Re: Citizenship in any form

Date: Tue Nov 06 2001 - 00:19:01 MST

Adrian Tymes writes:
> wrote:
> > check this site out carefully. It is a bit long... but you will never
> > look at community citizenship the same again.
> Nope, I view it quite the same as I did before. Any to everyone else
> on the site, I say: don't waste your time with this link.

This is actually a "tax protestor" argument, slightly disguised: its
main point is to ostensibly provide a means by which you don't have
to pay income tax. A good resource for the failure of such arguments
to be accepted by the courts is the "Tax Protestor Hall of Fame" at It presents a long
list of cases where the courts rejected "soverign citizen" arguments as
well as the many others which have been advanced to support non-payment
of tax.

The Sloan case at
is typical. Some excerpts:

   Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn
   to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal
   requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these
   people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and
   because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison;
   there can be little doubt that he has been burned.


   Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is
   his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but
   rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the
   State of Indiana, and a "master"--not "servant"--of his government.
   As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction
   of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been
   previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural,
   must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether
   they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
   government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937
   (Studley's argument that "she is not a 'taxpayer' because she is
   an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous.
   An individual is a 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code.").


   The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of
   Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue
   these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity
   of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection
   of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful
   of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less
   sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote
   their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan,
   yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him.
   It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding
   the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm
   his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our
   decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be
   that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view.
   We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT