Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Not a new Idea from the Ron Paul Blog

Internet Mock Trial

Since many people here believe that the justice system is complicit in the support of an illegitimate income tax, whereas others think the income tax legal, why don't we make something productive out of all this effort and hold an internet mock trial: Those who support the legality of the income tax will prepare a legal memo to the Brown's, stating the legal basis of the government's claim of Federal Income Tax owed. Those who believe the income tax is not legal will then prepare a response to those claims, with each side getting an opportunity to refute once again and make their final case. All documents will be posted to a web site so that the whole world can follow the arguments. Of course, it would be fantastic if we could attract some big name legal minds to contribute.

I think this would be a much more useful exercise than random exchanges of opinion. Though the trial would not have the force of law behind it, it would certainly be educational for the public at large: just as the internet has been the key to circumventing the monopoly of the mainstream media, why not use it to circumvent monopoly of mainstream justice?

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans (ie, those whom we need to convince to elect RP and other supporters of the constitution) are certain that the income tax is legal: “otherwise, why wouldn’t some clever lawyer discover the ruse while trying to get his client off?” And because of this, most people (who are not planning to avoid income taxes) are not going to waste time considering such opinions and they will quickly dismiss those who hold such opinions as being “tinfoil hat” wearers. What is more, recent research shows that Americans consider tax evasion to be second in immorality, after only adultery (http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Morality.pdf). Misery loves company...

I think the key to winning mainstream support on the “tax issue” is to emphasize RP’s dedication to radically reduce government spending. Even if the income tax were to be proven illegal, the state would find some other means of extracting large amounts of wealth (such as increased corporate taxes) so long as people accept the need for so much government spending.

One of the arguments that I’ve found compelling is to inform people that if the government’s activities were accounted using the same method that they impose on US companies, the true deficit for FY 2006 was $4.6 TRILLION (http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=882), which would be an additional tax burden of $15,333 for every man, woman and child in the country per year. Ask people if they can imagine paying that additional money out of their current disposable income. Of course they can’t, but somebody is going to have to pay it, someday (even if through inflated currency). This argument is also useful against those who claim “but don’t we pay lower taxes than Europeans?”


Bob Schulz tried this and called it the truth in taxation hearings. No one For the government showed up. Also, Ron Paul is very aware of the issues here dealing with the Browns and with Bob Schulz. See Below. But sure, go ahead and lets try a new hearing and start the debate. My Blog has plenty of arguments and links from all the big protesters like Schiff, Schulz and the Browns. Those who are not informed can start at givemeliberty.org and
http://www.givemeliberty.org/hunger/ronpaul7-17-01.htm

http://www.bleap.blogspot.com/

Rep. Ron Paul's Statement as Read at Schulz's 7-17 D.C. Press Conference

Ron Paul’s STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE, 07/17/01

My office has received hundreds of phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters supporting Mr. Schulz and Mr. Croteau. I think they are sincere in their beliefs, even though I strongly disagree with their hunger strike. I believe we can work with the IRS, the administration, and Congress to get answers to their questions, and I know that Congressman Bartlett and I are willing to assist them in their efforts. However, it is imperative that these gentleman end their fast immediately. No cause is served by their needless suffering.

The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz's right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS
officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government. The attention generated by Mr. Schulz and his organization shows that many
Americans are fed up with the tax system. It's an outrage that most tax professionals, much less typical taxpayers, cannot understand the incredibly complex tax code. It's an outrage that so many have had their lives destroyed by the IRS. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to
government. Congress needs to address the tax mess legislatively, by drastically simplifying and drastically reducing taxes. My own legislation would repeal the 16th Amendment and put an end to individual income taxes. Mr. Schulz and thousands of other Americans have very strong feelings about our tax system, and it needs to be fixed. Their voices should not be ignored. Mr. Schulz and his supporters can make their voices heard at the ballot box, by electing candidates who sincerely believe in changing the tax system.

Rep. Ron Paul


1 comment:

dpquinn said...

1. Why does the "claim" have to be prepared by IRS? This is a mock trial and the laws are public knowledge - I'm sure that some law professor would take up the challenge and act as the IRS' "champion" by drafting the legal memo (isn't there a Cornell professor who refutes protester arguments on the internet?).
2. Perhaps we could attract more publicity to the trial by getting judge Napolitano (Fox News) to referee the contest. He should be acceptable to both sides, since he's a former Federal judge, as well as a well-known civil libertarian.
3. If this really got going, perhaps we could get the Browns to accept the results of an internet poll at the end of the case if the country rules against the protester argument (even if they loose, the audacity would attract the whole world's attention!). On the other hand, if this attracts enough publicity and the country rules in the Brown's favor, then the Brows will be the least of IRS' problems...
4. This whole effort would be a nice way to give the Browns their public hearing (though not in an official court of law), "litigate" the tax protester arguments in public and possibly resolve the Brown affair without violence.