They are in the New York Times, along with the I.R.S. and J J McNab by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Ron Paul's appointment of Peter Schiff, the financial advisor and author, to his campaign received attention from the New York Times yesterday, some time after the appointment was made. Why did the Times finally run the story? It may have something to do with Wesley Snipes.
Wesley Snipes made the news as well, not in the story about the Paul campaign but in one his own He was found not guilty in federal court of felony charges of tax fraud and conspiracy, but guilty of three misdemeanor charges of tax evasion for refusing to file or pay taxes .Mr.Snipes based his defense on the "Tax Denier" theory that the income tax is illegal and the I.R.S. has no right to require the filing of tax returns or the payment of taxes. The Times saw this as an opportunity to subtly smear the Paul campaign.
Ron Paul is a Congressman and a candidate for President of the United States who believes that the income tax is unconstitutional and promises to abolish the I.R.S. if he is elected. This is one of the reasons that the Times dismisses Paul as a radical and prints very little news about the campaign. But Representative Paul pays his taxes and tells his followers to do so.
Peter Schiff is a financial analyst and advisor who provides financial analysis on CNBC, MSNBC and CNN. He is also an author, although the Times story takes care to point out that his current book is not a best seller on Amazon.com. He also pays his taxes and advises his clients to do so.
So how do the Snipes story and the Paul/Schiff story fit together.? The answer is that Peter Schiff's father, Irwin Schiff, is a "Tax Denier" who, unlike Snipes, was convicted of felony tax evasion and is currently in federal prison. Most of the story in the Times is concerned with Ivan Schiff who has received no appointment from Ron Paul and has no connection with the campaign. But the Times takes this tenuous connection and runs with it.
To shift metaphors, the Times apparently felt that "any stick will do to beat a dog". But the connection led me to go back and read the Snipes story a little more thoroughly. Some of the details give more reasons to support Ron Paul.
Among the people the Times reporter relied on to provide expert analysis of the trial and the verdict was JJ McNab, who was identified as an insurance analyst from Maryland. I looked up JJ McNabb and found that the Wall Street Journal of February 10, 2004 had identified her as Genna J.J. McNab, a financial advusor for "rich clients" who spenf her evenings prowling the internet looking for investment advisors who held the tax denial positions. The Journal said these people were "robbing the government of billions of dollars".
Whether the rich clients the Journal referred are the insurance companies or not is not important. Nor is the question of whether she is seeking out tax deniers as a way of putting the hit on her competitors or simply the act of a concerned citizen seeking out law breakers. The first question does not matter, and on the second we can assume the best interpretation of her activity is the right one..
But the Journal article mentions that she has appeared as an expert witness before committees of Congress. She is, therefore, a lobbyist. Is she there as an expert witness as a private citizen, or for the insurance industry or for the I. R.S.? This is an important question, because the New York Times story reveals that she drafted a law passed by Congress last year allowing the I.R.S. to impose a fine of $5000 without going to court on anyone who makes a claim denying the validity of the income tax to the I.R.S This is important first of all because it is another proof of the claim that our Congressmen are failing in the duty and allowing the lobbyists to write our laws. The law mentioned would seem to be unconstitutional on its face since it allows the impostion of a fine without due process of law.
The "McNab Act", as we shall call it, is important because of the reason it was passed and the nature of the law. The Times article says that federal prosecutors sometimes have difficulty in getting convictions in tax denier cases, as they did in the Snipes case, because juries either have sympathy for the argument or regard the defendants as victims of bad advice. The I.R.S. fine is a way for the government to avoid having to face a judge and jury.
But the law is important also because it raises the question of due process. The Supreme Court has regularly held that "due process of law" requires a review by a court. Even a parking ticket requires a judicial hearing. The fact that the I.R.S. gives the tax denier ten days to withdraw his objection before the fine is imposed is not at all the same thing. The due process might be just a hearing before an administrative law judge, but this law does not even allow for that.
The "McNab Act", is my own facetious name for this law. I do not know whether it was passed as a free standing bill (I doubt it) or tucked away in some larger piece of legislation. But the fact is that the Congress passed it. Find out whether your congressman was one of those voting for it. If he was, find out whether it was deliberation or carelessness which led him to do so. Let him know your position on the law.
I agree with Ron Paul that the tax laws are valid and that citizens should obey the law. The tax deniers have chosen a different course, that of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience has a long and honored tradition in our culture. It was the means of protest used by the draft resisters in the seventies, the sit-down demonstrators in the sixties, by Ghandi in the forties, all the way back to Socrates in ancient Athens. But a part of using civil disobedience as a method of protest is accepting the punishment that may be imposed by the government. Martin Luther King was jailed many times, as was Ghandi. Socrates accepted execution for teaching "dangerous ideas" rather than excape,as his followers suggested and his enemies hoped.
Most of us admire the depth of conviction and courage shown by those who practice civil disobedience, but we choose not to follow them. This is not because of lack of feeling or courage, but because in the United States today there is another way to work for change.
This year, the way to work for change is through the electoral system.If we oppose the income tax and the tyrany of the I.R.S. the first requirement this year is to support Ron Paul for President, The second requirement is to find out from your Representative and from each of your Senators their position on what I have called the " McNab Act". If they voted for it, find out why and ask them to seek its repeal.If they refuse, work for their defeat with the same enthusiasm and dedication that you are bringing to the Paul campaign.I
If you like this article please give it a thumb, leave a comment and use the dropdown window to share it with others.
If you don't like this article, skip the thumb and the drop down window and leave a comment. We all learn through dialogue.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 113
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of rtbohan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There is some debate regarding the validity of the 16th amendment and the missing law about our duty to fill out our forms. Apparently enough time has passed that the 16th is grandfathered in, but it is also noteworthy that Jan 10 08 Bill Benson was stopped from lying about the 16th and his collection of some 17,000 documents were irrelevant. A little sunlight on these topics would not be bad for our republic.
Just watch America: Freedom to Facism. I finally watched it after it was plugged on NBC. Link:Â http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
I think the people that choose to follow the route of civil disobedience are perhaps the bravest. Ron Paul has a lot of respect for Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc. but to actually do that. Â Wow! Big ups to Wesley Snipes!
Ron Olson, please check out Bill Benson and his website of the detailed research proving that the 16th Amendment was not ratified.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp
Bill Benson was not stopped from lying. He was stopped from revealing the truth the government does not want you to know about the 16th Amendment.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! Vote for the one true candidate who will return the country back to the people!
Posted By: David Cay Johnston
Date: 2008-02-03 11:07:08
My blog post had nothing to do with the Snipes trial.
News organizations routinely report on the connections of campaign advisers as you can see by reading the many reports on who advises the other campaigns, their business, political, family and other relevant connections and dealings.
My item was posted as soon as I became aware of the appointment of Peter Schiff, whose father I have written about a number of times over the years.
Would that I had spotted the appointment right when it happened, not a few days later when a reader drew it to my attention.
Ms. MacNab is accurately described in many NYTimes stories as someone who is writing a book about tax deniers and who for years has tracked them as a hobby.
She does not work for the IRS and her analyst job is being an expert witness against insurance companies, so she would hardly be their agent. But why don't you ask her, since her email is all over the Internet?
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548,581-582(1937)
I can provide proof to any one (free) who isn' t entitlement minded! Just e- mail me. The criminals pick us off one by one,& are afraid of a public meeting! If enought people stand together, & ask the correct questions of your senators,& representives, this country can be saved. California did away with their old governer by standing together.
The DOJ,& IRS believe I should be punished for saying what I just said. DO you? National_Lawman rbishop@ptd.net
