OK, I have added, to the article, various citations to various sources where tax protesters actually cited the old Supreme Court cases (the pre-1945 cases, generally). Tonight my sources were actual court cases involving tax protesters, post-1975. I will try to continue this tomorrow night, perhaps with a change of pace to bring in some secondary sources where protesters have cited the old cases. Famspear (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the Christopher S. Jackson article published in the Gonzaga Law Review, and I note that the article may be cited for the following propositions:
Tax propesters assert that the Sixteenth Amendment "is not properly a part of the United States Constitution". Jackson, p. 301.
"Some tax protesters maintain that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified by the requisite number of states because of clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions". Jackson, p. 302.
"Protesters allege a number of states did not follow their own procedural requirements when they ratified the Sixteenth Amendment". Jackson, p. 303.
"Protesters strongly believe the theory that Ohio was not a state, thereby reducing the number of ratifying states by one". Jackson, p. 305.
"Protesters further contend that Secretary of State Knox committed fraud when he certified the amendment as ratified". Jackson, p. 306.
"Protesters also assert that the Secretary of State's certification of the Sixteenth Amendment was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the constitutional separation of powers". Jackson, p. 306.
"Protesters claim that taxes amount to a taking of property without due process, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment". Jackson, p. 307.
"Protesters argue that requiring a person to file and sign a return under penalty of perjury violates the Fifth Amendment because it forces protesters to witness against themselves". Jackson, p. 308.
"Protesters contend that paying taxes is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment". Jackson, p. 310.
"Many protesters contend that they are not citizens of the United States but rather are one of the [*311] following: (1) freeborn, natural individuals; (2) citizens of State X; or (3) nonresident aliens. n164 As a result, protesters claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' tax laws". Jackson, p. 310-11.
Protesters contend "that an income tax is a "direct" tax and that Congress may not impose such taxes unless they have been apportioned among the several states in the Union". Jackson, p. 311.
"Protesters assert that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, thus rendering any proceeding or prosecution against protesters 'null and void'". Jackson, p. 312.
"Some protesters believe the IRS is not a government agency, but a private Delaware corporation without legal authority to collect taxes". Jackson, p. 313.
Such protesters "conclude that the IRS is a private 'collection agent,' for those banks which use the money to make loans and conduct proprietary business". Jackson, p. 314.
"Tax protesters contend that wages and salaries which are received in return for personal services are not income and therefore, are not subject to federal income tax". Jackson, p. 314.
"Tax protesters contend that Federal Reserve Notes are worthless, and therefore, since the income they receive are with these worthless notes, they do not have any real income that can be taxed". Jackson, p. 316.
Tax protesters misread the law to say "that only government employees and officers of a corporation are subject to income tax". Jackson, p. 317.
Tax protesters express "the belief that income taxes are voluntary, to be paid only at the discretion of the individual". Jackson, p. 318.
"Some protesters assert that taxes are debts that must be incurred voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services". Jackson, p. 320.
Thanks to editor BD2412 - and I believe I actually have a hard copy of the Jackson article, but it's at home (I'm at work right now). Sooooo, workin' late tonight, hopefully! Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
