A Second Question for the IRS

Questions? (Photo credit: Valerie Everett)

Folks confronting the IRS routinely ask, even demand to know, “What law makes me liable?“

So far as I know, the IRS never answers.  We can’t seem to find out whichever specific “law” makes us all liable to pay income taxes.

Insofar as that “special law” remains unspecified and seemingly unknown, it’s reasonable to suppose that may be no law that makes the vast majority of American liable to pay income taxes.  After all, if there were such a law, why would the IRS persistently refuse to disclose it?  Why not just name the section of the Title 26 that makes all the people liable and stop all this foolishness about “show me the law”?

If there is no law that makes us liable to pay income taxes, does it follow that virtually all IRS collections are unlawful?

Not necessarily.

 

“What is the NATURE of the person or individual you’re seeking?”

I’m convinced that this system’s Achilles Heel may be our ability and right to ask insightful questions.

For example, in response to my earlier article, “Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?,” John Peter posted the following comment:

“It might be to our advantage to listen carefully to lawyers in courtroom proceedings. I have reviewed the videos of the OJ Simpson trial and observed the following. One day judge Ito asked the question ” Is the defendant in the courtroom”? Johnnie Cocoran, the attorney replied with honor by asking the following question: From the recorders Log- “What is the nature of the PERSON or individual that you seek ?”  Everyone knew that OJ was not in the courtroom at the time and the question was not brought up again. Could the answer lie in the understanding of the word “nature”?

 

British Traffic Humor

The British are so straight-laced when it comes to legal matters that It’s sometimes hard to tell if you’re watching something “real” or a skit from Benny Hill or Monty Python.

Here’s a video of a British “copper” trying to issue a traffic ticket to a bicyclist.  The “copper” tries to keep up with the bicyclist’s persistent questions, finally tries to grab the camera in frustration, and doesn’t follow when the bicyclist simply peddles away.

The video isn’t profound, but it’s interesting, amusing and instructive: the “system” has a very difficult time dealing with questions.  If you can learn to master your “right of inquiry,” you might sometimes triumph over the systemites.

video  00:04:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VY27OM_-7oE

 

What If?

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a series of “what if” questions.  All of these “what if’s” appear to already be true.

I was particularly surprised to hear Judge Napolitano ask “What if the States were mere provinces under a totally nationalized and centralized government?”

Judge Napolitano is the first high (or formerly high) government official that I’ve heard of who’s given credence to the “The State vs. this state” hypothesis that I and others have been advocating for over a decade.  Where he refers to “provinces,” I’m inclined to speak of “territories” or “territorial states” (rather than States of the Union).  Perhaps Napolitano’s description (“provinces”) is better than mine (“territories,” etc.).  But if we disagreed as to nomenclature, we apparently agree that the very nature of our State’s governments has been radically changed into something unconstitutional and treasonous.

 

“How To Sneak Past a Nazi Checkpoint”

Image via Wikipedia

These videos are short, sweet and hilarious.

They are anecdotes and they don’t absolutely prove that the strategies employed in these instances will work again for others.

Also, part of the effectiveness of these strategies may be based on the presence of a passenger in the vehicle who is using a video camera.  It may be that gov-co is at least as intimidated by the “subjects’” video camera as by their questions.

In either case, the videos are short, sweet and hilarious:

00:01:19    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b7U82ehS9Q&feature=relmf

00:01:03   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0b3xV8smt8&feature=related

00:00:58   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1e7EBze6ho&feature=relmfu

 

A Right to Ask Questions About Definitions?

Image by jovike via Flickr

Title 18 United States Code (USC) Section 6001 (“Definitions”) begins with the phase “As used in this chapter”.  That phrase tells us that the four definitions found at 18 USC 6001 are only certain to apply in this chapter (Chapter 601; “Witness Immunity”) but might not apply in any other Chapters in the USC.

The USC has 50 Titles.  If we assume that each of the other 49 Titles also has 601 “Chapters,” then there may be over 30,000 “chapters” in the entire USC.  In theory, then, there could be 30,000 unique definitions (one or each Chapter in the USC) for each of the four terms defined at 18 USC 6001.

Of course, it’s virtually impossible that any word or phrase used by Congress could have 30,000 separate definitions.  Nevertheless, many word or phrases used by Congress do have multiple definitions.   More, these multiple definitions are often contrived by Congress to have meanings that, for ordinary Americans, are not only unknown and unimagined but are virtually incomprehensible.

This multiplicity of definitions goes to the heart of the following inquiry as to our right to ask to know the definitions of each of the words used in laws, instruments or testimony that are relied upon in our court cases and legal relations.