And don't forget to mention Dan, that when he was tried and convicted
that
second time, he appealed using the same tired arguments (i.e.  Salaries
and wages were not taxable income; income taxes were unconstitutional,
etc., etc., etc., ad naseum) trying to get his conviction overturned and
he was slapped and slapped hard for making frivolous arguments, thereby
wasting the Appeal Court's time.

-- 
                                    Paul M.

taxfree@planeteer.com (Daniel J. Lavigne) adds:

Having had a prior �set to� with Paul regarding an individual�s duty
when faced with a �legal obligation� to support preparations to commit
�a crime against humanity�;  preparations barred by a law sought and
established by American jurists in the aftermath of the Second World War
as part of the lead up to the convictions and subsequent death penaltys
meted to Hitler�s henchmen for participating in or otherwise allowing
the committing of such crimes, this portion of the thread�s timbre
should be clarified.

My initial comments to which jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G.
Adams) responded were as follows:

My first official refusal to file tax returns or 
pay income taxes took place in 1980. 

The Canadian government then ignored all
challenges, including one published June 16, 
1987 in The Toronto Star, Canada�s largest 
newspaper, that dared it to use its courts, 
judges, lawyers and laws to attempt to force 
my compliance with its tax requirements. 

As expected, it ran from the challenge. It 
could not, however, ignore due process 
and the subsequent decision. 

A decision, accepting on behalf and at request 
of Canada�s government, that individuals do 
have an unassailable right and a concurrent and 
unavoidable duty to refuse to support any society 
so lost to the madness of greed as to participate 
in plans and preparations involving the will and 
the capacity to use nuclear and other weapons of 
mass murder against fellow defenceless human beings.

Any Canadian may now refuse to file tax returns or 
refuse to pay taxes by virtue of that decision with 
no fear of interference or harassment by Revenue Canada. 

While I can think of no manner by which Americans can
lawfully and ethically avoid the payment of taxes
other than by claiming that their humanity is of
such significance to them that they can no longer
support societal insanity; an entry at:

http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/mail.html
 
states the following:
 
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:28:14 -0800

>Gee if income tax were legal why in 1991 did the 
>Supreme Court rule that if you honestly believed in 
>"not" paying income tax you cannot be sent to prison?

I offer no opinion on the validity of that �decision�
as I am not personally acquainted with the matters 
that led to its formulation. (If such a "decision"
does, indeed, exist.)

jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) then clarified the source,
validity and extent of that ruling for which I thank him.

evansdb@netaxs.com@netaxs.com  (Dan Evans) then added his comments and
offered other information as to what transpired before the courts in
that matter for which I also thank him.

The concern with the input of paulmaf@eskimo.com (Paul Maffia) in the
matter is this:

I fervently and most painfully believe that paulmaf@eskimo.com (Paul
Maffia) does not care whether or not the courts crush the meaning of
�the rule of law� or �the letter and the spirit of the rule of law� when
dealing with those who, regardless of the merits of their arguments,
honestly believe they have reason to resort to a court of law for
clarification and disposition. 

If my concerns are baseless and can be safely abandoned, I ask Mr.
Maffia to state his current position regarding an individual�s
unassailable right and concurrent and unavoidable duty to refuse to pay
taxes to or otherwise
support any society participating in plans and preparations involving
the will and the capacity to mass murder millions of defenceless fellow
human beings.

I await Mr. Maffia�s view indicating an increased and deeper
understanding of the meaning of �the rule of law�; why our future
depends on our full commitment to it; and the rigorous necessity of fair
and impartial decisions by our judges, absent of all conflicts of
interests as regards favoritism to those who guarantee their pay and
pensions. 

Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House 
-- 
LIFE�S DUSTY PASSING

Prophetic. Ghost grey,
Industrial pall. Suspended,
Screening our greed, Hiding our gall.
Deflecting our view of a dust laden extinction.
Answering our follies, our demands of MORE!!
Copyright. D.J.L. "Meanderings�  Spring/85