Re: IRS, Schiff, and Economic Freedom

Michael Lorrey (
Sun, 09 Nov 1997 08:08:13 -0500

Pat Fallon wrote:
> I have read Schiff's books, and other arguments that the income tax is
> "voluntary"; that your income tax form can be used in court against you
> so therefore to prosecute someone for failure to file would violate the
> 5th amendment; that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, etc.
> There is competent scholarship to support the contention that the 16th
> Amendment to the US Constitution was never properly ratified by the
> required number of states, and the other arguments all have
> merit...unfortunately, that is irrelevant.
> As I understand it, there is a legal maxim that "specificities in
> evidence supersede generalities in evidence." We all are supposed to
> have some general protections and rights under the constitution, such as
> freedom of speech. However, if I am hired by a client and sign an
> agreement not to reveal his confidential information, I cannot later
> publish it and claim my 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech. My
> general right to freedom of speech was superseded by my specific
> contractual agreement not to publish this information.
> When you open a bank account, you usually sign an agreement which
> includes some seemingly innocuous clause that you will abide by the
> rules of the bank. If you read all the fine print you will find that
> you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the
> Secretary of the Treasury.
> When new Federal Judges are confirmed they are told how to manage "Tax
> Protester" trials -- violations of Title 26. Federal Judges have been
> instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 (Davis vs. Elmira
> Savings, 161 U.S. 275), that banks are instrumentalities of the
> Congress. In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private
> property of the state. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a
> depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as
> checking, savings, charge cards, loans, mortgages, etc., are
> experiencing profit and gain created by the state.

If I am not experiencing any interest gain in my account, how am I
experiencing profit and gain created by the state? If the state were not
here to make me deposit my pay, or make the bank not cash my checks
unless I have an account, then my employer would pay me in cash or
whatever other instrument works, so where does the state create any
profit or gain except by armed displacement?

> During Willful Failure to File trials the IRS surveys the local banks in
> the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of his signature
> card. During the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on
> the bench with that agreement with the state in front of him while the
> tax protester cites his Constitutional rights.

So basically, since the government wont let a bank cash my paycheck
unless I have established an account that requires me to agree to abide
by Title 26, even though congress never enacted it, they are using the
threat of poverty and unemployment for anyone who doesn't agree to abide
by title 26. If this is the case, then the escape is to claim in court
that that agreeement was signed under duress and therefore is not
legally enforceable. Is that enough of a specificity in evidence for

> The judge will ignore all Constitutionally related arguments. He is
> operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since there is
> an agreement to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make
> whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract
> does not have to be enacted by Congress in order to make it enforceable.

And a contract entered into under duress is not enforceable.

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?