Accurate Perceptions of the IRS

In a previous article, I wrote about juries acquitting perpetrators of bald-faced tax evasion because they exhibit believable convictions that supporting the parasitic institution government has become is immoral.  The IRS' own publication on the issue of taxpayers who point out the immorality of collecting taxes to be spent in ways that violate the taxpayers' religious beliefs does not mention a single jury decision.

The document consists of 27 examples of the legal system protecting the government's right to your money.  The first mention of a jury is one that acquitted, but it is immediately followed by a similar case in which the jury convicted.

All of the other seven mentions of jury decisions are convictions, in favor of the IRS.  Nobody likes to admit their mistakes, but wouldn't it be wise to keep a healthy record of the mistakes that a government bureaucracy makes?  In fact, shouldn't that be one of the functions of the IRS?  The website, irs.gov, contains five documents with the words "jury acquitted" and 52 with the words "jury convicted".  The Internet itself contains about 85,000 (according to Google) pages with IRS and "jury convicted" in them, and about 25,000 with IRS and "jury acquitted".

So why is the ratio of convictions to acquittals on the Internet so much lower than it is on the IRS site?  Perhaps a clue can be found in the case of the Rutherfords, who may have suffered from a jury whose judgment was compromised by a fear of audits.  Bullies only retain their power as long as they continue being bullies.  If they wish to have power some other way, they must learn to cooperate instead of intimidate.

It's also interesting to note that the IRS first suggests that it's Ok for the court to interpret the law for the jury, even though later, on the same page!, they explain that the Supreme Court said it is NOT OK.  Search for occurrences of "Cheek" in that IRS publication.

The popular perception of the IRS as more like a ring of thugs than a helpful "Accounts Receivable" department of the government appears to be quite accurate.  This perception should, and will eventually translate into jury decisions, and that explains why out of the 178 cases mentioned in the IRS publication, jury decisions are mentioned only seven times.  Prohibition was repealed because of popular demand, and the pressure against the government brought by juries who refused to honor the law.

The 16th amendment will go the same way, along with the cushion it offers to the federal government as it overspends.  The income tax is only a cushion because it dampens the effect of borrowing money.  The federal government spends at least 1/5 of the income tax revenue on interest on the national debt.

Another good reason to expect the 16th amendment to either be repealed, or, more accurately and honestly, recognized as having never been ratified, is the state constitutions that barred some of the allegedly ratifying states from actually ratifying it.

A Subjugated Government

We have a constitution that defines a government that has been subjugated to serve us.  We are living under a subjugated government, but it is subjugated not to us, but to what seems to be a conglomeration of corporations, most notably a collection of international central banks.  When the colonies found themselves living under an intolerable government, they had already formed their own governments, and found it convenient to put these local governments to use in throwing off the more distant imperial British government.  We have that too, but we have not yet begun our tea parties.

The Boston Tea Party happened because colonists who opted not to import the tea from British ships found that Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.  Rather than accept the burden of taxes that was being forced upon them, they broke the law that protected the property of the British merchant who was shipping tea to the colonies, which was, in fact, one of the very first corporations that paved the way for the modern corporation, the East India Company.  When the law is oppressive enough, people will start breaking it, and their choice of what to break is often not very precise.

What saved the colonists from anarchy and chaos was the twin social principles of the common law and existing local government, which I would prefer to call customs.  All we have to do is refuse to obey the laws we feel are doing the most damage to our country.  In my opinion, there are two. 

The first is legal tender.  Breaking the law of legal tender means that courts can require that the defendant restore value to the plaintiff in some form other than Federal Reserve Notes.  This, of course, is a great hurdle because of the incestuous relationship between our court systems and our federal government.  I'm sure there are courts where it can start, but even better, if the defendant and plaintiff can at least agree that the legal tender laws are screwing up our country (Audit the Fed!), they may both be willing to go to arbitration, where I believe legal tender no longer applies.

The second is the income tax.  People break this maybe-a-law all the time ("maybe-a-law" after studying Aaron Russo's documentaries about the fact that the federal government has never produced a law that requires a free citizen to pay taxes, and that the passage of the 16th amendment seems to have been "deemed" rather than real).  When the public begins acquitting perpetrators of bald-faced tax evasion because they exhibit believable convictions that supporting the parasitic institution government has become is immoral, the ball will really get rolling.  The IRS will get nasty, and perhaps nasty enough to... I don't know... get itself shrunk?  Maybe government contractors will find a way to do productive work, having seen the writing on the wall all these years, and finding that the Federal Reserve Notes they've been collecting are no longer doing them much good.

I cannot advocate tax evasion, because that is against the law, but I can predict that it will happen more, and that as it happens more, it will provide this country with a good opportunity to heal from all of the wounds it has suffered under the federal government.