-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate wrote:
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.
I should add that they haven't done anything in the field of cryptographic or technology issues, but have focused most of their efforts on protecting small entrepreneurs from overly zealous government agencies, particularly on the local level. One item I found of particular interest was a report they published in July 1996 about the restrictive barriers New York City has erected to prevent entrepreneurship (i.e., expensive/restrictive licensing fees, tough penalties for doing business without the required permits, etc.). An earlier post on this list referred to NYC as a cesspool of socialism. There is truth to this statement. Socialist politicians tend to punish those who help themselves, all for the public good of course. [snip]
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.
Funny you should mention this. A few folks have this very intention. :-)
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?
I'm not following the wording of this last question. Could you clarify?
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?
That's exactly the point. And that, I believe, is why the Supreme Court -- or any court for that matter -- will not go near this issue. It is the pivotal point that would collapse the whole house of cards that is the Income Tax. The feds have a huge vested interest in keeping the system going as long as they can (Y2K bugs and all) and this issue is a veritable hornets' nest. Nerthus p.s. For those of you keeping tabs on nyms, this is the last time I will include my public key in the body of my email. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQENAzRc0lEDFQEIALF2JX7RgDLC6nnSa7BmcczGumTRxhXx5mHoqPcGY95VGAVD 49iN/+59BBrHKxOU5JX5F9kWEsBG92KbOdB3XGCsub7AYmCl+iMrG+h+vJl9qCyc 134sq7WNfInA9TxiQ28/DldHj++gDeQJr9BvUU8Ez2Iu70uW5T7rlHFyBUWQBh3P 2dB/Q9A/dixhAzNTaeTuVH4TunoyDN6OrRrSTdZhsPs8dLVLLeqKC3qM28wLX5Mt qQCUb/pRb9TR9ygwaznAIdqSJ1qc/xqlQY6U0Vh6YVOaId+MQwzsq1ZRPlW0kYSS wgka2WXELH5ZpQLmCppM1pdkHhm54VbBl7TmNwkABRG0I05lcnRodXMgPGN5cGhl cnB1bmtzQGN5YmVycGFzcy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQNFzSUeFWwZe05jcJAQFxVQf/WUSH ltCrUpoQwQ9oTGCJiRycTQqUzDuqaqR55xgyz8W5mARixBigd/sL63EoBlQmyHR3 NIgwIW3I8hcPfUlXi84hsZ+89/HVW3CoMk2g6692UEoKHUX6bMkeAi85hIfJVhFj EONhx3xFmdOZqkEbdFm81J/0JJIhtAe0Ut2DPu4B49yjO7NBTg97QWwO6ZymE09v BUv5esuvdxFbmn8qfPHdurs+MrvoKbhZIA8Xz03eTS1auT8pNvdEO4EDaac0njZ4 5wAbAeC79AqztS75GpT7cf0jZcYJPwtW8LPXj7SQCMimseZ7/2OxNPditI9e58CI EL/Dl0D9qn1NRPiVwA== =8W8j - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNF0knuFWwZe05jcJAQH8WAf/e/BA8ysXWf1xrxJKiNPP8oyEDHpeFxZQ LWgW/kgfDmh1Y/Tfjw0i5nnnImlXfEcX5nmL8H+HezxBxKMN2O33PftHAPYghHrI y0hSgZVmA2VOMy4Dtv0umT19RarennPVHrGDyCi2zmNF9+5v6b81CYWLEBNMYx9V kaVOBCEt0FRdDFug1FwNRHJ+gHQjbFCVCMRF2v/0AF5r9uDPzNtCo3JP6tnllcqX jSf6MKa3Kxw17c+Je+TuLwHgltvULt3KZBrweJqslKKbY24Qw/PSPPHczvL8ieI1 uknK9KTVl6OJLvaGyI6bpFFgFoPxTpF+JJkzUR1GnlLN5gUwuQ6NKw== =osod -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----