FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - A ROCK SOLID POSITION

Bob Minarik

 

Even though I'm a long time non-filer, it is upsetting to read that the IRS can come to someone's door to demand to see personal documents, which in some cases are private even to members of our own family. It is also embarrassing to see that so many of us are not willing to do more than "bitch a little" when we hear or read about these encroachments.

 

Obviously, in the case of filing government forms, once we volunteer, we usually use whatever means at our disposal to cut down the amount of theft, even at the further expense of our rights and liberty. Since deductions are a matter of legislative grace, the burden of proof shifts to "we the people" to verify the claims taken on the forms, which were signed under penalty of perjury.

 

Simply stated, once we allowed ourselves to get involved in this taxing scheme, it puts us in the position of having to strip before a government agent, who at his discretion will tell us how close to naked we have to get. To be quite frank, there is nothing stopping him from saying, "OK.  now bend over."

 

Once compromised, we're on that "slippery slope," having given up our status of master over government to being a subject to it, and accepting rape as a part of life.

 

Each of us needs to just stop and take a little time to analyze just how far down the path of subject status we have come. Just how much farther are we willing to go before we say, "Enough" or are we willing to even say "Enough"?

 

We should be asking ourselves: Just how sacred are our God given constitutionally protected rights? Have we lost sight of our objective of restoring liberty for ourselves and family? And even if we know something is wrong, and we start to do something about it, are we standing on solid ground?

 

There are a lot of theories on why we shouldn't be obligated to file tax forms. To me the number one position, in a class of its own, is the required waiver of fundamental rights. The whole income tax battle is a rights issue.

 

I personally hold the position that I am a master over government and not a subject to it. I am not one who can be compelled to waive fundamental rights to comply with some taxing scheme, merely for exercising my right to work and exist.

 

I absolutely have no "legal duty" to waive my fundamental rights to speak or not to speak, as protected under the First amendment, my right to be secure in my personal home, papers and effects, as protected under the Fourth amendment, my right not to be compelled to be a witness against myself and my right to due process of law, as protected under the Fifth amendment, my right to an impartial judge and jury, as protected under the Sixth amendment or any other right not specifically listed,  protected under the Ninth amendment.

 

This is not a wild theory claim. I don't need to claim rights under the state Uniform Commercial Code. My rights are God given, not commercially given. Neither do I need to fear waiving a right because I use a "zip code" as part of my mailing address.

 

"The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on the standard for waiver of rights."

"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."   Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463 at 1469 (1970).  See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 1972);  Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966);  Empsak V. U.S., 349 U.S. 190 (1955);  Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).

 

The issue of protection of rights has a track record 10 miles long. We should be able to confidently say: "We got em, they are ours, you (government) can't take em."  If you (government) say that we lost them or waived them, the burden of proof is on you (government) to show us how we lost them or waived them or where you have the authority to take them.

 

Let me cite an example that establishes a standard for the protection of rights, so you can see some of these cases that establish that track record.  Back in the 60's, there was a voting rights case down in Texas.  The state of Texas was imposing a poll tax on the voters prior to letting them vote.

 

The Texas U.S. District Court said in U.S. v. Texas, 252 F.Supp 234, 254, (1966):

"Since, in general, only those who wish to vote pay the poll tax, the tax as administered by the State, is equivalent to a charge or a penalty imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right. If the tax were increased to a high degree, as it could be if valid, it would result in the destruction of the right to vote. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 54 S.Ct. 444 (1936).

[Note that the court reiterated the fundamental premise of law expressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 418 at.431 (1819), that "the power to tax is the power to destroy."]

 

The Texas district court went on to quote from the Supreme Court case of Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965):

"It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution."  Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. "Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,' Smith v. Allwriqht, 321 US. 649, 644, or manipulated out of existence,' Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345."

 

That Texas federal district court held the poll tax unconstitutional and invalid and enjoined the state of Texas from requiring the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting.

 

Now a rare legal procedure followed that ruling. The state of Texas appealed. Not to the court of appeals, but directly to the Supreme Court. And in an equally rare circumstance, the Supreme Court took the district court's opinion as its own and affirmed the Judgment based on the facts and opinion stated by the district court. See Texas v. U.S., 384 U.S. 155 (1966)

 

When the Amendments to the Constitution for the United States were ratified, they were considered a bill of restrictions on the government, not a grant of rights that could be taken from "we the people." The courts have upheld this premise many times, so if you're going to take a stand, it would be wise to base that stand on a position that has, at the minimum, the track record established for the guarantee of fundamental rights. There is none better!!

 

Robert L. "Bob"  Minarik

5288 N. 1000 W.

Rochester, IN. 46975

Ph. 574-542-9065

e-mail:  liberty.falcon@outlook.com