Source: http://www.cavesofcoral.com/ArmedandSafe/a_40000.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:39:27+00:00

Document:
The legal right of a tax payer decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within the law permits, cannot be doubted, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293, US 465.
The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore,if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court. U.S. vs Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973) at 2017.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. Olk vs. U.S., February 18,1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell Olk) Judge Thomas W. Clary.
To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677.
By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629.
Law in it's regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process. Leeper vs. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225.
"The phrase as used in the Constitution does not mean a statute passed for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the houses: 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do so." per Bronson,J., in Taylor v Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40AM, DEC 274.
The meaning of the above works, is that no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336.
We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968).
Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.
Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall---be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases "due course of law", and the "law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament; Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.
The adoption of the XIV amendment completed the circle of protection against violations of the provision of Magna Carta, which guaranteed to the citizen his, life, liberty, and property against interference except by the "law of the land", which phrase was coupled in the petition of right with due process of law. The latter phrase was then used for the first time, but the two are currently treated as meaning the same. This security is provided as against the United States by the XIV and Vth amendments and against the states by the XIV amendment. Davidson vs. Orleans 96, U.S. 97, 24 L ED 161.
15 FIFTH IS RESTRAINT ON GOVT.
"It is not a little remarkable that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, (Fifth Amendment)....as a restraint upon authority of the federal government....see Lent vs. Tillson 140, U.S. 316,10 SUP. Ct. 324, 33 L. ED 722.
SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.
It implies conformity with the natural inherent principles of justice and forbids the taking of one's property without compensation, and requires that no one shall be condemned in person or property without opportunity to be heard. Holden vs. Hardy, 169, U.S. 366, 18 SUP. CT. 383, 42 L ED. 780.
In Brown v. Levese Com'rs, 50 MIS 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution took effect; but they refer to certain fundamental rights which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can through an act of legislature.
The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend; Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165; "In determining whether such rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.; Louisville & N.R. CO. v. Schnidt,177 U.S. 230, 20 SUP. CT. 620 44 L ED 747.
See v. City of Seattle 387 U.S. 541 (1967) Citizen was arrested for not allowing a fire inspector inside without a warrant. Ruling was in favor of Mr. See. The inspector has to have a search warrant, describing the particular type, thing and date.
If the form of the return provided, called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return,but could not on that account, refuse to make any return at all. U.S. vs Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 at 263.
Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statue is immaterial and that the privilege also extends to admission that may only tend to incriminate. Empak vs. U.S. 349 U.S. 190.
He must be the sole judge of what his answer would be. The court cannot participate with him in this judgment because they cannot decide on the effect of his answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the judges, would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he claims. Issaacs v. U.S. 256 F 2D 654 (1958).
This 'willful" qualifications fully protects one whose refusal is made in good faith and upon grounds which entitle him to the judgment of the court before obedience is compelled. Federal Power Commissions v. Metropolitan Edison Co. 304 U.S. 375. and ...."To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress." U.S. v. Lombardo, 228 F 980.
The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.
The Miranda Decision: Ernesto A. Miranda v. State of Arizona, United States Supreme Court, decided June 13, 1966. Key 12: Government seeking to punish individual must produce evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his mouth. Key 15: Privilege against self-incrimination is fulfilled only when person is guaranteed right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in unfettered exercise of his own will. Key 18: Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated if his conviction is based, in whole or in part, on involuntary confession, regardless of its truth or falsity, even if there is ample evidence aside from confession to support conviction. Key 23: Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and services to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed, from being compelled to incriminate themselves. Key 28: Prosecution may not use at trial fact that defendant stood mute or claimed his privilege in face of accusations. Key 43: Once warnings have been given, if individual indicates in any manner,at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease. Key 45: Any statement taken after person invokes Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be other than product of compulsion. Key 56: Any evidence that accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into waiver will show that he did not voluntarily waive privilege to remain silent. Key 73: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973). .
A trial by jury is granted by the 7th Amendment and Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1, 1974.
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.
Right of privacy-----Boyd vs. U.S. 116, U.S. 616, 630, 29 LED 746, CT 524, 1886.
Right to trial by jury; Dairy Queen vs Wood 369 U.S. 469, 2S CT,. 894, 8 L ED 2 44 1962. Also 369 U.S. at 470, 82 S CT AT 896.
Jury trial is a right! Hill vs Philpott, 445 F 2 D 144; Juliard vs. Greenmen, 110 U.S. 421; Kansan vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, (1907); Reisman vs. Caplan, 375, U.S. 440, (1964); U.S. vs. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1993); U.S. vs Tarlowski, 305 F. SUPP 112 (1969).
No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney vs. Beverly 2 HEN. & M(VA) 318, 336.
Civil Rights..."Civil action for deprivation of rights, 28 U.S.C 1343, gives U.S. District court original jurisdiction.
Security of life, limb, and property. Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L. ED. 616....Lent vs. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, II SUP CT. 825, 35 L ED 419; Palmer vs. McFarland, 1330, U.S. 660, 10 SUP CT., 324, 33 L. ED. 722.
Due process of law.....Simon vs. Craft 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP CT. 836,45 L ED 1165; Louisville & N.R> CO., Vs Schmidt 177 U.S. L 30 20 SUP CT 620,44 L ED 747.
Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. Miller vs. U.S., July 11, 1974, 43 LW 2042 CA 2.
Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his Constitutional rights. U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111.
You can, and must keep your mouth shut for protection under the 5th Amendment. Belnap vs. U.S. et al., Dist Court, (Utah), No. c. 149-71.
The Constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent, as well as the innocent and foresighted. Marchetti vs. United States, 390 U.S. 39 at page 51.
....the government's anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp information with a public character that the government has formalized its demands in the attire of a statue; if this alone were sufficient, the constitution's privilege could be [sic] entirely be abrogated by any act of Congress. Page 57, 390 U.S. 39.
If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refused to make any return at all. U.S. vs. Sullivan 274 US 259 Page 263.
The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim. Heligman vs. United States 407 F. 2D 448.
The chief error in defendant's position is his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses for the years in question. United States vs. Daly, 481 F 2D 28, (1973).
We are clearly of the opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution, after he answers the incriminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution of the United States...In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecutions for the offense to which the question relates. Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547.
Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. United Station vs. Dickerseon, 413 F 2D 1111.
...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at page 74.
Mr. Long of Missouri. "Mr. President, I invite the Senate's attention to certain correspondence I have had with Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen with respect to the legal obligations of citizens to keep records, produce records, and answer questions relating to tax liability.
Criminal cases have been veiled in civil clothing to obtain information illegally. Taxpayers have been bullied and threatened, especially small taxpayers and those without legal assistance.
What should taxpayers do when faced with such a situation? Do all lawyers even know what the obligations of taxpayers are as to record keeping, record producing, and question answering?
"Good faith challenges in the form of Constitutional and other federally recognized privileges are of course recognized by the service. For example, the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment may be a basis by an individual taxpayer for refusing to answer specific questions or to furnish his records."........before recommending prosecution under Section 7201 or 7203, the service must usually develop enough information to show a substantial tax liability that was not met in addition to criminal intent. The constitutional rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and observed.
Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be witness against himself cannot be abridged. Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 380 US 436 (1966) See all keys, also see par 26, this brief.
....The quick solution to the plaintiff's claimed desire to file a federal income tax return is to either file an honest return or if the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but he could not on that account refuse to make any return at all, we are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld..it would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in a crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the governments blank would bring him into danger of the law. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927) Holmes J.
Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-263-264 (1927) Holmes J. .
The government insists broadly that the Constitutional privilege against self incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the notice of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, whenever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility he who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.
The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.
The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. "The difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory conclusion, "Indeed, he added," the Black opinion suggested that the Miranda warnings are required through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently lead to criminal inquiries." The Mathis Decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven, Florida).

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.