KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEDERAL TAX LAWS AND THAT CONFLICT IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
Former Federal District Judge Harry Claiborne admitted that, while he was a federal judge he knew nothing of federal tax law, yet decided tax cases.
In Bursten v. US, 395 f 2d 976, 981 (5th. Cir., 1968), the court acknowledged:
In Lord v. Kelly, 240 FSupp 167, 169 (D. Mass., 1965), it states the judges are under IRS scrutiny.
Even though the judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the tax laws, they sit in judgment and prosecute and/or defend the average citizen. Even though this is the case, the citizen being charged with a tax crime is supposed to have more knowledge than the law professionals and is held accountable by these professionals.
Under the criminal law, a criminal defendant has a right to rely upon decisions of the courts and this is a separate defense; see the Albertini case from the 9th Circuit. But further, if these decisions concerning a specific point of law are themselves conflicting, there is the additional defense of the uncertainty of the law.
The nature of the income tax is itself conflicting. At the state level, most of the state courts hold that the tax is an excise, while a minority line of authority holds that it is a direct property tax. The reverse is true at the federal level, with most appellate courts holding that it is a direct tax and a minority holding that it is an excise; see the attached list. Since there is no doubt that this conflict is present within the cases, this demonstrates a very serious due process problem of uncertainty in the law.
To violate a clearly known legal duty, one must plainly know the law. But when the law itself is unclear, there correspondingly cannot be a clearly known legal duty. What kind of legal environment do we have when the law itself is uncertain ? We have every right to politically complain about the split and to promote one line of authority over the other. This clearly appears to be the case with the Save A Patriot Fellowship; its members face a split in authority which makes the law uncertain. For that the Fellowship and its members have every right in the world to advocate that a particular line of authority prevails at the end of the contest over the opposing line of authority.
Last Update: 02/21/97
Web Author: The Disciples of Truth
Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD R SAFE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED