This Year's Tax Terrorism Season

Taxes. It's a topic that most people don't even like to discuss, but not me. I find the subject matter fascinating. It's "legalized" extortion. Protection money, if you will. When the Mob does it, they get thrown in jail. When our government does it, we call it the price for living in civil society. Whatever.

Leaving that aside for the moment, I thought some might find this recent development a bit of food-for-thought, especial seeing as how April 15th looms just around the corner:

Judge Rules: Not Filing Since 1999 Is No Crime! After a February 24 trial on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles "Chuck" Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act in refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999, Judge Tyrie W. Boyer, a county judge in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Jacksonville, ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act. (Ed. Note: Keep in mind that Behm hasn't been convicted of any crime. This is just the Florida Bar bringing this case against him because they decided—not a court—that he's broken some law. Innocent until proven guilty? The Florida Bar can't be troubled with that fanciful notion.) The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS, or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close, the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like "tax protesters," "tax defiers," and now "Constitutionalists!" [Oh, the horror! Not that!] Behm's defense attorney, Truth Attack's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response. (Ed Note: Including "Constitutionalists" in its list of anti-government groups fits nicely with what we're seeing in other arenas where these groups are being demonized for their positions against what they perceive as government run amok.) In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax (Emphasis added), and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments. The witness also admitted on cross examination that he did not really have a clear definition of "income." (Ed Note: Frivolous arguments are what the IRS has established as arguments that have been brought repeatedly before the courts and have been ruled time and time again to be frivolous. IRS has a list of them on their website here. In addition, note that the "expert" could not: cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments, and he did not really have a clear definition of "income." These are all important points in law and should make everyone reading this article question why it is they send a rather large portion of their paychecks to Uncle Sam every pay day.) Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code (USC Title 26) and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax (Lots of emphasis added). Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject. (Ed Note: A quick recap of Behm's testimony: he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution, he had no income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, and he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either. (Emphasis added) Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes. (Source)

Did you catch that? The judge holds that Behm had committed no criminal act, but then rules that his failure to file an income tax return was unlawful even though he could give no specific basis for his findings.

Now, I ask you, does this not sound like terrorism? Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Their "expert" could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, could not prove his position was frivolous (as defined by the IRS), and couldn't even give a clear definition of "income." Even after all their failings, the judge still had the gall to tell Behm that he's still afoul of the law for failing to file even though no one could tell him where his duty to file was mandated. Coercion, indeed. Pay up or else! The Mob would be proud.