I have been around long enough to know that Libertarian candidates have consistently missed the boat in election after election, by failing to use the single, most powerful weapon at their disposal - the lawless and illegal manner by which the government collects income taxes. I mean, if the government can dupe 100 million Americans into paying a 'tax' that doesn't even exist, then what else have Americans been duped by government into believing? Well, libertarians should know that the government has duped Americans about practically everything: from the legitimacy of our 'money,' to the solvency of Social Security, to the cause and extent of inflation, the national debt (which is at least 7 times greater than the governments reports), to the decline of the dollar, and the economic causes and long range effects of our monumental trade deficit, just to name a few areas. At the same lime it has duped them concerning the causes of America's increasing crime problem, drug use, homelessness, juvenile pregnancy, the breakdown of the family unit, 'structural unemployment,' and a falling standard of living, all of which are directly related to destructive Federal economic, fiscal and social programs - and especially the income 'tax,' a 'tax' that no American is required to pay. If Americans, prior to the 20th Century had accepted the same degree of confiscatory taxation (and the red tape that goes with it) that Americans now, "voluntarily' accept. Americans might still be traveling around in covered wagons and Emma Lazarus would never have written the words now emblazoned on the Statue or Liberty - nor would that Statue itself ever have been erected. But can a Libertarian candidate for president really address and unravel all of these social and economic issues to the satisfaction of the typical American voter during a presidential campaign? If he attempted to do so, he would soon bore and lose his audience - which is precisely what Libertarian presidential candidates have done in the past.
But a Libertarian candidate can get, and keep the attention of the typical American Voter- - yes, even 'Johnny-lunch-bucket' - if he begins by explaining: how they have been duped and robbed into paying income taxes; how they can stop paying, and how they can stop illegal IRS seizures of their wages, bank accounts, homes and other assets. The subject of the illegal enforcement of income taxes is something that everybody wants to hear about: from cab drivers, to waitresses (who are now told that they must pay taxes on tips they never receive), to construction workers, teamsters, Hollywood stars, retired people, professional athletes, and small and big businessman because it hits them right in their immediate pocketbook. You all know the story about the club and the mule. Well, after we get the public's undivided attention on this issue, - it's easy to explain the many other areas in which they have been duped by government.
As I stated in the article that appeared in the Libertarian Party News it is wishful thinking to believe that a libertarian Party candidate can actually Win a presidential election. Apart from other considerations, too many voters - in excess of 50,000,000 are now on the governments own payroll and/or on the federal dole. How can responsible citizens outvote such a large, vested interest? So what's the point in running a Libertarian candidate? It simply gives us our best shot at swelling the ranks of libertarians by using the opportunity afforded by a national election to convince substantial numbers of Americans (who might otherwise not get the message) that their naive beliefs and faith in government are totally misplaced. And it is a lot easier to do this if we start off by exposing for them the true, criminal character of government (and how government robs them each weak of a portion of their pay check), rather than try to explain to them why complex federal programs simply will not work. There is simply no other justification for libertarians wasting their time and money running a presidential candidate.
But more to the point, Libertarians can use the opportunity afforded by a national election to deliver a crippling blow to the bureaucratic establishment without having to garner anywhere near the votes necessary to win the presidency. A significant minority of Americans can do that right now! And a Libertarian Party candidate who can articulate this issue can put such a coalition together. If the majority of Americans - and the main stream media - want to believe that it's constitutional for American politicians to tax certain segments of American society for the economic benefit of other segments of society (in order to buy votes), and that a law requires Americans to go along with it, then let them wallow in that ignorance: a significant minority of Americans can put a stop it, regardless of what an uninformed majority may think.
The Federal establishment has been able to unconstitutionally expand federal power and control by its unconstitutional and lawless expansion of its limited taxing and monetary powers. The government, for example, has made the repudiated notes of a private bank (The Federal Reserve Bank), the 'legal' tender and money of account of the United States even though the Founding Fathers, in three clauses, of the Constitution sought to bar even the legitimate notes issued by the United States government itself from circulating as U.S. money, Therefore, how can the bogus notes issued by a private bank circulate - as they now do - as U.S. 'money.' Can you believe it? (1)
And the Constitution, in over a dozen clauses, bars the government from collecting an income tax in the manner it now does which is why no law requires resident Americans to pay such a 'tax,' since if any such requirement existed, the 'law," would be unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.(2) And today, the IRS admits that between 10 and 15 million Americans no longer file income tax returns: that "voluntary compliance" is only 82% effective. Well, a Libertarian Party that will focus on how government illegally collects this tax - could bring compliance to under 75% which, I submit, would effectively end the Federal governments ability to extort this "tax" from everybody - and thereby shrink its size considerably. And we could do this without even coming close to winning a national election. For example The Reader's Digest of February 1991 in an article entitled "How the IRS Abuses Taxpayers reported that in 1989 "The IRS filed 904,000 liens (and) levied 2.3 million paychecks and bank accounts" How do you think the American public would react if it were told by America's third largest political party that every one of those liens and every one of those seizures were done in violation of law? And how do you think that the over 1 million Americans who now have IRS liens riled against them would react if they were to discover, through the efforts of the Libertarian Party, that all those liens had been filed against them in violation of both Federal and State law? And how do you think all of those people who have been prosecuted for alleged income tax crimes would react if they were to discover, through the efforts or the Libertarian Party, that they were prosecuted for crimes that did not exist, by Federal judges who never had any jurisdiction to conduct such trials in the first place? P. J., O'Rourke wrote an excellent book entitled Parliament of Whores which many believe refers only to the U.S. Congress. What Americans generally don't know is that description also fits the federal judiciary - which has allowed the federal government to circulate as money worthless and patently unconstitutional script, while sending countless Americans to prison for committing crimes that don't exist, in order to intimidate and cower other Americans into paying a tax that no law requires them to pay. In my case for example, I offered to plead guilty at my 1985 arraignment for allegedly committing tax evasion if Magistrate Eagan would merely cite the law that made me "liable" for the tax and/or the statute that gave him jurisdiction to conduct a trial for that alleged offense. And when a litigant raises that issue, it is incumbent on the court to require the party who invoked its jurisdiction (in this case, the government) to prove that the court has it. But when I raised this issue, an even offered to plead guilty in connection with it, Magistrate Eagan did not even require the government to respond. He simply said, "I don't need to hear from your adversary to know that I have jurisdiction... There is no question in my mind... I have jurisdiction." And when I asked him where he got it from, he replied, 'I don't think I have to sit here and explain it to you," - which was a bold face lie and a violation of a fundamental tenant of American jurisprudence. And I was convicted of tax evasion only after Peter Dorsey - who is now Chief Judge of the Connecticut District Court - instructed the jury that it could convict me of that "crime" even if the government did not prove the act of evasion I was charged with committing. And that criminal jury instruction was criminally affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the matter. And the IRS seized over $200,000 of my property without holding even one hearing. And when I sued the United States to recover the property pursuant to no less than three statutes which gave me the right - in such a situation - to have a jury trial, a district court dismissed my law suit and the Second Circuit not only affirmed that dismissal, but fined me $6,000 for appealing it. And again the Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal. So whether you know it or not, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled, in a decision that can be used as precedent by any other federal court, that - despite the "due process", clause of the Constitution and all of America's fancy court houses and numerous law schools - the Federal government can seize private property in precisely the same manner as did Attila the Hun. So don't anybody tell me about constitutional rights, since when it comes to taxation Americans citizens simply don't have any. Maybe murderers have constitutional rights, but certainly not the American public when it comes to federal taxation.
But this is merely the tip of the judicial iceberg; however, I simply can not cover here, to any significant degree, the duplicity, corruption, and criminality that exists on the federal bench. Suffice it to say that if I ever write another book it will be entitled Federal Judges: Criminals In the Courtroom, and I would certainly make their duplicity and criminality a campaign issue.