This account documents the outright abuse of political power of officials Colorado. The story starts with an experience with the IRS. Because of her involvement with a criminal defense IRS attorney, Sanders was intimately exposed to unscrupulous IRS employees. She thought that reporting these abusive agents to the courts would result in justice for the victims. Instead, she learned that without the assistance of abusive judges, public officials could not have been abusive to citizens for so many years.
Instead of holding the executive branch accountable, the Colorado courts had Sanders' evicted from her own property at gunpoint. Read how the courts violated all Colorado Title Conveyance Laws to take Sanders' property and leave her homeless and destitute. Read how the Colorado courts suppressed evidence and denied Sanders a jury trial. Read how Sanders fought back, resulting in the Senate Hearings in 1998 and in changes to IRS laws. Linda names all officials who are guilty of lawless acts, including judges, the District Attorney, the Public Trustee and the Clerk and Recorder. Linda documents the illegal acts committed against her. The courts attempt to cover up their abusive acts with insulting, unsupported orders. The most obvious facts that prove Sanders was 'right' in her legal position, and that this case is not a case of "disgruntled litigant," is the fact that the courts illegally and arbitrarily denied a jury trial (thereby controlling the outcome of the case) and the public records which show Sanders was evicted by court order - not by foreclosure procedure, (the only legal way a title can be conveyed involuntarily). After this major violation, the courts had to violate one law after another to cover up. If Sanders had been "so wrong" and deserving of plundering and pillaging, then why couldn't the courts take her property without violating the laws?
A True Story About The Abuse Of Judicial Discretion
In Littleton, Colorado And The Remedies Employed Against It
by Linda Sanders
TO: MY THREE CHILDREN
Whose childhood wisdom and acceptance of life's adversities exceeded that of my own.
November 8, 1999
"We all know how careers are made.
Integrity is something you sell." *
* Steve McQueen's line from the film "Bullitt."
Author's Note
Littleton, Colorado. Everyone in the civilized world has heard of this town. Within the span of one year this community suffered three tragedies: First the Columbine School massacre, then the teenagers shot in a local Subway shop, then the little boy's body found in the dumpster in the local Bowles Crossing shopping center. Someone suggested it was karma. Well, if a community's leaders have anything to do with bringing on karma – then Littleton qualifies.
The events in this account all take place in Littleton, Colorado's jurisdiction.
Everything in this story is true. Every name is the true name of those involved – except of course the IRS pseudonyms, which they have been using to protect themselves from personal responsibility. Some of the people quoted had asked me not to repeat them – but alas. They abdicated their obligation to help me, so I abdicated the assumption that I would honor that request. As they say, the gloves are off. I imagine there will be more retaliation against me at the hands of those who don't like what I'm exposing here. I will probably be charged with something and accused of all sorts of awful things to shut me up. But, until then, I remain an advocate of Truth. An unlicensed, and therefore, uncontrollable, lawyer.
No one's dignity has been spared here. All these events are public record. I deem this information beneficial to the "health, peace, safety and welfare" of the general public – since they need to know what their courts are doing. I am sure that some of this material is going to outrage these judges. But, as they say, and as they have had rammed down my throat for the past 6 years, life is full of little disappointments. Besides, I think I'm a better, stronger person for having been so abused as described in this story. The Judges here must stand proudly by their decisions – deeming them "fair and just". They have shown me that they are impervious to answering for any wrong-doing – so what harm can I do them with the disclosures?
Now we have the impartial Internet which owes no political favors nor can it be bribed. AHA! The computer! Is this the multi-colored jeweled blinking instrument (the color of rubies/amber/sapphires that John saw in Revelations??) All America – Europe – Asia etc. can read the unedited version of the Truth.
Enjoy. And learn who your leaders are. And – as "they" are so willing to tell "us" - conduct yourself accordingly.
Introduction:
I imagine that everyone - at some time - has suffered the indignity of knowing they are "right" but unable to prove it. That's one kind of frustration. Mine was different. I could prove I was "right" with hard core, documented evidence from published legal authority, but the courts said that application of law is discretionary. All the law is there in row upon row of library shelves, for the illusion that we live in a civilized society - governed by the fair and impartial application of law to everyone. Perhaps minorities reading this will scoff, and say they've known for years about the "discretionary" nature of law. But what I point out here is that there has never before, as in recent years, been so many cases where Orders have been written with such blatant disregard for fact and law. The courts are in anarchy. In my case, I had presented evidence at Congressional hearings, the witch hunts of 1998 as the IRS calls them, showing how an IRS agent committed perjury and falsified documents to "get me". Rather than apply the laws that govern perjury and fraud, the court determined that because I was a political nuisance, then perjury and fraud is acceptable, the "law" be damned. Abuse by government is justified if visited upon a person who criticizes the executive branch. Theft by court order and perjury is "harmless error."
Knowing that the legislature has provided a remedy to the public when judges are wayward I pressed on, and challenged that arrogant presumption with "the remedy". I brought a lawsuit through Quo Warranto, against the judges who violated the published law or deemed it inapplicable to me. I was shocked that that case went before the same judges who were the subject of the action. I petitioned the State Supreme Court to make those judges remove themselves from the case. The Supreme Court denied my petition. End of remedy.
Such was my baptism into the reality of available remedy. There is none. Legal precedent does not exist per se in today’s courts. The new standard is "judicial discretion", a pervasive practice which has all but destroyed The Rule of Law in America. Without law there is anarchy and the worst kind of anarchy is that which is mired in a shapeless art-of-words where every phrase is meaningful by context and desired results only, and which changes to protect the agendas of the privileged at the expense of objective truth. Flexible standards depending upon who the victim is – not what the law is.
None is more expert at manipulating words than William Jefferson Clinton. The litmus test of the New Truth was established during Clinton’s impeachment proceedings. Now perjury is a perfectly acceptable practice if one is privileged to operate under governmental immunity. The public witnessed outright lying by the government’s chief executive and cared little because he was "doing a good job". Machiavelli has become mainstream. Lying is now acceptable in all venues, from the bedroom to the boardroom to the oval office to the courtroom. Only fools operate on complete integrity or believe it exists in the business world. Even bigger fools enter the court room believing that "truth, law and justice" influences the proceedings because it's the "American way". This book is a "caveat emptor" to all potential applicants of the judicial process. The following pages will hopefully give the reader an insight into a judicial system that is a far cry from the carefully manicured images shown on television. I challenge any law professional – especially judges – to prove otherwise. The events here show that either the judges were innocently unqualified in their field or blatantly corrupt.
Either way, they shouldn't be sitting on the bench.
Prologue:
I awoke from the nightmare bathed in sweat. In this horrible dream I was a child. in a darkened room. There were many adults milling around in black robes speaking in hushed tones. Their attention seemed to be focused on something I couldn’t see. I pushed through them to get a better vantage point. Finally breaking through the forest of adult bodies I saw a casket bathed in a lone spotlight. I immediately recoiled as an overwhelming sense of foreboding rushed over me. Because I was small, I couldn’t see who was in the casket and I didn’t want to see. At that moment, large hands grabbed me and pulled me up high enough so I could see inside the coffin. I looked into all the faces of the adults and screamed, "I don’t want to see! I don’t want to see!" It did no good to scream. They had no ears. And it did no good to struggle against the adult who held me. He was too powerful. Finally, I was directly above the coffin my head was being turned forcibly by another adult. I had no choice but to open my eyes to look at the dead one. The dead one was me. How was I to know that this nightmare would become a metaphor for a real-life episode which changed my thinking forever? How was I to know that the adults in black robes would be judges in Colorado courtrooms lifting me up to show me the death of truth, honor and objective law?
As an American I could not believe that the courts could legalize the theft of my home through a tax sale which violated every procedure required by "the code". As one trained in law, I was astonished that every available remedy under the law was denied me. I was incredulous to the fact that the courts were using their power to punish me for my outspoken criticism – instead of addressing the lawlessness.
While this manuscript was being written, one reader asked me - "Why didn't you just sell the house and pay the IRS? It seems to me that you were either very naive or very arrogant."
Well. Let's get that question out of the way.
How long does it take to get a buyer or get a home equity loan? The tax laws say 40 days and for that reason requires two Notices – a 10 day notice and a 30 day notice.
I was given neither. IRS skipped right to the Notice that says your house is being auctioned. I refused to redeem the house after the sale because the illegal sale had tacked on much more costs and expenses that I believed I shouldn't be forced to pay.
I guess I was "naive". Naive to believe that the courts feel obligated to enforce the law even when their friends break it. As I pressed on, investigating the people involved in violating me, I discovered these very suspicious facts: The person who bought my house (value: $250,000) for the lien ($26,000) was himself an auctioneer. I learned through public records that he’d been involved in at least two other windfall property takings by the same IRS agents and same judge; the judge involved was an investor in many “distressed” property sales; when I demanded (through discovery) for evidence that the investor/auctioneer paid for my lien I was given copies of the checks he used to pay the IRS – they were certified checks made payable to HIMSELF. This begs the question: who really paid for the lien and who got the profits ? I also learned that since no commercial Title Company would insure the titles of properties sold by the IRS in such a questionable manner, these defective titles have to be insured by a private title insurance company. Coincidently, the Title Company that insures these titles is privately owned (no public records) and the only way they would ever have to pay out for a defective title is if a court held them liable. When I took this company to court with evidence from the Senate Finance Committee Hearings and a confession from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (that the proceedings in my case involved exposed lies and cover-ups by the IRS agent) the court dismissed my case. The name of the Title Company that the judge so earnestly defended is: Attorney Title Guarantee Company. Hmmmm. I wonder who the stockholders are in this company? After I took an abundance of evidence of all this corruption to the local D.A. for prosecution - I learned that his wife is an IRS agent and worked at the same office as the agents who illegally seized and sold these properties!! The D.A. is also very good friends with the County Clerk and Recorder, and the Public Trustee – who I also charged with allowing the recording of a defective title conveyance. (The public record still shows that my foreclosure was withdrawn by the bank and title was never conveyed pursuant to Colorado title conveyance statutes, Title 38). The Clerk and Recorder is now a Colorado Senator.
Here’s the story:
Saturday November 6th, 1999
"Did you open it?" I asked.
He shook his head. Chuck, my companion, handed me the envelope. This is what I'd waited for, worked for, was obsessed with, for the past four years, 6 months and 26 days. The adrenaline rush was both good and at the same time, sickening. Half of me believed that the court order could not be anything but victory after the evidence I'd presented two weeks earlier - but the other half of me realized that what I'd exposed was very embarrassing to "the dignity of the court" and their essential partners, their co-conspirators, the "executive branch". The truth had been suppressed before - and I knew that it was possible it could be again. But all I needed was one good judge. Did I have that this time?
I tore the envelope open, and skipped down to the last paragraph. My eyes saw the words "frivolous, " "dismissed" and "defendants may submit a bill of costs".
That sick feeling that accompanies despair poured into my belly. First thought: HOW could any judge do such a dishonorable thing? How could she sign something like this with no conscience? Something so obviously unfair, and contrary to the truth and evidence? How can they destroy lives with such blatant disregard and still sleep at night? I looked at my watch – it was 5:30 p.m. I imagined the judge laughing and enjoying dinner on this Saturday night - oblivious of the fact that she had insured the destruction of my home - and that of my children's - all to protect an IRS agent and my adversary's lawyer, an "officer of the court" who had knowingly permitted his client to omit facts in a deposition, to conceal fraud. Since when were judges allowed to abet the obstruction of justice instead of mete it out? How could this be happening? Stupid questions, I know now. There is no place for naivete in the justice system. But, I reasoned, I had presented impeccable evidence. I had an expert witness and an official government report under Rule 803(8). And no one presented a rebuttal. Isn't that a slam dunk for me? Rules of Evidence says so. Oh - unless I misunderstood. The Rules of Evidence are there to suppress evidence as necessary - not expose the truth. Any criminal defense attorney will tell you that. The legal arena is not a "search for the Truth". At best, if the rules are applied, it is a "game of wits" - "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
I read the order more carefully and saw that the judge had effectively destroyed any potential appeal by wording the judgment in that magic language which closes the door to appeal, because appeals can only reverse a decision if there was an error in the court procedure, committed by the court, like failure to apply a rule fairly. I knew full well that a "finding of fact", as opposed to application of a procedural rule, is declared “not reversible”. Her "findings" were absolute - and how many times had I been told that you can't ask the appeals court to reverse "findings". To add insult to injury, she demonstrated how hastily she wrote the order because she didn't even have the subject matter identified properly in the opening paragraph of her "Order and Judgment". The entire litigation which involved my home identified "Rowland Drive" - but her Order, in the first paragraph, identified some other property. She didn't even read my legal arguments, and she ignored my evidence. How contemptible to take her sacred job so lightly. Not even the courtesy to pretend she was being impartial and reviewing both sides of the argument. I had heard that this Judge, Judge Ruthanne N. Polidori had a son who had been in trouble with the cops. I secretly hoped he would do all the drugs he wanted, drink like a fish, crash as many cars as he liked - and humiliate his mother as much as he could. This same judge, again, disclosed her contempt for the nuclear family when she entered a ruling in another case, stating that "parents have no right" to be noticed when their minor children are cited for breaking the law. Right on, Ruthanne, baby. Enforce the Global Village – children belong to the state. Anyone who has been involved with social services knows what I am talking about.
Go through the order, I thought. Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it clues me in on what I did wrong.
It didn't. Each of the judge's "reasons" for denial were in such contradiction to the law, it was impossible to accept its false and corrupt pretense of justice. The order stated,
Relief denied because the court is not persuaded by the testimony of the IRS Expert nor the Senate Report. The expert and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are full of shit.
Relief denied because the taxpayer was too poor to pay the tax lien in cash lump sum so the IRS was justified in taking a $250,000 house for a $26,000 tax lien, notwithstanding the tax liability was being paid off through wage garnishment.
Relief denied because taxpayers are too late for justice. The order said IRS sale took place in March, 1994, and the case was brought in 1999. Too late for justice – even though Colorado title law, CRS 38-41-111 allows 7 years to bring a real property action.
(Even if the court used the 3 year Statute of Limitations, the clock started in April '98, when the IRS confessed to the misrepresentation in their Senate Report regarding the issue, since exposure of a defect starts the clock, not the asserting of a purported defect).
Relief denied because Linda ratified fraud by accepting an IRS check sent to her illegally without her application, after the illegal sale, for a meager amount, representing a fraction of the stolen equity in the house.
This is preposterous because I screamed fraud from the start, and used the reservation clause under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. 1-207, "under protest") to preserve my argument when taking the IRS check to pay my lawyer. Besides that, how can fraud be ratified? Crimes can be ratified? I even asked Jefferson County, Colorado District Attorney Dave Thomas to prosecute the fraud. He didn't. His wife, Shirley, is an IRS agent and friends with the one who committed perjury.
As I read the order, I tried to make some sense of how a judge could do this to me. I now knew the meaning of the term, "speechless". The throat closes up, vision darkens, and the mind disconnects from the body. After a few moments of confusion, a voice from somewhere says, it's only a bad dream. The hapless victim of this illusion then opens their eyes. Looks around. It isn't a dream. It's happening. Forget about positive thinking. At that moment, I completely regretted having been so deceived by the walls of books at the law library which describe every law for every little circumstance. I had relied upon an illusion. Those law books are ignored by the courts. They are there only to placate the public into thinking that we live in a predictable civilized society, governed by civilized law. "Judicial discretion" voids all law. A judge can follow the law or ignore it in order to "reach the public good". And it's in the "public good" to eliminate laws that are in harmony with the Constitution, because now, 200 years later, it's too much trouble to respect the life of any given individual - over the masses - which is all the Constitution does.
I wanted to justify the loss. Could I have been wrong? Could it be that the court was justified in doing what it did to me? Maybe I deserved what I got. I re-played the whole story in my mind, from the start.
October, 1988
Three little hands, age 6, age 10 and age 12, held out their wine glasses. Each had a wicked gleam in their eyes - anticipating a taste of the forbidden fruit. My husband and I had opened a bottle of champagne - oohing and ahhing appropriately to enhance the significance of the moment. Our little family was standing in the sunken living room of our new home. We were about to spend our first night in the house "that the Burge's built". All of us. Each pair of little hands had helped clear the land, plan the foundation, paint the walls and lay the floors. One year of work had come to an end, and indeed, as God said, "it was good". We poured the champagne. The 12 year old, Jeremiah, maintained his dignity as he stoically sipped the god awful tasting stuff. The 10 year old, Daniel, simply stated "yuck, here, you can have mine" and the 6 year old, Emily, who thought she was 21 when she was born, promptly began sneezing.
A treasured moment. We settled into our dream existence. A cedar and glass dwelling, designed to enhance the blessings of mother nature on eight and half acres of a hill that had been untouched since the Indians were displaced in New York State.
October, 1989
It wasn't long after we'd moved in that the tax assessor came along and inspected the number of bathrooms, and bedrooms and acres we had. He decided that we owed a good deal more to the community than he'd originally estimated, in light of the fact that our town had became a "bedroom community" for the white collar employees of New York City. The population boomed, new schools and roads had to be built. Real estate tax went up. And up. And up. And our salaries stayed the same. Not being psychics, we had not planned for this. We started to choke on the monthly mortgage and tax payments at the same time we wondered if the grass was greener somewhere else. Our little town of Blooming Grove had been infiltrated by the "White Plains" residents who moved to our town for the "cheap taxes" - but their definition of "cheap taxes" was $5000.00 per year. We locals were used to $1000.00 per year. Before we knew it, the school bond issues included designer swimming pools and tennis courts – and higher property taxes requested by the "city transplants" that came to Blooming Grove and drove into the "city" every morning. Reluctantly, we decided to sell the house - take the money and do something outrageous. Tell the boss to fly a kite.
August 1991
The decision was made. We were leaving New York. We felt quite smug that we were about to do what others only dreamed about. We were going to shout - "You ain't gonna have us to kick around anymore!! Heh Heh! Take this state and all its taxes and - shove it!"
During a brain storming session, wondering how we could pack up and "go west" most efficiently, Emily (who was now 40 going on 8) suggested that we buy an old school bus. (We were behind a school bus at the time of the discussion). We knew that school buses were maintained impeccably, and even though the only ones you can buy are ten years old, we knew we could get across the country safely in it. We had the seats cut out, and began filling the cavity with the only belongings left after the moving sale. We decided to go some place where the taxes were low and the government was small enough to be beneficial and effective. We thought that place was Colorado, because some of our family was there, and that's what they said. (Hah! From the frying pan into the fire.)
When the house that the Burges' built was sold, we paid off all our bills, packed up the school bus and our car, and headed west. It was a warm and happy time, filled with anticipation - and the feeling of freedom as we tooted on down the highway was something to experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the intimate time in the car with each of my children. As a captive audience, they were duly informed of how wonderful life is for those who have initiative and courage to "work hard" and take chances. If only we'd known then what we know now!
On the fifth evening on the road, we arrived in Colorado. Eleven weeks later, we were sleeping in our new home, and both Harvey and I had new jobs. We weren't earning very much money - but we didn't care or need it, because we'd put all the remaining money we'd brought from New York, into the down payment on the Colorado house. We figured with a low mortgage payment, we could survive on near minimum wage salaries, which would cover food, utilities and everything else. You'd think so, huh? We filed our tax returns that January. Because we paid a "tax preparer" to work out our Income Tax returns every year, my husband and I did not know specifically about "capital gains" taxes, and that essentially, one is taxed on any profit from the sale of their home or other investments. The system was not designed to permit one to benefit from sweat equity and "buy down" because, at that time, buying down meant a sizable portion of the profit had to be paid to the IRS off the top. One of the greatest evils of the U.S. income tax system is that it encourages, even rewards, cheating or creative bookkeeping as it is euphemistically called. Fortunately for others, my work against this terrible policy has changed the law. Today, a couple can keep up to $500,000 profit on the sale of their home before paying a capital gains tax. See publication 523 at page 12.
Completely honest returns are only filed by self righteous fools who believe they'll receive compensation in the great here after reward program or for those who trust the wrong tax professional to take care of them. We fell into the latter category. Through our tax preparer, we reported the sale price of the New York home, ($270,000.00) and the purchase price of the Colorado home ($170,000.00). We paid off bills and received no credit or deductions for using the profit to pay off our obligations. Had our tax preparer been more qualified in her field before taking money for her trade, she would have explained to the us the repercussions of buying down and the creative bookkeeping techniques necessary to eliminate the "profit" on the Form 2119.
"Oh honey", said one Californian, "You were supposed to put down that you fixed up the old house to sell it, and improved the new one so there was NO profit! Silly!!" I also later learned from a lawyer what a Starker exchange is, e.g., you and a friend or relative (preferably senior citizens who were allowed tax free profit prior to the reform of the capital gains laws in 1998) take out liens on each other's property, so that there appears to be no equity in the house when it's sold. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20. Because we trusted our tax preparer, Ms. Perrego, we naively signed our 1991 tax returns and sent them in. We had no idea we'd signed our own financial execution documents. The Nightmare had begun.
October 1992
There was a little yellow postcard in the mail box, summoning me to the Post Office to pick up certified mail. Rarely having received certified mail, I had no idea what it could be. I even imagined that it was good news, some inheritance perhaps.... When I picked it up, it was a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, along with a letter from the local IRS telling us to "pay the tax". It was $26,000.00. It may as well have been a million. That amount, said the IRS is due because it represents the United States share of the profit on the sale of our New York home, otherwise known as a "capital gains tax". My first thought was - why? Why should the government get a percentage of the profit on the house that WE built? I mean, where were THEY when we were up at dawn chopping the trees, hammering, nailing, gluing, tiling, painting and otherwise ripping skin off various parts of our appendages? What is this capital gains tax? I called the IRS and set an appointment with the sole intent of venting my opinion.
"What a ridiculous tax! It penalizes the hard workers. What? I wasn't supposed to buy down!? I was supposed to buy an "equal to" or "greater than" priced house!? Well - then HOW does anyone get out of debt that way?"
"You're supposed to go bankrupt," said the IRS agent with all the sympathy of Attila the Hun. (Attila the Hun is described as the “scourge of God” by Webster).
Oh. We were supposed to max out our credit lines, and take a home equity loan, default on it, and stick the banks and creditors with the liability.
But we were NOT supposed to pay our bills and buy down. No never.
During my interview with the agent in charge of "collections" I pointed out that in order to pay the tax, we would have to sell the house we were living in.
"Right," said Attila. "You don't qualify for monthly payments because we can see from your 433A Financial statements that your income is not sufficient to assume another monthly payment. No liquidity."
"Well, let me get this straight. So if we sell this house, and give you your $26,000.00 - then we won't have the down payment for another house, so we won't be able to buy another "equal to" or "greater than" house - and you'll want another capital gains tax from us again next year due from this sale, right?"
"Well ma'am," responded the IRS agent, "I don't make the laws - I just enforce them."
March 1993
Within a month, we received a Notice of Intent to Levy and Seize our home. We were noticed that the home was going to be sold at auction and if we didn't find the money from somewhere, we should plan on getting out. I was outraged. I wrote to Congress, I wrote to the local newspaper editors, I wrote to the White House and George Bush himself, I wrote to the White House Liaison Committee. Sally Kelly, of the White House, wrote to the IRS for me.
That did the trick. They released the seizure. I heard no more from the IRS. The dogs had been called off.
However, the experience had made me bitter. I wanted to know how the United States government could be so quick to render good, honest people homeless. How the legislature could make laws that penalized financial responsibility. Indeed! I was supposed to go bankrupt said the IRS agent. I was supposed to have maxed out my charge cards, and taken out a home equity loan and THEN, when I couldn't pay it back - go bankrupt. Of course you get to keep everything you bought with the loan money and charge cards because those items are either perishable or are "unsecured". How preposterous, I thought. That only transfers the debt to the banks, and ultimately to consumers in the form of higher prices and interest rates. My quest to make sense of the whole rotten system of tax law took me into a labyrinth of evolving American policy and law. I engaged everyone I could in conversations about tax law. I learned about a whole group of people labeled "Tax Protestors" and Constitutionalists". I thought is was funny that the two labels described the same group - meaning the constitution must have been written and supported by tax protestors who today, are reviled by the public. But that was what Samuel Adams, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson and all the other early patriots. I began by reading the Constitution. The words of the Article I Section 9 jumped out at me. No capitation or other direct tax shall be imposed - meaning no tax on labor or one's "head". So what was the Income Tax doing being enacted? I was told that the 16th Amendment modified that organic portion of the Constitution. But then, by reading Supreme Court decisions, I learned that the 16th Amendment did no such thing. The conflicts between modern reality and the original Supreme Court decisions were blatant and shocking. In all cases the Supreme Court supported the literal language of the constitution. The income tax, said the Supreme Court, was not a direct tax applicable to wages of state citizens, but only to gains severed from capital, Bruschaber v Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, and Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111. Additionally, the federal income tax was limited to only the federal jurisdiction , U.S. v Worral, 2 Dallas 384, 393. and U.S. v Collins, 920 F. 2d 619 at page 629. So federal law was not applicable within the states unless it pertained to an area or jurisdiction granted to the federal government, by the constitution, e.g. forts, magazines, postal roads, etc. So the big question raised by the "Tax Protestors and Constitutionalists" (a/k/a "anti government" types), was, "How can the federal government make a law that directly affects the people in the several states when the constitution prevents the federal government from having jurisdiction inside the states?" According to the early Court decisions, the constitution limits federal legislative powers to only national concerns and requires that any income taxes needed by the federal government, be collected by the state governments. The only amendment to that requirement, was the 16th Amendment, which removed the "apportionment" requirement. But the tax still had to be administered by the states, because the Federal government had no jurisdiction to legislate for the states, pursuant to Article I Sec. 8 which limits the federal legislative powers to the 10 square miles around Washington, D.C. and "federal forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings". While legal scholars have debated that the supremacy clause of the constitution gives the feds power to supercede any state law, this theory is in contradiction to the wording of that clause. Article VI of the Constitution states that the fed laws are supreme only when they are made "in pursuance" to the Constitution. And the Constitution limits federal law to the jurisdiction of the 10 square miles surrounding Washington, D.C., forts, magazines, etc. So the supremacy clause doesn't give the federal government power within the states – no matter how you look at it.
If The Constitution Has Anything To Do With It.
These apparent contradictions between enacted law and the modern application of it was the issue in which I became most interested - and determined to force an answer from the government. I intended to utilize the citizen's right to "redress grievance" in the courts just like Rosa Parks did, and to demand answers to the discrepancies. Little did I know then what bliss ignorance is. For, once you are exposed to Truth, there is no turning back. Only a lobotomy can free you from the feeling of responsibility that Truth gives you. That is how you can tell the difference from real "truth" and the distorted truth that government sponsored religious groups give you. [Government controls churches and their teachings through the privilege of tax exempt status. Churches that are not tax exempt, e.g., not incorporated under 26 USC 501, can be more Christ-like]. You instinctively know when you are being deceived – when something you are being told doesn't seem right. The "Truth" is written on your "heart".
April, 1993
I began working for an attorney who was defending a group of people in Texas and Colorado from a criminal indictment for consumer fraud and tax evasion. These people, who called themselves the "Pilot Connection", had been accused by the government of putting forth the lie that "Income Tax is Voluntary" and that anyone who files a 1040 Form does so under a voluntary waiver of their right not to be taxed on their labor. Indeed, an Income Tax Form requires a signature under penalties of perjury - which essentially requires the signer to waive their 5th Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves (should they be cheating, of course) and requires that they contribute to their own potential prosecution. Definitely not in harmony with constitutional law - or even the Rules of Criminal Procedure. While this perjury clause sets the taxpayer up for compulsory incrimination, the defendants for whom my attorney worked, were being prosecuted for exploiting this little problem to demonstrate the inconsistencies between tax law and the Constitution. The Pilot Connection acquired members into their association by showing the public some Supreme Court decisions which supported their theories. The attorney, hereinafter identified as "HT" for reasons I shall get to in a moment, was a great scholar who researched so deeply into Constitutional law that he traced it back to the Bible. HT led the defense for these people by showing that legislative history and Supreme Court decisions declared the income tax constitutional because of the very fact that it could not directly tax labor. Therefore, argued HT, the federal income tax had to be voluntary to be lawful, since the constitution forbade a direct head tax. Ultimately, said HT, the assertion "income tax is voluntary" could not be incorrect and therefore to refuse to file and contribute, could not be breaking the law, nor qualify as tax evasion. HT presumed that this fact eliminated the "intent" necessary to get a criminal prosecution, and proceeded in this direction when defending the leaders of the "Pilot Connection".
While some of the Pilot Connection people were being prosecuted in Texas, others were operating an office in Parker, Colorado under the name "Liberty Foundation". These Pilot Connection leaders in Colorado came under investigation for the same reasons the group in Texas had. HT was retained to defend the members in Colorado and during the preliminary criminal process, HT maintained an office in both Texas and Parker, Colorado. One of the most significant rebuttals HT offered in defense of the Pilot people was what he called the "Fletcher letter reply". This letter rebutted the arguments put forth in an IRS boilerplate letter signed by phantom "Teresa Fletcher", which was sent to anyone who had asked the IRS for
their authority. The IRS's letter would begin by saying, "We will not enter into a debate with you about the legality of Title 26 of the United States Code. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws over the past 6 decades." I always thought that the "won't engage in a debate" part of the letter was a cop out. HT would rebut by saying, "yes, IRS, the income tax laws are constitutional - if they are applied as interpreted by the Supreme Court decisions that first interpreted them." HT found it interesting to note that many of the cases used to prosecute challenges to the tax laws were cases of federal courts, which are inferior to the decisions first entered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, HT noted that the mother of all tax protestor cases, the one most frequently applied to all challenges, including his Pilot Connection defendants, was Lonsdale v U.S., 919 F. 2d 1440. HT asserted that this case should not settle all other challenges to the application of tax law because the facts and circumstances in that case were different to the arguments presented by his clients. HT discredited the use of the Lonsdale case against his clients because the Lonsdale case involved a couple who had raised arguments against paying income tax, but were taking federal benefits. No wonder, HT said, the court ruled that Lonsdales arguments were meritless, even if only supported by the court's dictum alone, [dictum is a judge's say-so, unsupported by higher authority], because a maxim of law is that you cannot benefit from, and then reject a benefit, (quantum meruit) because receiving the benefit is ratification unless under "under protest". But, HT also asserted that a taxpayer could challenge the "voluntary nature of the tax laws" even after receiving a benefit, because it constituted fraud on the part of the government for failing to disclose that one has the "option" of filing voluntarily.
But, the one question that had never been addressed by the courts is how a person becomes "liable" to pay the income tax when all the early Supreme Court decisions say that a direct tax on labor cannot be constitutional and therefore, is not mandatory. The income tax, the Supreme Court said, is applicable only to the profit gained after being severed from the basis of the capital. Of course, all of this is impossibly confusing to a layman but HT knew he'd raised a significant question in defense of his clients. If the prosecutor couldn't overcome this question, the Pilot Connection could not be convicted of deceiving the public with the phrase, "Income Tax is Voluntary". HT's logic was impeccable. His passionate defense had the prosecution cornered. Then, for no apparent reason, he motioned to withdraw from the case - essentially abandoning his clients. Without missing a beat, the court granted the motion and assigned a public defender. (Eventually this public defender won the defendants a reversal on appeal - but without addressing the "income tax is voluntary" argument).
December 1993
I started to notice how HT was looking a little more stressed each day that he came into the office. His eyes became red rimmed, his skin became pasty, and he developed an incredibly raw looking rash on his face and hands. Unbeknownst to me, the stress he was suffering was incredible. I later learned that he'd been the subject of several Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") interrogations. He had been threatened with personal and professional ruin for his stand in defense of his clients, with exposure of his personal preferences. Finally, HT announced to the office that he was withdrawing from the Pilot Connection case. He simply announced his departure and regrets. He told me to "be careful" and wished me the best. Within the next week, he had packed a truck and moved back to Texas.
I was appalled. I thought that this was an act of abandonment because many of the people I did research for under HT were associated with the defendants in the Pilot Connection, and were in various stages of litigation in Tax Court and federal court. I was painfully aware of how HT's departure would affect these people. I was distressed that these people, who had relied on HT's defense arguments for their own, were going to be thrown to the wolves. More importantly, I wanted HT to take his argument to the finish. I thought he'd found a way of proving that the application of the modern Income Tax laws were unintended by the legislature based upon the research of early court decisions. If only HT had explained to us back then, that regardless of the intent of early tax laws, they had been re-interpreted since the 1940's and supported by the majority of citizens - creating a custom and policy superceding constitutional law.
I unilaterally decided to correspond with each client until they could find alternate legal help. For that reason, I was in the building on the Friday evening, December 7, 1993, when it was raided by the IRS criminal investigation department.
I had just walked back from the mail box just outside the Liberty foundation building, when Liberty Foundation's office manager, Chet Quance, met me at the front door. I immediately commented that the parking lot was unusually full for quitting time. More cars were entering the lot than leaving. Chet said maybe the insurance office upstairs was having a meeting - then he commented on the beautiful sunset. He successfully distracted me and I participated in conversation with Chet, all the while wondering what the commotion was in the parking lot. I disregarded it, and went upstairs to pack up my books and materials since I was leaving the office, since HT had already gone.
While talking quietly with another Liberty Foundation paralegal, Robert, we heard Lynette, a clerk who had just left for the day, running back up the stairs yelling that the parking lot was filled with men wearing black windbreakers with "FBI" and "ATF" written on the back.
"I think you guys are gonna get raided! Get out! Get out! I'm outta here!!"
Just as quickly, she ran back down the stairs to leave the building. Hot, liquid adrenaline poured into my bloodstream. My stomach clutched in anxiety. Robert, another officer worker, Rich, and I ran to each of the inside doors and locked them. We ran from window to window to see what was happening, but by now it was already dark and all we could see was many men in black clothes. During the commotion, Rich, Robert and I discovered that the office manager, Chet had swiftly left the Liberty offices for the safety of an office in another part of the building, outside the Liberty Foundation office area. I ran to different telephones and called friends, asking them to leave the line open to listen to what was about to happen. Robert, a young man working at Pilot Connection put a mini tape recorder in my shirt pocket to record whatever was about to happen. We heard the thumping of heavy boots running up the stairs. Our hearts were pounding. There was Robert, Richard and me. With violent pounding on the office door, a voice yelled, "Open the door! This is the Justice Department. We have a warrant! Open the door or we'll break it down!" Robert yelled back, "slide the warrant under the door!" The booming voice answered, "We have a warrant - open this door NOW or we'll shoot!"
Imitating Laurel and Hardy, Robert winked at me and said, "Well, then. You'd betta let them in, Ollie...". And he opened the door.
The following is an actual transcript of the tape recording that was running inside my shirt pocket, which hadn't been discovered because I had refused a "pat-down" by a male agent, as was my right when no female agents were available:
Agent: "Hands up! All of them! Hands up! You, you too! Anybody else in here?"
Robert: "No."
Agent: "Ok, let's turn around."
Robert: "Hey, you have to show me a warrant, sir."
Agent: "Yeah?"
Robert: "You have to show me a warrant."
Agent: "Put your hands up"
Robert: "I'm sorry".
Agent: "Put your hands up".
Robert: "Don't push me around. You have to show me a warrant."
Agent: (yelling) "PUT YOUR HANDS UP!"
Robert: "What's your name sir?"
Agent: "My name is Rossfield Clondike. {????!!!! yeah right, and I'm Minnie Mouse.]
Robert: "All right. (to another agent) What's your name?"
Silence.
Robert: "What's your name sir?"
Agent: "Special Agent Robert Smith".
Robert: "Robert Smith. Thank you Robert Smith. And what's your name?"
Silence.
Robert: "I want to see your warrant. I want to see ..."
Agent: "We have a warrant."
Robert: "Then show it to me."
Agent: "We're going to secure the premises before we show you a warrant."
Robert: "Excuse me. Don't push me around, buddy. You don't have any authority to push me around."
Linda: "What's this agent's name?"
Agent: "Ok Just calm down, ok?"
Robert: "No. Stop pushing me around. Show me your warrant."
Agent: "Ok. Calm down."
Robert: "You stop it. Don't push me around and don't put... Look you have to show me a warrant..."
Agent: "I'm telling you to calm down right now!"
Robert: "Hey, let go of my body. Let go of my body."
Agent: "We're in control here."
Robert: "You are not in control. Let go of my body."
Agent: "We're in control here."
Robert: "You are NOT in control. Let go of my body."
Linda: "As soon as we introduce ourselves...."
Robert: "Don't point that thing at me. Is it loaded?"
Agent: "Yeah, it might be."
Robert: "Ok. I'm telling you don't harass me."
Agent: "You just have to calm down. Ok?"
Robert: "Then let go of my body."
Agent: "Calm down..."
Robert: "Thank you..." [Agent released Robert's arm.]
Agent: "....or you are going to be handcuffed..."
Robert: "...thank you." [Responding to the release].
Agent: "...and go downtown, ok?"
Robert: "Sir, you haven't shown me any authority at all. Show it!"
Agent: "You got it. You got it. Let's go stand over here."
Agent 2: "Do you want to leave the place?"
Robert: "I would like to, yes."
Agent 2: "Then show us some identification."
Robert: "I have no...You have nothing to show me, then I have nothing to do with you.
Agent 2: "Stay right here, and you'll see it. OK? You're not free to go. Stay right here."
Robert: "I'm not under arrest. You have no authority over me."
Agent: "You stay right here."
Robert: "Don't give me that."
Agent: "You stay right here."
Robert: "Sir, DON'T touch my body."
Agent: "Then just stay right here."
Linda: "How do I know who you are?"
Robert: "I have no idea who you are. You're showing....what are you showing?"
Agent: "We'll identify you and then...."
Robert: "Can I see the number on that, please?"
Linda: "I cannot identify myself to you if my rights are being compro..."
Robert: "4494"
Linda: "...if I have to compromise my rights. I can't do that."
Robert: "What's your name sir?"
Agent: "Just relax."
Robert: "What is your name?... [silence] I didn't see that."
Linda: "I didn't see..."
Agent: "You don't need to see. I said stay there or you're going..."
Robert: "I didn't see...."
Agent: "Keep your hands out of your pocket."
Robert: "You haven't shown me your search warrant. Either of you".
Agent: "When the black and white gets here...."
Agent2: "Take your hands out of your pockets."
Robert: "Hey, you haven't shown me a search warrant, this guy's already...."
Agent: "Take your hands out of....."
Robert: "This guy's already roughed me up."
Agent: ".....your hands.."
Robert: "Don't push me around, buddy, show me a search warrant, then you've got some substance. Alright? You haven't shown anything. Don't point that at me."
Agent: (background) "..... treasury..."
Robert: "Yeah, he's a nobody."
Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."
Robert: "Don't give me that. Show me a search warrant."
Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."
Robert: "Show me a search warrant and then we'll talk".
Agent: (background) "We don't even know who you are, we don't have to show you a search warrant."
Robert: "Well then, there you go, so then get out of here. Don't touch me!"
Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket now."
Agent2: "We're going to search you for our safety."
Robert: "Then show me a search warrant!"
Agent: "We are executing a federal....."
Robert: "This fellow here has already done something like that."
Agent: "Take your hands out of your pocket."
Agent2: "Take your hands out of your pocket."
Agent: "Put them up behind your head".
Robert: sigh ..... exhales loudly.
Agent: "Just be quiet. Thank you. Carrying any weapons?"
Agent2: "Got some identification?"
Robert: "Got a search warrant?"
Agent: "I asked you for some identification".
Robert: "I have a right to remain silent. You've got nothing on me buddy."
Agent: "You're not under arrest. Ace. I'm asking you for some identification".
Robert: "And I'm saying I got nothing to say to you. If I'm not under arrest then you are violating my rights and acting unlawfully."
Agent: (to Rich) "How 'bout you sir?"
Rich: "No."
Agent: "The black and white's here. And the black and white, they can F.I. 'em if he doesn't want to F.I. ........"
Robert: "There you go".
Agent: "The black and white's here?"
Agent2: "Yeah, right....."
Police Officer: "This one is Linda."
Robert: "Sir, you look like you have an official badge. Do you have a search warrant that these gentlemen claim they are working under?"
Police Officer: "Do you have some I.D? Would you mind showing me a copy of it?"
Robert: "No sir, they say they have it."
Linda: "We can't show you I.D. because we don't know what they are here for and we're going to compromise our rights if we just.... oh here, here we are. We gotta know what's going on."
Police Officer: "I have to know who I am talking to.
Linda: "So do we."
Robert: "We need, we need to see what these men's authority is here. They claim they have a search ....."
Police Officer: "I need to see your driver's license."
Linda: "Under what authority? I would rather get counsel."
Robert: "It's got nothing to do with that."
Linda. "Do we have time to get counsel?"
Police Officer: "Come on, let's just see your driver's license."
Robert: "We want to see ... we want counsel, We want to see the search warrant, the rest of this otherwise is just illegal."
Linda: "We have no .... we have been accosted by all these men. And we have no idea what we've done wrong. We're packing up to go home. I've gotta cook dinner for three kids and these men are treating me like a criminal. Pushing us around and screaming at us."
Police Officer: "Under state law you are required to identify yourselves to us."
Linda: "Baloney. What state law says we have to....."
(background mumbling)
Linda: "Can I call counsel?"
Agent: "No."
Linda: "Why not?"
Robert: "Of course you can.
Police Officer: "You don't have to have counsel....:
Robert: "Then she's free to go? Is that right, sir?"
Police Officer: "No."
Linda: "Well then, am I under arrest?"
Robert: "Is she under arrest?"
Linda: "If I'm under arrest then I won't tell you who I am. I have the right to remain silent."
Police Officer: "You are being detained at this point."
Robert: "Okay. Under what probable cause?"
Silence.
Police Officer: "We're....."
Linda: "Yeah."
Robert: "See? See?"
Police Officer: "We're here to ......"
Robert: "To what?"
Linda: (imitating Russian accent) "Giff me your pa-pers....! You know. Come on. "
Robert: (laughs)
Police Officer: "We're going to find out who you guys are."
Linda: "But..."
Robert: "Well, sure. You're not here to find out who we are. This gentleman here came in and says, "We coming in with a search warrant, or - open the door!" So we open the door because the man says he has a search warrant and he produces nothing....just lies."
Linda: "And they come in and point guns in our faces."
Robert: "Absolutely nothing. So you know..."
Linda: "I'm a housewife."
Police Officer: "Why do you have a problem telling us who you are?"
Linda: "Because we don't know what they are after."
Police Officer: "Does that matter?"
Robert: "Absolutely it does. This isn't Russia and this isn't Nazi Germany".
(Note: compare the "police state" of Germany to today's police tactics and decide.)
Police Officer: "That's right. But you also.........do have to ....."
Linda: "I want counsel. We don't...."
Robert: (to Rich) "Do you know what Wessel's phone number is? 'Cause this is just baloney. I don't have his phone number."
Rich: "I don't have his phone number, but I'm sure we could...."
Robert: "You two gentlemen, I understand are under the authority of the sheriff. For these gentlemen to work they're supposed to be some sort of federal agents, they have to be in here under permission of the sheriff."
Police Officer: "You have the right to counsel..."
Robert: "I haven't seen any paperwork..."
Police Officer: "We're just asking who you are."
Robert: "therefore, they have nothin'. They have absolutely nothin'. As far as my understanding of what our state laws are."
Agent: "Sir, we have a federal search warrant."
Robert: "THEN SHOW IT TO US! Show it to us. You know, don't tell us about it."
Agent: "No, we are....we are going to identify you. You can do it hard or you can do it easy."
Robert: "Oh don't give me that baloney, sir. You have to follow the law like everyone else in this nation does."
Agent: "That's exactly what I'm doing."
Robert: "OK, then, show us the search warrant."
Background mumbling.
Robert: "....firstly. Tell me your probable cause. If there's no probable cause WE are free to go. End of issue."
Agent: "They're bringing in the search warrant."
Robert: "End of iss