On May 19, a front-page article covered Dr. Richard Gilbert’s recent tax case in which he was found guilty of tax evasion. We all pay our income taxes thinking it is our civic duty to do so because, while we hate parting with our money, we know it is going to pay our fair share. I want to clarify what I believe Dr. Gilbert is guilty of by giving a few examples first from the Supreme Court.
Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Company – The 16th Amendment (income taxes) conferred no new power of taxation. Stratton’s Independence vs. Howbert – payment in exchange for labor is not taxable. Coppage vs. Kansas – a tax on labor is a tax on property, which is a direct tax under the Constitution. The Constitution only allows income taxes to be indirectly laid through government-regulated activity. Doyle vs. Mitchell – income is corporate gain.
Yes, the income tax is Constitutional. But it is not a tax on money directly. There is no statute that says what we have always learned about income taxes. We all may have been duped into believing there is some law out there. Try looking for it.
We can debate how we pay for everything, but ask first whether we really need it. Our Founding Fathers created a Constitution that allows a method for payment of all our needs, not our wants.
The thing Dr. Gilbert is guilty of is asking the IRS to show him the law that requires him to file and pay this income tax. The above cases and many others were explained in Dr. Gilbert’s testimony at his trial. The judge countered it the next day by instructing the jurors to basically disregard everything Dr. Gilbert said. The judge just said “the law is valid” without showing or citing the law to the jury.
What the guilty verdict from the jurors proves is that unfortunately we would rather be slaves than know the truth and be free. Of course it’s not surprising, but the jurors are intentionally kept ignorant of their rights as determined by the Supreme Court in 1794 that jurors not only have the right to evaluate the evidence, but the law itself. For more information on juror rights, go to www.fija.org. Instead of administering justice, the jury seemed to take the “we have to pay; he has to pay” mentality without really understanding the gravity of the decision they were given to make.
We have two ways we can change the system directly – the jury box and the voting booth and we as a nation shy away from both. We must discontinue this behavior if we ever hope to effect real change in our country.
What Dr. Gilbert is guilty of is the desire to be free to exercise his God-given rights as outlined in the Constitution. Today I challenge the readers to not blindly follow out of fear, but boldly question without fear and seek the truth.