All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2001 - Bill Cooper
58:36
Legality of Taxes #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
So, I'm going to go ahead and get started. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first
one.
So, I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper, according to William Jefferson Quentin, the most dangerous radio host in America.
And if you listen to this broadcast for a while, you'll find out why he said that.
Truth is the most dangerous weapon you can use against an enemy.
Until April the 15th, And including that night if it falls on a Monday through Thursday night, we're going to be exposing the unconstitutional, unlawful, and treasonous practices of the Internal Revenue Service.
So don't miss one single night.
Every single night is going to be on that subject, except for, and we just may even, we may even postpone the Thursday night photography series until April the 15th is over with.
It's extremely important.
The U.S.
Marshals have contacted my daughter and they told her that the Internal Revenue Service have asked them to bring in before April the 15th.
So I'm ready for them.
But before anything happens, I want to make sure that I do as much damage and expose as much truth about these Nazi, jack-booted, Gestapo treasonous thugs as I possibly can.
And so I will.
So don't miss not even one episode of The Hour of the Times.
Until then, folks, it's March.
We need your donations.
We can't operate without them.
It's absolutely impossible, so please get them in the mail now.
Send your donations in the form of cash, blank money order, gold or silver coin, to Hot, H-O-T-T, that's Hot, H-O-T-T, in care of 101.1 FM, that's 101.1 FM, P.O.
Box 940, that's P.O.
101.1 FM PO Box 940. That's PO Box 940, Eager, spelled E-A-G-A-R, Arizona.
That's Eager, spelled E-A-G-A-R, Arizona, 85925.
The zip, once more, is 85925.
Make sure you've got pen and paper by your side, folks, and listen carefully.
Last night, we had to interrupt Joe Bannister, who is an ex-Internal Revenue Service Special Agent, who, when he found out how unlawful And how criminal the activities of the Internal Revenue Service really were.
Well, you'll hear it.
Just listen.
You left off listening to Joe Bannister, an ex-Internal Revenue Service Special Agent.
And when he discovered that the application of the income tax to the citizens of the several states of the Union is illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional, And wrote a report asking his supervisors to explain it so that he could continue working as an Internal Revenue Service Special Agent.
They refused.
Refused to explain any of it or even to answer any of his questions and so he could not be a part of the terrible things that they were doing to the American people anymore and resigned.
I backed his speech up about five minutes to preserve the continuity of the message that he is delivering.
So without any further ado, here is the rest of Mr. Joe Bannister's presentation, and then we'll go into much, much more.
Make sure that you're listening carefully, folks.
Bye.
But still, I had these convictions, I had all of my guideposts to rely on, my faith in God, and I just thought, I've got to do this.
I have to ask these questions.
I've sworn an oath to support and defend people's rights.
Whatever adversity may come my way, I feel that I have this duty, and I need to earn my pay.
So, on February 8th of 1999, I submitted my report to my immediate supervisor.
And by February 11th, my supervisor's boss, who is the chief of our Central California division, called me into his office.
And to say that he looked at me like I had two heads would probably be an understatement.
He said to me, are you really serious about this?
Because what I had asked on February 8th was that my report be submitted not only to my chief, but all the way up the chain to Commissioner Rosati here in Washington, D.C.
I respectfully requested that they review my evidence and Show me the error of my analysis, if any.
I really, sincerely needed some guidance.
And at that point, although I had spoken with the various people on the panel and others, I was not doing anything publicly about this.
I wanted to get answers to my questions because I was issued a gun and a badge to put people in jail and, when called for, shoot someone.
I mean, I had the authority to use deadly force, carrying a gun.
I would think I would at least need to know what the laws I was enforcing were all about.
So I did present that evidence to my supervisors, and from February 11th to February 17th, didn't hear anything.
I went ahead and just did my job as I had always done.
And then on February 17th, I was called into my chief's office again, and I was given a And actually, I should back up, because I always forget this part, but when I submitted my report on February 8th, I told them that if they were not able to show me the error of my analysis, then I'd be forced to resign, because I could not serve two masters.
I believed that the Constitution and the income tax was all one, and I wouldn't have any push-pull or conflict between the two, and I had now come in contact with that conflict and needed some resolution.
On February 17th, I was issued a short memorandum which stated that the IRS as an agency would not be responding to my report.
They also told me that they would provide me with the necessary paperwork to tender my resignation.
And the last thing they told me was that I was to be placed immediately on administrative leave for a period of seven days to think about What I had done and what I was going to do.
So, that day I turned in my gun.
They didn't take my badge from me, but they took my gun and I spent the next few days
on a paid vacation, I guess you could say, to think about what I was going to do.
On February 25th, which happened to be my birthday, And I believe it also happened to be the day that Flander Knox proclaimed that the 16th Amendment was ratified.
Things are all kind of coming together.
I resigned from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
And the reason I resigned is obvious.
I received no response whatsoever from the agency.
And I can tell you now As I've told many people, I have a sincere, I have a sincere and still do, a belief that if you're a federal law enforcement officer and you swear an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution, then sooner or later you just might have to do that.
And I took it seriously and I took my job seriously.
I'm sure my, if anyone were to check, they can see that I did very well as a special agent and investigator for five and a half years.
But the career which I thought would last my entire working life was cut short.
Well, because of the lack of response as a federal agent and the fact that I then had
to resign, of course I had to start thinking about what next.
What am I going to do to spread the word about these things?
Because although I may not be under a duty Based on my oath as a federal agent, I still have a duty as a citizen, as a father, as a husband, and again, the Ninth Commandment will bind me for the rest of my life.
And so I felt that I had to start speaking up about the fact that the IRS chose to ignore me.
When you consider that they could have made me look like a complete fool, Or they could have shown me the error of my analysis and made me a spokesman for the rest of my career to explain to people how I was fooled by the likes of Bill Benson, Bill Conklin, D.D.
Kidd, Larry Becraft.
To me, those would have been a couple of great choices for them.
And they chose neither one of them.
They instead chose to ignore me.
And as you may have heard earlier, actually all of you saw yesterday that we tried to get the
government to come and talk about these issues face to face and they didn't
send anyone.
So basically what I've done since February 25th is I've established a website which is
freedomabovefortune.com and I've had 70,000 visits.
To that website since March 1st.
And I'm not advocating that people not pay tax or not file.
What I'm advocating is that people educate themselves so that they can learn what the dividing line is between your money that you work so hard for and the government's money.
What are the legal lines in the sand?
For how much of your hard-earned money you keep.
Because after all, isn't that what the purpose of our government is?
Or at least it used to be.
Was that they protect your rights and your property.
Not come up with schemes to deceive you into losing your property.
Or to take your freedom.
So I hope that people will visit my website.
FreedomofLoveFortune.com There's a lot of links there.
I want to educate people, and I certainly want to state that the people on this panel I found to be very credible, very trustworthy, that their intentions are sincere.
They're not out to make a buck.
They've been trying to show people for 15, 20, 25 years that there are some serious issues going on with the federal income tax, and there's a lot of deceit that's going on.
They are labeled as tax protesters and right-wingers and extremists.
And at least speaking for the group here and the other people that I've spoken with, they are not that at all.
They're trying to inform the American people that there's some big problems with the federal income tax.
And it's about time that we do something about that.
Thank you very much.
I should tell you that as a talk show radio host at WRW in Albany, in February, you get ready for an afternoon show.
You go to the Internet, you search, you read your email, etc.
And in February, something crossed my screen.
Just a brief reference.
Somebody sent me an email about this IRS agent.
in California, who submitted a report to his superiors.
The superiors didn't answer his questions, and he resigned.
And that his report and his questions went to the heart of the income tax.
Now, when you're a talk show host, you're looking for material.
And I said, this would be interesting material.
So I had a producer locate Joe Bannister.
And we called him at home, and I interviewed him, and he sounded credible, laid back, and he said that his work was available on the Internet under Freedom Above Fortune.
I found that impressive, that he made his 95-page report available for all of us to see and to come to our own conclusions about.
I'm trained as an engineer, have done a lot of research and report writing, and I was struck with the soundness, apparent soundness of the report.
Very credible document.
So I had Joe on the show, and of course his report and Joe led me to Bill Benson.
I called and spoke to Bill, got a copy of his report, had him on the show, same with Bill Conklin.
It became very obvious to me In my role also as chairman of this educational constitutional foundation, that the situation is intolerable.
We have to get to the truth.
On the one hand, we have this very substantial body of very credible evidence that there is no legal foundation, no authority under the income tax to support the income tax, beginning with the 16th Amendment.
And yet there are a growing number of people who are losing their homes and going to prison because of the enforcement of a law that may not exist, may not be valid.
And so we have arranged this symposium to try and get to the truth, and we had sent to the President To Senator Lott and to Senator Hastert, Congressman Hastert, and to the Commissioner of IRS, a copy of Joe's report, a copy of Bill Benson's two-volume work, and a copy of Bill Conklin's report, and very respectfully asked the heads of our political branches to identify their most knowledgeable people to come and
participate in the symposium and to argue against these conclusions.
Very respectfully requested them to do so in early May.
No response until June.
On June 7th, we sent a follow-up letter.
No response.
Absolutely no response.
The material was sent certified return receipt requested mail.
So here we have an IRS agent having done his research, submitting his reports and his findings to his superiors,
asking them respectfully to respond to the evidence, the facts,
and being ignored and forced to resign.
And we've done the same thing with the government.
No response.
It's the rule of law.
It's the question of the rule of law, and our fundamental republican principles are at stake.
With that, let's introduce our next speaker, Bill Conklin.
Just a word about Bill.
He's a former school teacher.
He has a master's in communications, speech communications.
He has spent 25 years researching the Internal Revenue Code.
He has defeated the Internal Revenue Service six times in published wins in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bill has written the book, Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns.
Bill has assisted individuals in hundreds of civil tax cases and has worked on dozens of criminal cases with various tax attorneys.
Mr. Bill Conklin.
Thank you very much.
and I'll see you next time.
It's really exciting to get an introduction by an IRS special agent.
When Joe called me up, When Joe called me up, he said he was a special agent from the IRS.
And I said, boy, this is interesting.
You're the first one that ever admitted you were one of those guys.
I've had them in my house before.
They pretend like they're some poor taxpayer and try to get me to say things, you know.
The last one I had, I sent him to the most expensive tax attorney in town to get help.
You know, a little over 200 years ago, there was a guy named Thomas Paine.
And you know how he did that?
He published a pamphlet called Common Sense, and he got about 30,000 copies out.
Now, there was only a few million people in the country at that time, so that was a very large number of pamphlets, considering the population.
He got out information, and he caused a revolution.
Now, what's been one of the biggest problems that we've had in terms of getting out information?
Well, the press in this country and the media in this country tend to pick and choose their
issues and it's very difficult to get issues that are a little different or, you know,
like a little questioning into the forefront.
But you know what happened a couple years ago?
The internet came out.
And when the internet came out and really got going, I got an idea.
I said, you know, I think I'll take some inspiration from this guy Thomas Paine.
And so what I did is I took my book, Why No One's Required to File Tax Returns, and I
Everybody in the country can download it at no charge.
Right now I'm getting a thousand hits a day.
Okay?
A thousand people a day are looking at my book, and a lot of those people are downloading that book.
So the first thing I want to tell you, everybody grab a pencil and a piece of paper.
When you are done here and you're ready to look on your computer, go to www.anti-irs.com.
That's www.anti-irs.com.
And I want you to check my website out, download that book, make copies of it, and pass it out to everybody that doesn't have a computer.
Do you know what would happen in this country if 100 million people would read my book this year?
Do you know what would happen?
The income tax would end!
Because my book proves!
Thank you.
My book proves beyond a doubt that there's a severe problem with the federal income tax and that the United States government is ignoring the Constitution and giving us all kinds of doublespeak to keep the income tax in place.
Now, if a hundred million people understood that, There might be a hundred million people that don't file tax returns next year, and the income tax would come apart, and it would have to be changed to a more fair and just tax system.
And everybody who gets on my website and reads that book will have the information in their head to understand what we need to do about this.
So that's the first thing we need to do.
It's going to be an easy, peaceful, simple revolution.
And the reason it's going to be so simple is because filing tax returns is voluntary.
And I'm going to prove that to you in this speech.
About, well, it was 1976, which was the 200 year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
I was walking around the block near my house, and there was a little garage that had a big sign on it that said, National Tax Drive.
And I walked in there, and man, there were some of these kooky old guys.
You know, they were about the age I am now.
They were propounding these incredible ideas.
And I said, man, I don't believe this stuff.
Could this really be true?
Well, I was a school teacher in those days, and I needed a little bit of extra intellectual stimulation, so I started hanging around the law library at night.
And I started reading up on stuff.
And you know what?
I found out that there are some severe problems with the federal income tax.
And so I wrote an article.
And it was published in a local Denver newspaper.
And two days later, I got a big nasty looking letter from the IRS auditing me with a TCMP audit.
A Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program audit.
I was a little teacher who made $12,000 a year and I had no deductions and these guys were giving me an audit?
Why was that?
They were auditing me to punish me for exercising my First Amendment right.
Now what kind of a country do we live in?
I make a criticism, a valid criticism of the federal government and I get punished with an audit.
So I got a little upset.
I didn't know what to do about it at first.
And I went to a tax attorney and he looked at it and said, well, um, you know, I'll go to the audit for about $2,000.
And I thought, for $2,000, that's like how much, that's how much money I make in four months.
He wants four months worth of my salary so that I can go defend the fact that I gave the other six months of it to the IRS.
And what do they want?
The last four?
So I was, I don't know, I was upset.
I didn't know what to do.
So I started like looking around and I found some guy.
who had just graduated with his master's degree in tax law, and he was interested in getting some experience.
He'd written his master's thesis on the Anti-Injunction Act, which is a law the government has to protect us from suing them.
If they mess around with us on the tax system, they have this protection in the law.
And he wanted to see what we could do.
So, we sat down and we wrote a lawsuit.
And lo and behold, the lawsuit did get kicked out because of the Anti-Injunction Act.
However, what the IRS had done, and you can read about it in my book, What the IRS had done is they had written a very nasty letter stating that they were going to take certain actions.
Well, the Federal Court, the Court of Appeals said that in order to take those actions, the IRS had to issue a summons first and follow summons procedures.
And they said, it's true, Conklin can't file this lawsuit because of the Anti-Injunction Act, but the IRS can't do what it wants to do anyway.
So I got an injunction, essentially.
Because the IRS couldn't turn around and do what it was going to do without issuing the summons.
Later on, I had five more related wins in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I tied the IRS up for over 20 years on that audit.
I cost them probably millions of dollars.
Just imagine right now.
The IRS audits 2 million people a year.
What if every single person who got an audit notice next year refused to go into the audit and filed a lawsuit instead?
Can you imagine all the IRS auditors would be twiddling their thumbs, District Counsel and the United States Attorney's Office would be completely buried, and the income tax system would be enforceable, and all you're doing is taking advantage of the rights you have as United States citizens.
And you know what?
It's easier to file those lawsuits than it is to fill out a tax return.
That's how ridiculous it's gotten.
The other day I was riding my bicycle up Glenwood Canyon, and I stopped to talk to some guy.
Glenwood Canyon's in Colorado.
Far cry from Washington, D.C.
And what happened was we started talking and this guy says, well, what do you do?
And I says, well, I wrote a book called Why Nobody's Required to File Tax Returns.
That's all I have to do.
I mean, say that to anybody in the country and you're going to get a speech.
So I sat down.
What's this guy going to say to that?
That I'm a kook?
Or is he going to say I'm cool?
The guy says, he says, I'm an attorney.
He says, tell me a little bit about this.
So I told him, I said, well, I'm not a tax attorney.
He says, but more power to you.
He says, I spend hundreds of hours every year trying to figure out this tax system.
Somebody's got to do something about it.
Now, you know, 25 years ago when I said stuff like this, everybody thought I was a kook.
And now there's even IRS special agents that don't think I'm a kook.
Well, I really got into this and I started researching and I filed a lawsuit against the federal government.
I knew there was a judicial conspiracy to protect the income tax.
And so I figured out a kind of lawsuit I could file, that no matter what the court said, I'd have something I could say about how they made a mistake.
So what I did is I gave the IRS power of attorney to file off future tax returns for me if they could do it without waiving my Fifth Amendment rights.
And I sent them a tax return that was filled out, and the only thing it didn't have on it was my signature.
And the IRS fined me $500 for filing a frivolous tax return.
I followed the procedures.
I paid.
And I filed a claim for a refund.
And when it was denied, I filed a lawsuit in federal court.
The judge had a motion hearing on my motion for summary judgment.
He said to me, Mr. Conklin, there's something I have to tell you that's fatal to your case.
And I said, what's that, judge?
I thought he was going to tell me that I was, you know, my argument was bad.
No, he didn't say your argument was bad, Mr. Conklin.
He said, Mr. Conklin, what's wrong with your case?
He said, you're asking me to overturn the federal taxes.
And I'm not in a position to do that.
Well, of course, Judge, you might lose your posh job if you did something like that.
No, I didn't say that.
Well, I just listened to him, you know.
And five years later, he finally came out with a written opinion.
I waited five years for that!
Can you believe that?
So, five years later, he comes out with a written opinion, and he says, Mr. Conklin misunderstands the nature of the Fifth Amendment.
He said, the Fifth Amendment applies only to compelled testimony, and therefore, Mr. Conklin's wrong.
It obviously doesn't apply to statutes, since statutes aren't compelled testimony.
Well, that's a lie.
If you've ever looked in the dictionary, if something's not compelled, it's voluntary.
Now, the IRS knows that it's voluntary.
And you know, what eventually happened, and I took that one up to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals sanctioned me $6,000 for raising the frivolous appeal that we are required to file tax returns.
You see, I appealed that judge and said, Judge, you're wrong!
It is compelled testimony.
The Circuit Court of Appeals didn't even read my brief.
They just fined me $6,000.
I took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court denied me certiorari, but that's common because they only hear about 1% of what's presented to them anyway.
You're not going to get a chance to bring a case to the Supreme Court that's going to overturn the federal tax system, and that's why we have to put this in the hands of the people and tell the people to vote.
You know what happens?
You know, there's a lot of people that don't vote in this country.
But you know what?
An amazing amount of people on April 15th vote in favor of the federal income tax.
So why don't you just quit voting?
Don't send your ballot in on April 15th.
Well, what does the IRS say about this?
I went through the Internal Revenue Manual.
It's a great big, huge book, you know?
I mean, it's so big that if you tried to pick it up, it'd break your back.
And I went through this manual.
This is before they had computers, you know, that would do this for you.
And I looked through the whole thing, and I found the word voluntary many times.
Listen to some of these.
Chapter 6200 at 6210 states that, quote, it is the goal of the Internal Revenue Service to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws, unquote.
Chapter 100 at 110 states that, quote, the primary mission of the taxpayer service is to promote voluntary compliance through education and assistance to taxpayers.
In Part 4, under Section 6810, Taxpayer Service, it is stated at 13311F that, quote, returns are voluntarily submitted by taxpayers.
Why does it say returns are submitted by taxpayers?
Why does it say voluntarily submitted?
When you add an adjective, or an adverb, or some sort of modifying word in a sentence, it's to add meaning to the sentence.
Why would they need that word unless voluntary meant voluntary?
In Operating Techniques and Reporting Section 6810 of 13911A, the manual states, quote, securing a valid voluntary income tax return from the taxpayer.
In the section on IRS policy statements at P484, the manual states, quote, the purpose of the criminal tax investigation is to enforce the tax laws and to encourage voluntary compliance.
In the general section of 422-65-3, it said that, quote, when a person indicates that he or she will voluntarily comply, but requests that he be served, they're talking about a summons.
And obviously, the word voluntary means voluntary there, because if the person doesn't voluntarily accept the summons, then he has to be served by the Marshal, by the United States Marshal.
Okay?
So now, does the word voluntarily mean something different in that sentence than it means in the previous sentences describing tax returns?
In the Automated Collection Function Procedures of 55354, the manual states that the IRS may file returns under 6020B if the returns are, quote, not filed voluntarily.
OK?
Voluntarily, by the way, in Webster's Dictionary means, quote, brought about by one's own free choice, given or done of one's own free will, freely chosen or undertaken, arising in the mind without external constraint, spontaneous in law, action done without compulsion or persuasion.
Now, you know, when you get your tax return in the mail, they send you a blank tax return in the mail to remind you to file one.
You know, there's a lot of summons, case law.
Especially in the last few years.
And there's a case, I believe it's in the Eleventh Circuit, called the Argoman's case.
And in the Argoman's case, this guy took the Fifth Amendment when the IRS asked him questions.
He went to a summons, and you know, if the IRS gives you a summons and you don't show up, they can take you to court, and get the judge to order you to answer the questions, and if you don't answer them, the judge can hold you in contempt, and he can put you in jail, until you answer those questions.
And you know, federal judges have an incredible amount of power.
They can even put you in jail criminally and civilly.
They've got two different ways they can approach it.
And the law gets pretty complicated on it.
So the thing is, you can go to jail if you don't answer these questions.
But yet, the government states filing tax returns is voluntary and at the same time turns around and indicts people for not volunteering to create the illusion that we are required to file.
To God is unbelievable subterfuge.
You have a system where the government outright, on one hand, tells the truth, and on the other hand, indicts people in order to make people perceive that there's some sort of situation here that really doesn't exist.
The purpose of the indictments, the purpose of what the IRS does is to scare and intimidate people into voluntarily waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and giving the information to the government that can be used in criminal cases.
And how do we know it can be used in criminal cases?
Well, somebody like me has seen it firsthand in hundreds of different situations and in many thousands of hours of federal trials.
But if you just look in the Privacy Act notice that comes with the 1040 instruction booklet, you'll see this, quote, We may give the information to the Department of Justice and to other federal agencies as provided by law.
We may also give it to cities, states, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Commonwealth for Possession, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax laws.
So, if you fill out a tax return, theoretically you could be prosecuted by the country of Iran for something if the United States government wanted to give them a copy of your tax return.
Now, you know, our Founding Fathers Put the Fifth Amendment into the United States Constitution for a reason.
And for those of you that don't know what the Fifth Amendment is, the Fifth Amendment is the amendment that says, essentially, that we, among other things it says, we do not have to give the government information that could be used in a criminal case.
Well, my question for you to all ask your congressmen is, do we waive our Fifth Amendment rights when we file a tax return?
And if so, what statute requires us to waive our Fifth Amendment rights?
Okay?
If we do waive our Fifth Amendment rights, what statute requires us to waive our Fifth Amendment rights?
Don't ask them whether you're required to file a tax return or not, because they'll just come up with some gibberish.
Of course, they'll probably come up with gibberish in response to this question, too.
And, if we don't waive our Fifth Amendment rights, then why does the Privacy Act notice and the 1040 instruction booklet give us a Miranda-type of warning?
And for those of you that don't know what a Miranda warning is, a Miranda warning is a warning that the police give to people, telling them what their rights are and whether they have to answer the questions or not.
Another interesting thing is this, and Joe would be quite familiar with this, if a special agent from the IRS ever knocks on your door and he's investigating you criminally, the first thing that he'll do, or should do, is read you your Miranda rights.
And then after that, anything you say, he can use against you criminally.
Well, maybe the first question to ask a special agent is, after he reads you your rights, you say, well, if I was to have answered that question yesterday, before you came here on a 1040 tax return, could you have used it against me?
I don't make him think a minute.
And by the way, if a special agent ever knocks on your door, don't talk to him.
Except maybe to answer that question?
Because he will become a witness against you in the tax case.
And you know what?
I have more than once seen government agents on the stand misrepresent the fact situation.
And they are trained so well in their subterfuge that it's very difficult to deal with.
I will tell you that government agents do not always tell the truth on the stand.
And that's why, when you say something, it can be confused and convoluted and messed around.
So, don't waive your 5th Amendment rights.
And remember, be extremely careful about waiving your 5th Amendment rights if you're considering filing tax returns in the future.
Well, you know, I was so sure of my idea that I put out a $50,000 reward for anybody that can prove I'm wrong.
And everybody who's watching today I would love for you to apply for the reward.
Because you know Melvin Belli, the famous power milling attorney in California, a few years ago did apply for the reward.
And he said, Mr. Conklin, there is a way that you can file a tax return without waiving your Fifth Amendment rights.
He said, here's how you do it.
He said, you give an attorney, power of attorney, to file the return for you.
And you pay him, and he'll pay the IRS out of the trust fund account.
And then he'll file the tax return, and he'll sign it as the preparer of the return.
And where it says your name, he'll just write in a code number.
When the IRS calls up to the attorney and says, whose tax return is this?
We'll take attorney-client privilege.
Well, that's pretty good, Melvin.
But here's the problem.
What happens when the IRS proceeds civilly or criminally?
Let's take, for example, the IRS proceeds criminally against a guy.
Well, this would be a great stint operation against the IRS.
Can you imagine the IRS spending three years investigating some guy criminally?
And then it goes to trial.
And the IRS presents their case and the guy and his attorney just sit back there enjoying the game, you know?
And then the guy gets to put his case on.
And what does he do?
He puts the attorney up on the stand.
And the attorney waives attorney-client privilege and waives the guy's Fifth Amendment rights.
And what does he say?
He says, oh yeah, this guy filed and paid his taxes.
Here's a copy of his tax return.
And the IRS wrote a letter of notion.
They got it with his number on it.
Well, there goes the criminal case.
IRS just wasted three years.
But the point is, what happened?
The attorney waived the guy's Fifth Amendment rights in order to prove that the tax return had actually been mailed in, and certainly it wasn't filed legally and credited to the guy's account until the attorney did the testimony.
So I said, Melvin, sue me!
And I wanted to make sure he sued me, so I put an advertisement in a California newspaper that says, Bell Eye Backs Down, but he still didn't sue me.
Now, I have thought, if anybody's interested in this, a great way to really cause the IRS trouble would be for about a million high-rollers to go file this way.
Let's say a million people in the United States filed and then wrote all kinds of letters to the IRS, you know, but they had an attorney file for them this way.
Can you imagine the IRS and does a criminal, a hundred criminal cases that year, they go to trial and every single one of them an attorney gets up and says, oh yeah, the guy filed and paid.
Can you imagine how that would disturb the federal tax system?
If a hundred criminal cases in one based on something like that?
I'm serious!
There's all kinds of really creative, neat things that can be done.
So, what I want everybody out there to do, first of all, is to read my book and get educated.
Secondly, get the information out!
If you've got friends that don't have a computer, go down to Kinko's, print out ten copies of my book and pass them out.
It's copyrighted, but you've got my permission.
Okay?
If Kinko's won't print it out with the copyright on it, tear off the copyright page.
But get it out there, okay?
Get that book out there.
Because you know what?
We have a chance, because of the internet, for the first time in history, to do what Thomas Paine did 200 years ago.
And we're going to change this federal income tax, but you know how we have to do it?
Each one of us has to take responsibility for doing that.
Don't go vote in favor of the income tax on April 15th.
Do something!
Make a change!
I don't care what you do!
At the very least, read my book, think about it, talk about it, because you know a grassroots movement in this country will change the federal income tax, and with the power of the internet, and the power of getting information to the people without having to go through Random House or NBC News, Without having to do that, with getting the information directly to the people, with that kind of power, we can make this change in this country.
So let's do it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Bill.
We're going to take a brief break at this point, and when we return, we'll be hearing from Larry Becraft, the attorney.
And General Counsel to the Wallace Institute, and then Dan Mitchell from the Heritage Foundation.
We'll reconvene here, Harvey, ten minutes?
Ten minutes.
They'll be right back, because I've cut the break down.
And what was that all about?
We'll take this opportunity to ask that you write your questions, if you have a question of any of the panel members or myself, that you write your question down on the pads that have been provided for that purpose, and we'll have someone, one or two people, walking around looking for your questions, and then we'll After we hear from Mr. Becraft and Mr. Mitchell, we'll then
have time to respond to as many of those questions as we can.
Larry Becraft, our next speaker, graduated in 1972 from Stanford University in Birmingham,
Alabama, cum laude.
Graduated in 1975 from Cumberland School of Law.
In 1975, he was admitted to practice in Alabama and he has been admitted to practice and argued before the U.S.
Supreme Court and all federal appellate courts except the 1st and D.C.
circuits.
He has represented lead defendant Franklin Sanders In the longest tax trial in American history, involving some 26 defendants, and all defendants were acquitted.
Mr. Becraft is the General Counsel to the Wallace Institute.
Board members, D.B.
Kidd, General Bed-Pardon, and former judge, Bud Baxter.
Let's give a warm welcome to Mr. Larry Becraft.
Thank you Bob.
Um...
I would like to make an ad advertisement right now, if I can, you know, just taking this opportunity before this crowd and this national audience.
If you would like to know more about the Wallace Institute, if you'd like to know more about what I have to say, there's two webpages that I would direct your attention to.
One is DD Kids.
And the URL for that is just simply dddvdy.com.
And then, of course, my webpage, which is the Dixieland Law Journal, it's associated with a good friend of mine's webpage, Scott McDonnell.
He has the Fight the Fingerprint webpage.
But ours can be accessed through just simply type in NetworkUSA.org.
And you'll find a lot of information, both regarding the Fight the Fingerprint issue As well as my views about taxation, and if you run over to Deedee's webpage, you will find the Media Bypass article that is coming out, that came out yesterday, regarding the Columbine shooting that Deedee wrote.
It's now posted to her webpage.
I really advise you to study those particular webpages.
Now, it's been mentioned that our organization, the Wallace Institute, we had Jeff Metcalf, host of one of the radio talk shows at KSO.
We have General Ben Parton, my fellow Virginian, sitting over here in the room with us.
He's a board member of the Wallace Institute.
We named the organization, the Wallace Institute, not after some former governor in Alabama.
We named the Wallace Institute, Dede's the one that picked the name, Because my favorite movie, as well as hers, is Grave Hunter.
And I think that the objective and purpose of the Wallace Institute is much like the words of William Wallace.
If you're watching the movie, the first scene of the battle, you know, you have some people that are trying to desert.
Oh, we don't want to fight.
What does William Wallace say?
He says, well, you fight and you may die.
Run and you'll live.
At least a while.
And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance?
Just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom.
And those words kind of bring up into me To make me choke a little bit.
And I think that the other people that are involved with the Wallace Institute agree with those words.
Ours is a quest for freedom.
Now we've assembled today for the purpose of objecting to at least one thing that I think is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, and that is the federal income tax.
And I would like to comment, make a few comments this morning regarding some of the Things I have learned by engaging in an almost 20-year study of the federal income tax.
And I would like to repeat the words of Senator Elihu Root back in 1913, when they were arguing about the very first federal income tax, which, you know, I've made copies of all of the acts regarding the income tax.
And that first income tax couldn't have been 20 to 25 pages long.
Today, this is half of it.
But back then, Senator Elihu Root made a comment, which I think is particularly appropriate.
He was talking about the complexity of a first income tax, and this is what he said.
Well, I guess you will have to go to jail.
If that is the result of not understanding the tax laws, I shall meet you there.
We shall have a merry, merry time, because all of our friends will be there.
It will be an intellectual center, for no one, no one has sufficient understanding of the Income Tax Laws except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.
Now let me just tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I think that that is an apt description of both the law then as well as today.
Now let's talk about a couple of legal principles that I think you need to understand in order for you to comprehend the argument that I would like to present for you today.
First, how many people here believe, this may be an outstanding proposition, you may have never heard of it before, but how many of you believe that you can rely on the word of the Yeah.
We should be able to rile the government, as astounding a proposition as that may be.
Let me give you an example, a case that illustrates that legal proposition.
Reverend Cotts, back during the Civil Rights era, was leading a protest in Shreveport.
He had a whole bunch of his followers.
Something happened the night before.
Some of his people were arrested.
They're jailed.
They're going to be arraigned this bright early morning at the state courthouse.
And he's leading a band of his followers down to the courthouse to demonstrate.
Well, he was told by the chief of police that he could not demonstrate near the courthouse, and then the chief of police proceeded to tell him where he could hold his demonstration.
Well, the prosecutor must have been looking out of the second floor of the courthouse and said, hey, I want to nail Reverend Coste.
Proceeded to do so.
The charges against Reverend Coste were Demonstrating near a courthouse.
But, what's wrong with this picture?
Reverend Cox had been told by the chief of police where to hold his demonstration.
Reverend Cox went to trial, was convicted.
Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but the United States Supreme Court reversed and said, hey, look, it is reprehensible conduct on the part of the government for the government to tell you something and then turn around and deny it.
And in this situation, Reverend Cox had been subjected to conflicting authority from the government.
One said he could hold a demonstration at a spot where he did, and then he was accused by another government official of violating the law.
Let me give you another example.
Mr. Albertini.
Albertini was a fellow that liked to, out of the 9th Circuit, protest against nuclear power.
Out there in Hawaii, they do have those nuclear subs that pull into the Honolulu Harbor.
And he didn't like nuclear subs.
Well, he would protest against it.
One time during the protest, he was convicted.
Charged and convicted for violating some law regarding an anti-demonstration event.
He appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit came out and said, well, gee, he has a First Amendment right to do that.
Albertini immediately, once he gets his decision from the judges, what do you suspect that he does?
He goes out and engages in another protest against nuclear power on the submarines.
In the interim, the United States government says, well, gee, we need to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
The government did.
The United States Supreme Court reversed.
And now, Albertini, having relied upon the word of the government, having relied on the word of the courts, finds himself back in trouble again.
Well, he was prosecuted, convicted.
But this time, the appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the court said, well, gee, he relied.
Even though we were wrong.
He could rely on the word of the courts.
Now, those suitcases, a part of a line of authority that says you can definitely rely on the word of the government, leads into this next proposition.
What happens when the government gives you two conflicting voices?
What happens when the government says yes, and what happens when the government says no?
Well, a demonstration of this is the case of Miss Critcher in the Fourth Circuit.
Miss Critcher, an Indian that lived down there, obviously, on one of the reservations in North Carolina, she was told by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that she could rely on their advice, and their advice was that she not file income tax returns to report the income that she made on the Indian reservation.
Well, naturally, Ms.
Kreitzer relies on this advice, but the IRS comes along years later and disagrees with the advice that she had gotten from a government agency, and she was prosecuted and convicted.
And on appeal, the 4th Circuit said, it is amazing!
Look at this vast situation!
We have the government saying on one hand that Ms.
Kreitzer, this little lady caught in the middle, wasn't required to file returns, and then a government agency on the opposite end of the spectrum saying that she was required to file income tax returns and this poor little old lady is caught in the middle and because she received conflicting advice to prosecute her constituted a due process violation.
Now let me just tell you ladies and gentlemen with these legal principles what I would like for you to understand is that based on what Bill Benson's discoveries have shown That the American people are in fact being subjected to a monumental due process problem.
It is far larger than the due process problem that was presented to Ms.
Christner.
Let me explain my position.
As Bill told you, he checked out the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
The government says, and we can rely on the word of the government, the government says that 38 states ratified the 16th Amendment.
Well, the constitutional threshold, since we had 48 states in the Union back in 1913, the bare constitutional threshold to adopt the 16th Amendment was 36 states.
It appears to me that if we merely eliminated three states, we would have a valid position that the 16th Amendment had failed to be ratified.
Well, let's go over those quickly.
I will kind of recover some of the grounds that Bill was talking about.
One of my favorite states to show today, As an example of a state that failed to ratify the 16th Amendment is that of Kentucky.
You heard Bill a few moments ago talking about what Kentucky did.
February 8, 1910, the proposition.
Now the House, before that time, had adopted the 16th Amendment, and obviously they had failed evidence of the ratification by the House in Kentucky.
And that's it for tonight, folks.
Good night.
God bless each and every single one of you.
Good night, Annie Plough and Allison.
that is part of the documentation that bill discovered that our country's
industry well what did the contempt of the city
and that's it for tonight folks goodnight god bless each and every single one of you goodnight
any food allison
i love you tomorrow night's episode of the hour of the time folks.
Every single night that we're on the air, we're going to expose the criminality of the Internal Revenue Service and the misapplication of the unconstitutional income tax upon the American people.
Find the law that requires you to file and pay the income tax that was passed by the Congress.
If you can't find one, and you're still filing and paying, You have to sit down and examine, what does that mean about this country?
And what does it mean about you?
Because I'll tell you right now, you're just a coward.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
This tyranny, this despotism be lifted from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
This tyranny, this despotism be lifted from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
We need to stand up and we need to demand that this tyranny, this despotism be lifted
from us.
I don't know.
▲
Export Selection