The IRS And Self Incrimination

Respected legal hstorian Leonard Levy writes in Origins of The Fifth Amendment that:

“…In 1774, the legislature(in the colonies)…passed a liquor excise requiring consumers to give an account to tax collectors, on oath, if necessary, concerning the amount spent by them for liquor.”

A group including Sam Adams and John Hancock, supported the efforts of Boston schoolmaster John Lovell that its practice would enslave the country. Samuel Cooper, minister of the Brattle Church, pointed out that if an accounting of any part of one’s innocent conduct could be so “extorted”, then “every other part will with equal reason be required, and a political inquisition, severe as that in Catholic countries, may inspect and control every step of his private conduct”.

The complaint centered around the right against incrimination, going to ancient times, and part of the protection of man’s conscience against human authority. No man can be forced to accuse himself. “Taxation without representation” therefore, was more than just getting the approval of your representative in the legislature, but even the legislature could compel no man to give personal accounting of the money he spent, if that same compulsion was used to incriminate him.

Taxes are, as admitted recently by a IRS official, voluntary. We know this because no man can be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. If any person is held criminally accountable for not reporting taxes, then the report itself becomes the basis for in criminal action, which is not allowed by the 5th Amendment.

This was understood as part of the Bill of Rights itself. The 4th Amendment was not considered seriously unil Madison pointed out that the power of the federal government to tax was plenary, but suppose, said Madison, the government wanted to look into our accounts witout warrant? The result immediately was the 4th Amendment.

Levy writes in Origins Of The Bill Of Rights that:

“James Madison…recalled that the legislative powe constituted a great danger to liberty; in Britain, he noted, ‘they have gone no further than to raise a barrier agains the power of the Crown. The power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite’. ”

The 4th Amendment, therefore, was intended as a protection against the federal legislature. But it is the wording of that amendment that needs to be examined:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”.

Notice that the amendment does not estabish such a right. It acknwledged that such a right already existed, and would not be violated. The people had a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. So, what was “unreasonable” as they understood it?

We know that taxes could be collected, but the taxes could not be based on compelled testimony from the people. The right against self incrimination prohibited it. While the power of the federal governmen to tax was admittedly plenary, the right to collect those taxes could not violate pre-existing rights of securiy against unreasonable search and seizure.

What did the law say was unreasonable? The definition for that came from English common law, decided by Lord Camden, in a case called ” Entick v Carrington”. Camden stated that the law required no one to incriminate himself, for that would be ‘cruel and unjust’ to the innocent and guilty alike. “And it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the same principle“.

If the right against unreassonable search and seizure already existed, it was based on the 5th amendment right that no person, in any criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

What we are not told is that there is a distinction between the “right against self in crimination” and the right against being a witness against yourself. The right agains self incrimination assumes that a person can be a witness in any case as long as that person is not the accused. At any point in testimony under oath, the witness may “plead the Fifth” on the grounds that an answer may tend to incriminate him. That is, the person may answer all questions except those questions that may incriminate him/her.

But the 5th Amendment declares that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The principle goes back to ancient times, and says that no man may be forced to accuse himself. If your punishment, therefore, is based on your voluntary compliance to report your taxes, there can be no prosecution against you if you fail to report them, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

While SCOTUS has ruled in “Miranda” that you must be informed of such rights upon arrest, the right always exists, whether you are arrested or not.

So, what is an arrest? By law, an arrest is any process by which you are detained by law enforcement with a warrant. Any detainment, including license checks, is a violation of “seizure” as SCOTUS clearly ruled in “Delaware v Prouse”. There can be no general warrant to stop or “seize” people. If people are stopped, then by law, no criminal penalties can be enforced, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and “due process’ means courtroom time. The instant any deprivation comes into the courts, all evidence is disallowed(Entick v Carrington) because the accused was compelled to provide the evidence.

How does the government get around this? The government is not required to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. That’s “Miranda”. Notice that, when you are given a traffic ticket, there is no arrest. If there were, the officer would be required to inform you of your rights. But when you do get a ticket/citation, notice that you can waive your rights and simply send payment in to he courts! The government avoids due process with your permission! It does the same when you fill out a 1040 form!

But, can we consider a taxpayer a “witness” under the terms of tax payment? In fact, we can.

In “Miranda”, the courts have staed that “The Fifth Amendment provision that the indiidual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself cannot be abridged”.
Further, the court ruled that: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them”.

The legislature, therefore, cannot compel any person to report taxes, and then hold them criminally liable for not doing so! How do they get away with it? They don’t have to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. If you are not arrested, they can do anything by statutory(not common law) law that you do not challenge. If the IRS says “WE can do this by statutory law”, they are correct, but statutory law does not override common law rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

Notice further, in “Sullivan v. United States”, that :
“There can be no question that one who files a tax return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment“.

That is the ruling of SCOTUS! In 1976, SCOTUS further ruled:

“The information revealed in the prparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a ‘witness’ as that term is used herein”.

SCOTUS has clearly verified the right against self incriminatin regarding a 1040 form! No person, in ANY criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself! There can be no criminal penalty for refusing to fill out a 1040 form!

I recently had a conversation with a North Carolina Department of Revenue official who was careful to tell me that, by statutory law, I could be penalized for not filliing out an income tax form. But he knew I could NOT be penalized by constitutional law, either the NC Constitution or the US Constitution!

How do they get away with it? First, because a large number of people are convinced they should report taxes, and second, because it simply costs more than it’s worth to fight them! They are happy to quote statutory law, and the people are too ignorant to know better!

But let’s look at the “Sullivan” case from which I quoted earlier. Manley Sullivan was an auto dealer who supplemented his income by selling moonshine during prohibition. Since he could not report illegal income, he simpy did not file a tax return. He was charged with willfully failing to file a tax return. He was convicted by a lower court, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, rulng that:
1. Requiring Sullivan to file a tax return would be “in conflict with the Fifth Amendment”.
2.The language of the Fifth Amendment must “receive a liberal interpretation by the courts”
3.No one can be compelled “in any procedings to make disclosure or guive evidence which would tend to incriminate him, or subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures”
4.The Fifth Amendment “aplies alike to civil and criminal proceedings”
5. “There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment”.

The Court of Appeals understood it correctly. They recognized “Entick v Carrington” and the complete protection against self incrimination!
But notice, Sullivan did not file under the Fifth Amendment protection of being a witness against himself, but under the right against self incrimination. That technciality is exactly how SCOTUS overturned the Appeals Court decision! By filing his defense under the right again st self in crimin ation, Sullivan had implied that he WAS required to be a witness, not havig been yet accused, but that he only had to refuse certain information! The right against self incrimination does permit compelled testiomny, up to the point that the witness might incriminate himself. From that point, the witness may selectively answer questions that will not tend to incriminate him/her.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr penned the response, and notice how he worded it:
“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 refuse to make any return at all.”

Notice that Holmes ruled on the right against self in crimination, saying specifically that the defendant could not simply refuse to file a tax form based on the right against self incrimination. Sullivan had used the wrong defense! He should have declared that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself! Since he had based his defense on the right against self incrimination, he was admitting that he should have filled out the form EXCEPT for certain information that would tend to incriminate him!

Notice further what Holmes stated:

“We are not called on to decide what, if a nything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not 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 crime.”

Strictly and tehnically, based on above information I have provided, Holmes was correct! The right not to be a witness a gainst one’s self did NOT include the point of self-incrimination, but was, as Lord Camden had said, a protection against BOTH innocent and guilty!
Holmes admitted as much!

“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”.

Sullivan had misapplied his defense! Crime can not be used as a defense in regard to the Fifth Amendment! Holmes correctly asserted that the 5th Amendment was never intended as the specific protection of crime. It was intended as a complete protection of both innocent and guilty, with the weight of evidence being provided by the goverment itself! That is precisely what Holmes said! The court therefore applied his defense as if he were a subpoenaed witness who failed to appear. But Sullivan was NOT a subpoenaed witness who had failed to appear, because a filer CANNOT be subpoenaed to be a witness against himself!

The Court of Appeals had given Sullivan a “break” by admitting that the Fifth Amendment demanded a liberal interpretation, but Holmes had techically and legally forced Sullivan to correctly state his defense, which he had not. He was not allowed to use the amendment in protection of crime.

“Sullivan” therefore, was NOT the test case for the 5th Amedment right againast being a witness against one’s self, but against the right against self incrimination concerning a subpoenaed witness.

On such technicalities, the American people are enslaved.

What Is This “Holy Spirit”?

Actually what the Bible says about this “Holy Spirit” is nothing like what the christian churches tell us.
Over 38,000 estimated versions of christianity, and each of them claim to have the “Holy Spirit”. But here’s the problem logically, if the “Holy Spirit” is the spirit of truth: In any set of conjoined propositions, if one proposition is false, the whole set is false.
If we look logically at the more than 38,000 versions of the “true church” and their versions of the “Holy Spirit”, we would logically have to conclude that, as part of the one true church, they would have to be false, since they would contain false propositions.

None of them can be correct, because if you multiply error, you just get more error. In continuation of my last two essays, we can see that the Bible focuses on two “covenants” from God:
1.The promise, made between God and Abraham
2. The law, given at Sinai.

Many have assumed that the creation of the nation of Israel was actually fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, but in fact, they are not!

The promise made to Abraham, and the law given to Israel, actually represent two separate covenants!

Notice that Jesus brings up this subject with Nicodemus in John 3. In fact, he is speaking of two births. Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”(verse 6). Two births, one of flesh, one of spirit.

People assume, quite naturally, that Jesus is referring to all people who are born. After all, we’re all born of “flesh”, right? W e reach that point when we “accept Christ”, and then we may be baptized and “born again”.

That, however, is not what what Jesus meant. As explored earlier, the phrase translated as “born again” is actually “born from above” , from the Greek word “anothen“. In fact, Jesus was saying “unless a man is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

That’s what baffled Nicodemus. He was familiar with the terms “born again”, since the Jews had practiced baptism along with circumcision for converts to Judaism. Once circumcised and “purified” in the baptismal waters, the new convert was “born again” as a Jew. Yet here was Jesus telling Nicodemus that he, Nicodemus, would have to be born of “water and the spirit”.(verse 5)

Is such a birth a matter of freewill choice? If so, why didn’t Nicodemus realize it? If it is there for all to choose, why was Nicodemus blind to it? Jesus said to him “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”(verse 10).
Here was a man who was a rabbi, a master of Israel, and had no idea what Jesus was talking about.

What exactly did Jesus and his disciples “see” that Nicodemus could not(verse11)?.
The next scripture is most interesting: Verse 13:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven”.

This is in regard to Ephesians 4:9, but it also points back to the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 30:11-12:

“For this commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it?”

Jesus was referring Nicodemus to that very scripture. The truth was there, written in the commandments, in the law, and no man had to ascend to heaven to get it. It was there for anyone to see, but Nicodemus missed it. If Nicodemus, a master of Israel, missed it, why would we think we have any better understanding than he did?

Paul even refers to this in Romans 10:6-8. “The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith that we preach”.

What “word”? The same one to which Jesus referred in conversation with Nicodemus; the Old testament. It was there for all to discover if they looked. There is a birth of ‘flesh”, and a birth of ‘spirit’, and both are recorded in the Old Testament.

It is very simple: the birth of “flesh” is the birth of the nation Israel at Sinai. Tat is one covenant with God. The birth of the “spirit” is the birth of Isaac, who was born of promise to Abraham.

How do we know this? Paul explains it clearly in Romans 9:7-11:
“Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, ‘but in Isaac shall thy seed be called’.”

A key verse, right there. Those born as Isaac are born of the promise. Switching to RSV, verse 8, we see:

“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants”.

Notice the implications of that statement. The children of the promise are  both descendants of Abraham  AND the children of God!

So Jesus came as fulfillment of the law, but his baptism represented, not the birth into Israelite law, but the birth of the promise given to Abraham! In fact, the birth of Isaac to Abraham was merely a kind of “down payment’ on the promise, with Jesus being the fulfillment.

What Paul is clearly saying here is that the nation of Israel was never a part of the promise given to Abraham. The creation of Israel at Sinai was for a completely different purpose. They were the birth of “flesh”.

So, if the children of the promise are “reckoned” as children of God, what promise are we talking about?

Next verse: “For this is what the promise said, ‘About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son’.”

Verse 11 brings it into focus: “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of his call”.

In Galatians 3:29 we see this: “And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise“.

If one is baptized, one is ceremonially “born again” into that same promise as Isaac. But here’s the catch: you can’t choose it. It is simply not a part of human decision-making ability. It is not dependent on “works”, but on the guarantee that God made to Abraham.

Notice also, Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise.”

Did this promise have anything to do with what Isaac did? No, because Isaac wasn’t even born when it was made. Isaac was foreknown, predestined to be born, and called by name in advance of his birth! Isaac fulfilled the conditions of Romans 8:29-30!

Does that mean a few go to heaven and the rest go to hell? Of course not. Paul clearly refutes this in Romans 11:32.

Look at Galatians 4:29: “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh(Ishmael)persecuted him who was born according to the spirit(Isaac) so it is now”.

The birth which Jesus represented was the birth of promise to Abraham, a promise that did not include the covenant with Israel at Sinai. The birth of Isaac is a birth which was forenown and pre-planned, as written in Ephesians 1:4:”Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.”

Certain inividuals are chosen to be servant/leaders in a kingdom here on earth. They are foreknown, predestined, and called, as Isaac was. And they are NOT part of the world religious or government systems. When you are baptized, you are born in to the hope of that promise, free of all human authority systems. You have the right to claim that freedom by your faith.

Where Is This “True Church”?

Every preacher has his own version. You can go to any number of them, and they will all tell you “this is the one”, but when it comes down to proof, they don’t have it.

Oh sure, they can quote Matthew 16:18:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

But what does that tell us, really? Assuming there is a true church, where the hell is it? And if there is one, why the hell shouldn’t it be obvious to all? In my last essay, I pointed out that deliberate deception has occurred, even to the point where Paul states in Romans 11:7 that “the elect hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.

Elect? Are these the same as the “true church”? And if so, can they be deceived? I already quoted Matthew 24;23, but look at the next verse, Matthew 24:24:
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”.

So, there’s an “elect” that apparently cannot be deceived, and they’ve got “something(Romans 11:7)” that sets them apart.

At this point, we come to a principle in science called “Occam’s Razor”, from Wikipedia, we see this definition:

“Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected“.

Further, the article states:

“The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced”.[b]

Taking these ideas, if we look at the various scriptures already offered, in combination with Matthew 24:23, we can now use Occam’s razor and apply it to test where is the “true church”. Since we see from Isaiah 55:8, Proverbs 16:25,Proverbs 3:5 and Romans 8:7 that it is impossible to decide on a set of “works” or decisions, or algorithms that get us from “here to God”, how can we escape deception?

We simply use Occam’s razor! What is the very simplest theory we can use to see how to avoid deception?
1.If we can’t discover it by reason or logic
2.If we cannot determine it by “works”
3.If we cannot prove whether a “man of God” is telling us the truth

Then, we have the very simplest conclusion to reach: don’t follow or believe any of them!

If we look at Matthew 24:23, we see that none other than Jesus has used Occam’s razor to tell us the only logical truth!
“Then if any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ or there, believe it not”. How do we know Jesus was telling us the truth? First, he used a standard consistent with Occam’s razor, and second, he gave us a statement consistent with Romans 8:7, Isaiah 55:8, and the two scriptures from Proverbs.

But if I tell you what is the most logical argument according to Occam’s razor, and further point out that Jesus himself told us this very same thing, you will “naturally” tend to reject it!
Your mind will crave to discover some “way”, some “path” some process by which you may find special recognition, yet Paul himself went to great lengths in Romans 9:16-22 to show that it simply cannot be done! Now, if you’re one of those people who wish to condemn Paul, remember that Jesus made a very similar statement in John 6:44!

If men try to organize in God’s name, therefore, their only accomplishment will be to splinter into more and more churches infinitely, and that is precisely what we’re seeing today! This, therefore, makes the third scientific “proof” that I am telling you the truth: if any statement proves consistent with what we see from observation, and it is the simplest possible explanation offered, it must be correct!

Therefore, the first “sign” of the ‘elect” will be that they are doing exactly the opposite of what the “natural” mind assumes is correct! They will be ignoring all religions! Give this simple statement to “religious minded’ people, and they will argue with you from now on, even in disagreement with the plain and simple statement of Jesus himself!

So we have Jesus’ statement of Matthew 7:14:
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it“. It can be found, and by the simplest of logical methods, yet the millions will never accept it! It runs contrary to their “natural” minds!

But wouldn’t that include atheists? They don’t believe in the churches, so wouldn’t they be included in the “elect”? No, because the standard is specifically defined in both the Old and New Testaments.

The process is very simple. God made two basic “covenants” the first directly with Abraham, and then about four hundred years later with the nation of Israel at Sinai. The first covenant with Abraham is referred to repeatedly by Paul as the “promise”, and the second as the “law”.

Jesus explained to Nicodemus that there are two births, one of ‘flesh’ and one of ‘spirit’. Many christians assume that you “accept Christ”, get baptized, and you are “born again”. Not exactly. The phrase “Born again” is actually translated from the Greek “anothen” which means “from above”. The actual word for “born again” in Greek is “annagennao” literally meaning “again born”, which is used in 1 Peter 1:3:

“…hath begotten us again…unto a lively hope”.

Who is “begotten again”? Verse 2:

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…”.

That is, there are those who are “elect” and are foreknown by God. This can be examined in Romans 8:29-30:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son…”.

If we compare 1 Peter 1:3 and John 3 with Romans 8:29-30, we see first that there are those who are literally born of God, foreknown, and later “born again” with a “lively hope”.

They are born “from above(anothen) and then they are “born again”, actually made aware of a special relationship.

Go back to Romans 8:29-30. We see that these folk are foreknown and predestined, to become the image of God’s sons. We see further that these same people are also ‘called’, receive an understanding which they out of many will recognize. That is when they are “born again(annagennao, 1 Peter 1:3) with a “lively hope”.

To be “elect, therefore, you should:
1. Not be following the various religions
2. Understanding the difference in the two covenants, the one of “promise” and the one of “law”.

What did Paul say about it? First, we know from Romans 9:8 that the birth of flesh(Israel the law at Sinai) is different from the birth of “spirit” which is the promise made to Abraham. A s Paul point out(Galatians 3:17), the birth of “promise” came four hundred thirty years before the law at Sinai, so the law at Sinai cannot “dsannul” the promise !

If you are “of Christ”, therefore, you are born of “promise”. Galatians 3:29:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise“. Not of law, not of “works”, but of promise. Paul states this more directly in Galatians 4:28:

“Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise“.
Wat are the conditions of Isaac’s birth? He was foreknown, actually named, and called. Isaac fulfilled the description in Romans 8:29-30, which means all those truly “of Christ” will be born of the same conditions!
God already knows them, knows who they are, and will call them, as he did with Isaac. Al those who are “Christ’s” are heirs according to that very promise!
By freewill choice? No, you cannot choose it. The very best you can choose is confusion, deceit, division, hatred, and prejudice among those who claim closeness to God.

You can choose to be free from all the power structures of men, because there is no human authority over you as long as you harm no one. So, the ‘elect” are identified by certain standards:
1.They will not be part of any religious organization at all
2. They will understand the difference in the “promise” and the “law”
3. They will know that God has already predestined certain individuals to be His children
4. They will know that this very knowledge sets them free from all human authority systems

How many religions will teach you that? None of them. If they taught this simple truth, they would be out of business. Both church and state would be destroyed. “You shall know the truth” said Jesus, “and the truth shall make you free”.

To know the truth is to be free from all powers of men, both church and state. To truly serve God is to know that you are the equal of any human authority, and you have the right to face all accusers(Isaiah 50:8) and you are justified in doing so before God(Isaiah 54:17).

“Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth(Romans 8:33)”

You have been set free of all human authority, but the masses will never accept this. Only a few will. They will follow their “natural” conclusions, and they will be deceived. Do they go to hell? No. That will be covered later.