|
Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJMaytag |
May 21, 2005
Hard Evidence That Form 1040
Has NO Legal Basis In Law
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaw...e2005-05-21.htm
IRS Withdraws Criminal Allegation, Tax Convict Walks Free
Although the People's war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse
has been lengthy and daunting and has left many freedom fighters
across our nation battered and bankrupt, there are continuing signs
that the tide of tyranny may finally be meeting effective resistance.
On April 12th 2005, William Wallace Lear of Muskegon Michigan
appeared in federal District Court in Grand Rapids to face IRS
charges claiming Lear had violated the terms of his probation.
William Lear had served one year in a federal detention facility in
Minnesota following his conviction in 2002 for Willful Failure to
File income tax returns (a misdemeanor). His probation began in
March, 2004.
The basis for the probation violation hearing was an IRS claim that
Lear failed to abide by the strict terms of his probation which
included the requirement that he file all his delinquent tax returns
and pay all back taxes and penalties owed.
Just as the hearing before Judge Gordon Quist began, the DOJ
attorneys moved to dismiss the IRS's probation violation claim
against Lear that would have sent him back to prison.
Although Lear had filed his missing returns signing them "under
duress" (which IRS does not allow) and failed to pay the taxes owing
on those returns, Judge Quist signed an order, completely releasing
Lear from federal custody. As of April 12th, Lear has been a free
man.
An important question remains: Why? Why would the IRS and DOJ walk
away from a golden opportunity to make headlines and send a
convicted tax protester back to prison?
Before answering the question, let's review some of the key
developments leading up to the April 12, 2005 probation violation
hearing.
After serving his 1-year sentence and after his return to his home
in Michigan to fulfill his probation, Bill Lear and his wife
Rose "dug back in" and continued to review the extensive body of
legal research that had originally caused Bill Lear not to file.
During the summer of 2004, they constructed a "Challenge of
Authority" document relying on legal material from various sources
including comprehensive research posted by WTP in May 2004 and that
has since been sent repeatedly by the Foundation (and others) to
various officials of the U.S. government, including the President's
current Advisory Panel on Federal Tax reform.
This research conclusively documents that IRS has no legal authority
to impose taxes on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans.
Particularly damaging in the challenge was recently archived
documentation from the government itself clearly showing that IRS
Form 1040 is a "proposed" information collection form and that there
is no legal authority cited for its use.
On October 4, 2004, during a meeting in the offices of their
Congressional Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Lears formally
served their Challenge of Authority on three IRS agents and engaged
in a significant discussion about the limits of their authority. The
IRS agents refused to respond to the Challenge of Authority simply
stating that it is not the "practice" of IRS to respond to such
requests.
What the agents did not know, however, was that two weeks earlier,
on September 24th, the Lears had filed the same document as a formal
public legal record in their local county courthouse at office of
the Registrar of Deeds.
On February 28, 2005, after additional contacts with IRS officials
in which Bill Lear repeatedly asked the IRS to provide specific
legal guidance to him so he could know which tax form the law
required him to fill out, and thereby comply with the terms of his
probation, the Lears again confronted the IRS agents in a meeting in
Rep. Hoekstra's office.
At that meeting, and after a heated discussion with IRS agents,
confronting them with government documents and evidence clearly
showing Form 1040 has no authority in law, IRS ended the discussion
by telling Lear that the law required him to use "Form 1040" to file
his returns.
Frustrated and agitated with the exchange, IRS Agent J. McWilliams
stated that Lear "wasn't cooperating with the IRS", and that Lear
was "going back to prison."
On March 2, just days before Lear's probation was due to expire, IRS
filed a probation violation complaint with the federal probation
office. Lear was promptly served Notice of the hearing that could
send him back to prison.
On March 4, the Lears filed a Habeas Corpus regarding the original
conviction.
On March 9, Lear filed a pleading answering the alleged violation of
probation.
On March 10, Lear also decided to "hedge his bet" and filed the
delinquent tax returns, but signed the tax forms "under duress."
On March 14, 2005 - Lear appeared before Magistrate Joseph G.
Scoville who found cause for the violation and sent the case to
Judge Quist for a formal hearing.
It should be noted that IRS routinely rejects tax returns
signed "under duress" due to the obvious due process implications
related to the use of force, threat of force, or other intimidation
to coerce an individual to swear to a statement made
under "penalties of perjury." It should be further noted that
although required by the terms of his probation, Lear did not make
any payment toward the alleged taxes or penalties due for the
returns he was convicted for willfully failing to file.
Finally, on March 21st, the Lears filed a Motion to Quash the
Release Revocation Hearing. Contained within this motion was the
formal "Challenge of Authority" document that had been previously
recorded in their local county courthouse as a legal public record.
On April 12, Lear and his wife Rose appeared in court for Bill's
probation violation hearing.
Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged probation
violation and asking the court to send a "recalcitrant tax convict"
back to prison, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdrew their
complaint alleging the probation violation.
WHY?
Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court
cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting of
certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be
self-authenticating and valid as evidence.
Here is the text of Rule 902, sub-paragraph (4):
| quote: | Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to
admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(4). Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official
record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by
law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a
public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as
correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the
certification. |
In other words, in facing a public criminal hearing where the
contents of Lear's "Challenge of Authority" was, without argument,
directly relevant to Lear's alleged violation, and knowing the
District Court could not deny its admittance as evidence, the DOJ
was faced with two unpleasant alternatives: either produce IRS
witnesses to explain away government documentation clearly showing
IRS Form 1040 is not a legally authorized form, or walk away from
the probation violation hearing.
IRS walked.
Rather than take a potential headline-making opportunity to publicly
chastise and send back to prison a convicted tax protester who had
dared – even after conviction -- to continue questioning the legal
authority of the government, the IRS and DOJ instead withdrew their
criminal complaint, thereby avoiding having to confront – on the
record – the damning evidence contained in Lear's formal Motion to
Quash and its "Challenge of Authority" exhibit. (Note the legal
argument regarding the lack of authority for Individual Form 1040
begins on page 4 of the Motion to Quash.)
By withdrawing the IRS complaint against Lear, DOJ avoided having to
publicly attempt to rebut Lear's legal research and having to admit
that the government could not cite any legal authority requiring the
filing of a 1040 Individual tax return.
On April 25th, despite the facts that Lear had filed defective
returns signed "under duress" and also failed to pay the taxes and
penalties owed for the returns he was convicted for failing to file,
Judge Quist signed a formal order completely freeing Bill Lear from
the terms of his probation.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio is currently
considering whether to certify Lear's most recent Habeas Corpus
motion to vacate his conviction. That motion is also based upon the
new legal research contained in his "Challenge of Authority."
The Hard Evidence That
Form 1040 Has No Legal Authority
In their "Challenge of Authority" document, the Lears provide hard
documentary evidence that IRS Form 1040 has NO legal authority.
This evidence was presented by contrasting archived government
documents that have been filed pursuant to the federal
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA).
Under the PRA, each and every government form that is used to
collect information from the general public under law must be linked
to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations and have a
valid Office of Management and Budget "OMB" Form number. This
requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which
statutes, regulations and forms are related.
As one item of evidence, the Lears produced a stamped copy of a 1987
Treasury Department document entitled, "Request for OMB Review"
which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was
for IRS Form "1040-NR", the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to
report their "income".
Several things about this document are noteworthy:
The form used for the request is OMB Form "83"
On line 5 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to
cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection of the
information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited.
On line 27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to
cite the regulations actually authorizing the collection of the
information. The authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited.
Click Here to See the "OMB Form 83" Treasury request for IRS Form
1040-NR for use by Non-Resident Aliens
Here's where it gets very interesting:
The "Challenge of Authority" document also contains a similar
Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the "regular"
IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year.
This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB "Form 83" ---
- but rather using an alternate OMB form, "83-1" titled, "Paperwork
Reduction Act Submission".
Several very important differences between the OMB request forms
need to be noted:
OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of statutory
authority.
OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of regulatory
authority.
In the "Certification" box found on page 2 of Form 83-1, there are
specific references to
both PRA Regulations "5 CFR 1320.9" and "5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)."
The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily of a
list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are
merely (quoting) "associated" with IRS Form 1040.
Click here to see the Treasury request using OMB Form 83-1 for the
IRS Individual "Form 1040"
Here's the punch line:
IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as complying
with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8.
In its request to the OMB for IRS Form "1040-NR", the Department of
Treasury (IRS) clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory
authorities authorizing the use of the form to collect information
and certifies its request as such.
Click Here to read the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) form disclosure
requirements found at 5 CFR 1320.8.
Please specifically note that for the Treasury's request using
alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the Treasury
has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9,
which is explicitly reserved for "PROPOSED" government forms.
Printed just below is the title header for federal regulation "5 CFR
1320.9":
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 5, Volume 3]
[Revised as of January 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9]
[Page 155]
TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--Table of
Contents
Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of
information.
As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection
of information, the agency (through the head of the agency,
the Senior Official, or their designee) shall certify
and provide a record supporting such certification)
that the proposed collection of information [...]
In short, if IRS Individual Form 1040 was actually authorized under
U.S. law, the Department of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB
certification using OMB "Form 83" which requires explicit citation
of the Form's authorizing statutes and regulations.
Instead, the IRS used alternative OMB Form "83-1" -- which is
designated ONLY for "proposed" government forms – and which does NOT
require any formal citation of legal authority allowing its use.
Furthermore, even though an attachment to the Treasury's request for
IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form 83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes
and regulations, and "Box 12" on the form is marked indicating the
form is "mandatory", a careful reading of the submission to OMB will
make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY certifying
that:
Form 1040 is a "proposed form" and that, IF authorized, it would
meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9,
and
That Form 1040 is only "associated" with the statutes and
regulations cited in the 1040 request, and
If Form 1040 were actually authorized by law, it would
be "mandatory".
As a final observation, it should be noted that both the 1987 Form
1040-NR request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed by
the same IRS officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports
Clearance Officer and one Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental
Reports Management Officer. Lear's pleadings contain additional OMB
certifications, also signed by Shear & Holland.
In short, the Department of Treasury's clear and willful intent to
use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS
Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling
proof establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form,
and that there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use.
A Nation of Law?
The documentation presented above is additional evidence weighing
against our government, in favor of the People's Petition for
Redress of Grievances regarding a system of taxation that is without
reasonable question, devoid of constitutional and statutory
authority.
In this article we have shown once again, that the government simply
refuses to answer legitimate questions regarding its authority to
force People to pay a direct, un-apportioned tax on their labor ---
questions that are based on compelling documentary evidence
establishing that the government is abusing the People by violating
its power to tax.
As the government continues its refusal to properly respond to the
People's Petitions for Redress, the Petition process has
unfortunately reached the point where the People have been forced to
begin retaining their money as the means to peacefully enforce their
Right to secure proper Redress -- i.e., to obtain answers to the
People's legitimate questions regarding an array of substantive
violations of the founding principles and abuses of the limited
powers delegated to the government by those that created it to serve
them.
Thus far, the government has improperly responded to the People by
using the People's First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of
Grievances as grounds for still further acts of abuse. The
government continues to apply heavy-handed enforcement actions
against the sovereign Petitioners who are exercising their Natural
Rights and dominion over their servant government.
The actions of the U.S. government are wholly unacceptable for a
free People. Under the circumstances, the People are morally,
legally and Constitutionally justified in retaining their money
until their grievances are redressed and their questions are
answered. There is no other non-violent way for the People to hold
their government accountable to the Constitution with its guarantee
of Individual Rights.
The We The People Foundation is committed to peacefully securing
freedom and reestablishing our founding principles -- no matter the
cost. It is a sign of hope and the power of Righteousness that in
the name of Liberty, a single, dedicated and determined Michigan
family has taken just a few tidbits of the body of evidence this
Foundation has made publicly available and has made a compelling
case in a federal court that the DOJ and IRS chose to walk away from.
Ours is a Nation of Law. The People must not, and cannot, tolerate a
government that ignores its own laws -- or the fundamental Rights of
those it is intended to serve.
No Answers, NO Taxes.
We ask you again, to support the work of the Foundation and please
consider a modest one-time or monthly donation to help us continue
our ongoing battles in the courts of law and public opinion against
those that would seek to slow our progress or silence our voice as
we demand Constitutional Order and reclaim Freedom. |
|
|
| Belgian Bonzai |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
the People's war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse
has been lengthy and daunting |
Reading this post has been lengthy and daunting.
Sorry, I'm still in COR mood, should probably STFU. :o
I'll leave the discussing to you guys.
But I like paying my taxes, they're organised so fair here in Belgium :) |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai
Reading this post has been lengthy and daunting.
Sorry, I'm still in COR mood, should probably STFU. :o
I'll leave the discussing to you guys.
But I like paying my taxes, they're organised so fair here in Belgium :) |
I was properly brainwashed by economics classes in high school and college, so I used to think of it as our civic duty to pay taxes, and even paid an extra $25 per check! (usually got a HUUUUGE return at the end of the year)
It wasn't until some research into the history of the tax code put some serious doubt in my mind as to whether or not I was really liable to pay taxes. I (like many others), relied up the idea that "everyone else has to do it, so I should to" and the old saying "the only certainties in life are death and taxes" to scare me into doing them. After having done some extensive research the past few years (and watched as several court cases went AGAINST the IRS) plus no longer filing, I'm convinced that something isn't right with the US tax system - and that I had been paying federal taxes that I didn't owe for years. |
|
|
| jdat |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
I was properly brainwashed by economics classes in high school and college, so I used to think of it as our civic duty to pay taxes, and even paid an extra $25 per check! (usually got a HUUUUGE return at the end of the year)
It wasn't until some research into the history of the tax code put some serious doubt in my mind as to whether or not I was really liable to pay taxes. I (like many others), relied up the idea that "everyone else has to do it, so I should to" and the old saying "the only certainties in life are death and taxes" to scare me into doing them. After having done some extensive research the past few years (and watched as several court cases went AGAINST the IRS) plus no longer filing, I'm convinced that something isn't right with the US tax system - and that I had been paying federal taxes that I didn't owe for years. |
Way to go champ :rolleyes:
You're just like the average american who feels oppresed by taxes when they fail to realize they are the lowest taxed country in the civilized world.
Paying taxes is not fun but it's a civic duty. Without taxes there's not much outside of our homes that would work well.
In other terms it's a necessary evil. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| I've read about several other successful cases challenging IRS rules & administrative procedures, but it is fairly clear that it is Constitutionally valid for the legislative branch to set taxes. If people in fact were not at all liable to pay federal taxes, how on earth would even the most basic government functions be paid for? Would we not have a military? |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I've read about several other successful cases challenging IRS rules & administrative procedures, but it is fairly clear that it is Constitutionally valid for the legislative branch to set taxes. If people in fact were not at all liable to pay federal taxes, how on earth would even the most basic government functions be paid for? Would we not have a military? |
Excise taxes, tariffs, foreigners working in the US on visas (non-resident aliens), and taxes on individuals/corporations engaged in international commerce. These things are all within the governments jurisdiction to tax, and were designed to be the government's primary source of income (there is still a pretty massive amount of money coming in from these sources today). I believe it was either Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton who was quoted as saying these things would be sufficient to fund the government.
You betcha we'd have a military, and it would be paid for with what I just listed. It would be vast difference in funds as compared to our current situation, but that would be a GOOD thing, as the focus would be on national DEFENSE, rather than wars of conquest like we're on in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a good chance we could have averted 9/11 if we had a military that was supposed to do it's primary job - defend our country! |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
Excise taxes, tariffs, foreigners working in the US on visas (non-resident aliens), and taxes on individuals/corporations engaged in international commerce. These things are all within the governments jurisdiction to tax, and were designed to be the government's primary source of income (there is still a pretty massive amount of money coming in from these sources today). I believe it was either Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton who was quoted as saying these things would be sufficient to fund the government.
You betcha we'd have a military, and it would be paid for with what I just listed. It would be vast difference in funds as compared to our current situation, but that would be a GOOD thing, as the focus would be on national DEFENSE, rather than wars of conquest like we're on in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a good chance we could have averted 9/11 if we had a military that was supposed to do it's primary job - defend our country! |
I have a slightly different interpretation of Article I, Section I, Clause 1:
| quote: | | The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States |
It seems to say they can collect taxes, which is stated in a very vague way, in addition to the items further listed.
I'm not sure we would have a sufficiently funded government without any income taxes, but that's an interesting question you bring up on whether we would have gone to war though, which I certainly agree defense is too heavily funded. |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I have a slightly different interpretation of Article I, Section I, Clause 1:
It seems to say they can collect taxes, which is stated in a very vague way, in addition to the items further listed. |
Have a read over on http://taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html to see a good explanation of the Constitutional limitations that the government has in regards to taxes.
I don't disagree that this part of the Constitution is valid. In fact, this further proves that most US citizens aren't subject to taxes on their income, because this part would have to have been repealed in order for the 16th Amendment to have truly allowed a tax on incomes as it's often mistaken for having.
The point of my original post was to show what the LAW says. The Constitution is simply a document that states what powers WE THE PEOPLE have granted the Federal government. The laws of the United States are based upon what the government can and cannot do, and rulings have been made to support this or make changes in the law if the law is wrong (ie the income tax act of 1894 was thrown out by the Supreme Court, as it was ruled unconstitutional). From the research that's been done, there seems to be NOTHING written into the law (the US Code, or Title 26 of the code in the case of taxes) that can be shown to prove that most US citizens are required to file and pay taxes on their income. Do a seach at http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php and search for "1040" in Title 26. It's not surprising, given the research I've been following, that there is NO mention of a requirement to fill out a 1040 form in the Tax Code!
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
I'm not sure we would have a sufficiently funded government without any income taxes, but that's an interesting question you bring up on whether we would have gone to war though, which I certainly agree defense is too heavily funded. |
It becomes a question of idealogy and history if every single person in the US had this info, and stopped giving the IRS money they didn't owe. At that point, the Federal government would be at a point of funding just like it was pre-1913, where it's ONLY source of income was from tariffs and excise taxes. The government was much smaller and less intrusive because it was limited by what it could spend. Can that be said of today's government?
Sure some services would have to go if everyone knew of this, but being the Constitutionalist that I am, I would be fine with this. The 10th Amendment would be the fall back, as the powers not delegated to the Federal government would then (properly, I might add) be reserved for the states to implement whatever services they feel are needed. At least this way, those in charge of those services at the state level are much more responsible and accountable to those in their respective states. |
|
|
| smokeape |
I might disagree about the authority of the IRS to collect taxes on IRS Form 1040 as well, but can ill afford lengthy litigation behind bars while doing so and irreparably damage my reputation for current and future employment. The incarcerated normally have the time to closely study case law, since they have nothing else to do but time, while normal folks have to work to make a living.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
I might disagree about the authority of the IRS to collect taxes on IRS Form 1040 as well, but can ill afford lengthy litigation behind bars while doing so and irreparably damage my reputation for current and future employment. The incarcerated normally have the time to closely study case law, since they have nothing else to do but time, while normal folks have to work to make a living.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
Well, said individual was convicted and on probation... refused to comply with the terms of his probation then the IRS dropped their case against him and his probation sentence was set aside.
Vernice Kuglin went to trial with similar arguments and the IRS was unable to prove it's case against her, and she walked free.
I'm aware of a few others, but these are the most recent high profile cases. I'd be more than willing to let the government try to prove me wrong (in fact, I DARE THEM!). Given my spotty work history, I can certainly afford to take one for the team, in hopes of adding my name to a growing list of people who are challenging the government and winning so that the truth may come out for the rest of ya'll to benefit from.
BTW, I don't dispute that the IRS does have the authority to collect some forms of taxes. There certainly are types of taxes that the IRS does have jurisdiction over to collect, but I don't believe that my income falls in that category. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
I applaud your sharing this information. About a year ago, We The People had a news conference on CNN (whatever) once and when I went to check out their website it became unreachable.
You, like I, are seeking answers to questions that the IRS refuses to answer. Do not be dissuaded by comments of people that don't have time to read Title 26.
What people fail to realize is that the Constitution does not apply to the IRS since they use the US Code Title 26 and therefore expects John Q. Public to use the same. And since Johnny is expected to peform under 26 IRC it becomes de facto as opposed to de jure.
And since people believe in "keeping with the Joneses", they do not care to challenge authority (public servants serve the public and not the opposite).
| quote: | Although Lear had filed his missing returns signing them "under
duress" (which IRS does not allow) and failed to pay the taxes owing
on those returns, Judge Quist signed an order, completely releasing
Lear from federal custody. As of April 12th, Lear has been a free
man. |
Hmm, I wonder why the IRS doesn't "allow" a 1040 signed under duress...
| quote: | It should be noted that IRS routinely rejects tax returns
signed "under duress" due to the obvious due process implications
related to the use of force, threat of force, or other intimidation
to coerce an individual to swear to a statement made
under "penalties of perjury." It should be further noted that
although required by the terms of his probation, Lear did not make
any payment toward the alleged taxes or penalties due for the
returns he was convicted for willfully failing to file. |
[sarcasm]No the IRS wouldn't intimidate anyone, no not them, they're the good guys.[/sarcasm]
| quote: | The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the I-don't-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study and to understand. Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more popular one.
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing |
I like to study. |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
You, like I, are seeking answers to questions that the IRS refuses to answer. Do not be dissuaded by comments of people that don't have time to read Title 26. |
THAT'S the funny part, when people go on like they know all about taxes when they've never even done the research into Title 26. |
|
|
|
|
