Correction: The Tax Scam Artist's Lie .. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional. ..
IRS, the LAW .. Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Law and Arguments (Section IV)
IV. Constitutional Amendment Claims
A. Contention: Federal income taxes constitute a "taking" of property without due process of law, violating the Fifth Amendment.
Some assert that the collection of federal income taxes constitutes a "taking" of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, any attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to collect federal income taxes owed by a taxpayer is unconstitutional.
The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause." Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).
The Internal Revenue Code provides methods to ensure due process to taxpayers:
(1) The "refund method," set forth in section 7422(e) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346(a), where a taxpayer must pay the full amount of the tax and then sue in a federal district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a refund; and (2) The "deficiency method," set forth in section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process.
In recent years, Congress passed new laws providing further protection for taxpayers' due process rights in collection matters. In the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, § 3401, 112 Stat. 685, 746, Congress enacted new sections 6320 (pertaining to liens) and 6330 (pertaining to levies) establishing collection due process rights for taxpayers, effective for collection actions after January 19, 1999.
* Generally, the IRS must provide taxpayers notice and an opportunity for an administrative appeals hearing upon the filing of a notice of federal tax lien (section 6320) and prior to levy (section 6330). * Taxpayers also have the right to seek judicial review of the IRS's determination in these due process proceedings. I.R.C. § 6330(d). These reviews can extend to the merits of the underlying tax liability, if the taxpayer has not previously received the opportunity for review of the merits, e.g., did not receive a notice of deficiency. I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). However, the Tax Court has indicated that it will impose sanctions pursuant to section 6673 against taxpayers who seek judicial relief based upon frivolous or groundless positions.
Relevant Case Law: Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175 (1960) - The court held that a taxpayer must pay the full tax assessment before being able to file a refund suit in district court, noting that a person has the right to appeal an assessment to the Tax Court "without paying a cent."
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2 d Cir. 1990) - The court rejected a due process claim where the taxpayer chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to appeal a deficiency notice to the Tax Court.
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000) - The court rejected the taxpayer's attempt to use the judicial review process as a forum to contest the underlying tax liability, since the taxpayer had an opportunity to dispute that liability after receiving the statutory notice of deficiency.
Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000) - The court considered imposing sanctions against the taxpayer, but decided against doing so, stating, "we regard this case as fair warning to those taxpayers who, in the future, institute or maintain a lien or levy action primarily for delay or whose position in such a proceeding is frivolous or groundless."
Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1503 (2001) - The court imposed a $4,000 penalty for frivolous and groundless arguments, after warning that the taxpayer could be penalized for presenting them.
B. Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment.
Some argue that taxpayers may refuse to file federal income tax returns, or may submit tax returns on which they refuse to provide any financial information, because they believe that their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will be violated.
The Law: There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return on the ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer "could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law." The failure to comply with the filing and reporting requirements of the federal tax laws will not be excused based upon blanket assertions of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
Relevant Case Law: United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2 d Cir. 1979) - The court said that "the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected . . . [T]he questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face . . . [h]ence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return."
United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979) - Noting that the Supreme Court had established "that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from disclosing the amount of his income," the court said Brown made "an illegal effort to stretch the Fifth Amendment to include a taxpayer who wishes to avoid filing a return."
United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9 th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, noting that the taxpayer "did not show that his response to the tax form questions would have been self-incriminating. He cannot, therefore, prevail on his Fifth Amendment claim."
United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment claim because of his "error in . . . his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses."
Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995) - The court affirmed tax assessments and penalties for failure to file returns, failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court also imposed sanctions for pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had failed to provide any information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each line calling for financial information.
C. Contention: Compelled compliance with the federal income tax laws is a form of servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
This argument asserts that the compelled compliance with federal tax laws is a form of servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Law: The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits slavery within the United States, as well as the imposition of involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime of which a person shall have been duly convicted. In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954), the Court of Appeals stated that "if the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment." Courts have consistently found arguments that taxation constitutes a form of involuntary servitude to be frivolous.
Relevant Case Law: Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954) - The court described the taxpayer's Thirteenth and Sixteenth Amendment claims as "clearly unsubstantial and without merit," as well as "far-fetched and frivolous."
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8 th Cir. 1983) - The court affirmed Drefke's failure to file conviction, rejecting his claim that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited his imprisonment because that amendment "is inapplicable where involuntary servitude is imposed as punishment for a crime."
Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226 (8 th Cir. 1979) - The court rejected the taxpayer's claim that the Internal Revenue Code results in involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Kasey v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 369 (9 th Cir. 1972) - The court rejected as without merit the argument that the requirements to keep records and to prepare and file tax returns violated the Kaseys' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and amount to involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional.
This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.
The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. Amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.
Relevant Case Law: Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - Stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation."
Relevant Case Law: In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) - The court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court's frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys' fees to the government "because [the taxpayers'] legal position was patently frivolous." The appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing "frivolous arguments in bad faith."
Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) - The court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.
Note: This page contains one or more references to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Treasury Regulations, court cases, or other official tax guidance. References to these legal authorities are included for the convenience of those who would like to read the technical reference material. To access the applicable IRC sections, Treasury Regulations, or other official tax guidance, visit the Tax Code, Regulations, and Official Guidance .. http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Tax-Code,-Regulations-and-Official-Guidance .. \ page. To access any Tax Court case opinions issued after September 24, 1995, visit the Opinions Search .. http://apps.irs.gov/app/scripts/exit.jsp?dest=http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/asp/HistoricOptions.asp .. page of the United States Tax Court.
After investigating the history of the 16th Amendment, defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the forty-eight states then existing, three-fourths of which (thirty-six) were needed to ratify it.
Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify was fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
You swallowed the Kool-Aid, battery acid and all!
But if it "tax cheats" you want,... hey, here ya go!
They even sworn oaths of fealty as U.S. citizens in the office of a foreign jurisdiction they represent under Title 22 USC-Foreign Relations and Intercourse Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. As a foreign agent, one has no political, personam, subject matter jurisdiction, Venue or lawful authority over an American national. (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6))
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. The de jure State Republics and the de jure united States were subsumed, or set aside by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 without the knowledge of the People.
December 26th, 1933; 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress replaced statutes with international laws (of commerce), placing all states under international laws (of commerce, aka the U.C.C.). (That meaning, "this State", or the STATE OF ...... (a private, Dun and Bradstreet registered corporation, see ; http://www.manta.com/, http://www.dandb.com/, http://creditreports.dnb.com/ ) operating as a de facto "private entity" under an (Administrative) jurisdiction, foreign to any American national; a fact undisclosed to the general public.
A national government is the government OF THE PEOPLE, of a single state or nation, united as a community (body politic) by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. [Is one NOT required to remain within the parameters of the Constitution for the united States of America.]
4 U.S.C. § 72, which is positive law, mandates that all offices of government are restricted to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” unless Congress “expressly” extends said jurisdiction to other areas by United States law.
In an era when Barack Obama, a president viewed as radically liberal by the extreme right, prepares to seek a second term, an anti-government movement poses an increasing threat to law enforcement and government workers, according to the FBI.
These self-described sovereign citizen extremists believe they live outside the law -- that they are purer souls caught in a corrupt governmental and societal scheme that they equate with tyranny. Resisting this evil is a duty to God, justifying any actions -- even violent ones -- they believe they must take.
In Alaska, it's unknown how many sovereign citizens belong to the Fairbanks-based Alaska Peacemakers Militia. Its jailed leader, Schaeffer Cox, once bragged he had a force of 3,500 people at the ready. He warned local law enforcement and the courts that his militia had them outmanned and outgunned.
But after his indictment on federal weapons and conspiracy charges stemming from an alleged plot to kill judges and law enforcement officers, conversations recorded by a militia infiltrator show Cox and his handful of known followers readily admit his boasted ranks were a bluff.
Cox and others arrested with him deny any wrongdoing. But they don't shy away from expressing what they believe. And because of that, lawyers for some of the defendants claim the Feds are conducting what amounts to a witch hunt against the Peacemakers because they are known sovereign citizens.
There is no doubt law enforcement has grown more vigilant in recent years, but "we are not investigating an ideology," says Kathleen Wright, a special agent at the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters. "We are not interested in people who believe in the ideology. It's only when they step over the line, commit a crime, that we have the potential to get involved."
The Anti-Defamation League describes the sovereign citizen movement as a sister to the militia movement, yet notes both are growing and there is often cross-over between the two. And while the sovereign movement has origins in white supremacy, many younger followers have broken away from racism, as had Cox and his group, according to a trusted member of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia. Instead, they're angry about a host of perceived sociopolitical corruptions: a court system gone awry, stolen wealth, oppressive debt, abortion rights, impending societal collapse.
It is against this backdrop that America's first black president will ask voters to send him back to the White House in November. But his skin color may have much less to do with the disdain "sovereign nations" have for him than his political views, if history is any indication.
"My personal gut tells me it is less about race and more about the economy and a liberal president, and all the big government that comes along with having a Democrat in office," says Steven Chermak, an associate professor of criminology at Michigan State University and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror.
'Germinating in the mainstream'
The uptick in today's sovereign extremism parallels a similar surge experienced when another Democrat was elected to the presidency, in 1992.
Both Obama and former President Bill Clinton have been seen as antitheses of Republican presidents who preceded them, viewed by detractors as symbols of a big and evil government, contributors to America's social ills. While political candidates have the potential to agitate unhappy citizens, candidates from any end of the spectrum can inspire ire, as long as they belong to the system that extremists loathe.
"To the extent that sovereign citizens don't believe the government is legitimate, (elections) keep complaints about the government on the front pages," says Brian Levin .. http://criminaljustice.csusb.edu/facultystaff/levin.htm , a criminologist, civil rights attorney and professor who studies extremism and hate crime and serves as director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.
"The militia movement had its genesis with Ruby Ridge, which happened under the Bush administration. Certainly they don't like leftwing folks, but anyone that is participating in the political mainstream can be in their crosshairs," Levin adds.
Sovereign citizens rely on their historic and religious beliefs to align themselves with the philosophies and ethics of the founding fathers, men fueled by spiritual passion who sought a society free from the oppressive grip of an entitled royalty. In this fledgling new society, people would be free to define themselves and pursue their own relationship with God.
In modern America, however, sovereigns believe government has warped into a malicious form of tyranny, enslaving Americans who are duped in believing they are free. Reclaiming or asserting freedom is viewed nothing less than righteous, holy war. Many sovereign citizens will fight peacefully. But some seek gun battles, bombings and other lethal means to further the war, and religious zealots are the most difficult to deter.
"The whole basis of the sovereign citizen movement is that you do not need to be validated by the present government to have your rights. You have them on your own, you operate on your own authority," Levin says. "This is something that has been going on for a long time."
While the conspiracy theories on which many sovereign beliefs are centered have withstood decades of iterations, there are differences between groups active now and those seen in the Clinton era.
For starters, more Americans rely on the Internet.
Indeed, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was barely a preteen when Clinton took office in the early 1990s, and the social network wouldn't be invented until a few years after Clinton left the White House. YouTube came of age about the same time. Social networking has allowed outsiders to connect and spread their message, as well as help them readily infuse the political process with new ideas, new voices and agendas.
"We are seeing fragments that come out of the extremist movement actually germinating in the mainstream," says Levin, citing the tea party as an example.
Ironically, although the newest generation of sovereign citizens is connected through social networking, the movement is actually more splintered than in past decades, he says. Gone are the two main "glues" that helped sovereigns coalesce in the 1990s: major violent events and major players.
"You have fewer charismatic leaders in today's movement. But you don't really have a catalyst of a violent event to really galvanize people, like Waco or Ruby Ridge," he says.
In 2009, Schaeffer Cox was on a speaker's junket, and the self-made militia leader from Fairbanks, Alaska, was a rising star among people fed up with the Feds. From Chicago to Missoula, Mont., he spoke at liberty rallies, protests and seminars. He was both forthright and brazen. Part showman, part preacher, he was a man with a message: "This is war! .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4JZJ1lJx0E "
But even Cox doesn't make the cut as a "major player," according to Levin.
"There are plenty of charismatic people who can fill a garage. I'm talking about the old clan leaders who could actually foment a national movement. We don't have that," Levin says.
The Anti-Defamation League estimates there may be hundreds of thousands of sovereign citizens within the U.S. Of those, Levin believes only a tiny fraction has the potential to be radicalized. Instead, most in the extremist movement are all talk, using their shared views as ways to bond.
Still, the Anti-Defamation League, FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center have all reported a rising trend in deadly violence embraced by sovereign citizens.
'A buffet of conspiracies'
Crime trends among sovereign citizens include mortgage scams, fraudulent liens, tax evasion and failing to obtain official licenses and permits. They also will reject or deny birth certificates and Social Security cards, driver's licenses and license plates, believing them to be documents the U.S. uses to control and monitor them.
Regional groups of sovereign citizens reject government authority and may instead attempt to engage local, state and federal governments as foreign dignitaries, self-appointed commanders and ambassadors of other republics or assemblies. They are preparing for government collapse, ready to install their own government to fill the void, keep order and defend their families and neighborhoods, principles Schaeffer Cox espouses.
The rhetoric of sovereign citizens is often long-winded and enmeshed in elaborate conspiracy theories. Many reject tax collection, and will use a bizarre style of complex legal language to file liens, reject court proceedings and warn of their own impending criminal actions -- arrests of judges, sheriffs, etc. -- if local government authorities don't get off their back. To the FBI and groups that monitor violence, these voluminous filings amount to "paper terrorism" that can clog court systems and ruin people's credit reports.
Many sovereigns boast big about their firepower, government takeovers, and train like soldiers for some looming threat. Much of the rhetoric is protected as free speech. But talking about takeovers and making direct threats accompanied by taking steps to carry them out are not the same thing.
The challenge for law enforcement is to foretell who will take the leap. Extremists who act spontaneously and on their own may be the most troublesome of all.
What worries law enforcement is how much more strain it takes to provoke an already-lawless sovereign to violent action. Because this "tipping point" is difficult to ascertain, the FBI is taking a broad, closer look at criminals who also subscribe to sovereign citizen ideology, says Wright, the FBI special agent.
It may be a tall order.
Among the nation's major social and political institutions, there is a great disenfranchisement, Levin says, causing sovereigns to undertake an "idiosyncratic heaping" from the "buffet of conspiracies about what's gone wrong and the illegitimacy of government."
"There are a lot of unhappy people out there. The hard thing is, you have the atmospherics, the anger pointing that direction. The question is, is there someone out there -- a lone wolf or a small cell -- that has the capability of doing something," Levin says.
With access to weaponry and know-how, the threat is possibly greater today than in the past. But Levin says the question remains: "Are those who are most unstable able to operationally take advantage of it?"
Why do sovereign citizens turn violent?
It was a deadly confrontation in June 2010 with a father and son who had declared themselves to be sovereign citizens that signaled to the FBI that the ante had just been upped. Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son fired upon officers .. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/deadly-arkansas-shooting-sovereign-citizens-jerry-kane-joseph/story?id=11065285#.TynqMVxukWQ .. during a traffic stop, killing two of them. The Kanes were later killed in a gun fight with police as they tried to flee.
"We were already taking a look at criminal activity committed by those who espouse sovereign citizen ideology. When the Kane shooting happened, it was sort of the crux for us that said 'Yes, we need to take a closer look,'" Wright said.
In the 49th state, the FBI was secretly investigating the Alaska Peacemakers Militia at least dating back to mid-2010. Was Schaeffer Cox -- the boyish-looking, spiritually inspired orator from the group -- on his way to bringing about a violent event before he was arrested in March last year?
Cox had been part of the movement for several years. In 2009, he attended a convention called Continental Congress 2009 .. http://cc2009.us/ , which appears to be a modern incarnation of a previous 3rd Continental Congress .. http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3419 , identified by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism as a "right-wing reactionary" terrorist organization. Cox went to CC2009 as an Alaska delegate and was a featured speaker. He also appeared at events in Illinois, Idaho and Montana in support of militias, presenting his lengthy speech "The Solution."
He became active with several groups, including the Interior Alaska Conservative Coalition, the pro-gun rights 2nd Amendment Task Force, the Alaska Peacemakers Militia, the Liberty Bell Network, the "Several States of the USA," and local and national chapters of the Assembly Post.
When he was charged with possession of a concealed weapon at a crime scene -- Cox had gone to the site to be a watchful eye as police served a search warrant on a Liberty Bell member -- he disputed the charges and the proceedings. Things eventually got so out of hand that Cox had convened a "common law court" at a local Denny's, where a jury of like-minded sovereigns acquitted him of all charges. When he later missed a state court date in the case, an arrest warrant was issued for him and Cox went into hiding.
Convinced the government was after him, prosecutors say Cox had convinced his cohorts to commit to a plan of resistance. He pledged he wouldn't go down gently. The group stockpiled weapons while Cox made an out-of-state escape plan. He clothed himself and his wife in bulletproof vests, and readied his men to take on anyone who might come their way. A defense plan known as "2-4-1" was developed -- for every militia member captured or killed, the militia would do the same to twice as many members of law enforcement. The group had researched home addresses on officers, and openly threatened state and federal judges.
Cox also claimed the state was using another tactic to get at him -- the Office of Children's Services.
He feared the state would try to take his child, and he feared arrest. He was and remains convinced the government was out to stop him at any cost to silence his outspoken anti-government views.
According to analysts of the sovereign movement, these are among the stressors that have in recent years provoked otherwise peaceful sovereigns to commit acts of violence. Threats to one's family or of incarceration, along with tax problems or financial woes, can become clarion calls to resist government.
Government agents are on the lookout, something sovereign citizens seem keenly aware of. And cases like Cox's -- where a member is jailed and charged -- fuels their "government is corrupt" beliefs. But while Cox's case is among the more recent involving sovereigns accused of deadly plots around the nation, it remains to be seen whether more will surface during the 2012 presidential election.
"I do think an election year brings out people and brings out the worst in people. But there also has to be some kind of defining, significant event, like a Waco," says terror expert Steven Chermak. "In this particular case, if (Cox) was going to go down shooting, it could have been one of those events. But law enforcement has pretty much wised up about how to bring these guys in."
To the editor - Published 8:35 pm, Tuesday, April 24, 2012
I was glad to see Ann McGuiness' letter regarding the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk board member ("School board must take action," April 9). I am surprised there hasn't been more feedback on this story ("A 'sovereign citizen' at the reins," March 25). I am outraged as a fellow taxpayer that someone who doesn't pay his taxes gets to make decisions on how the rest of our tax dollars are spent.
I would suggest anyone who wants to proclaim himself a sovereign citizen should live as a sovereign. A dictionary definition of sovereign says: "an autonomous state." Further definition of autonomous says: "capable of existing independently of the whole."
Fine, let them live independently from the whole of taxpaying society. That definition would relegate them to what property they may own and whatever resources that land allows for sustenance.
Police, fire services, postal service, a school system's building, lights and heat would not be available to them. Food and fuel would not come to them nor would they go out to get supplies as they would be traveling roads supported by tax dollars. They would lose their right to vote, as our elected officials are supported by tax dollars. I find it laughable that sovereign citizens use our tax-supported court system to file suits against others.
When you examine the impossibility of living a truly sovereign life, you see that it appears to be little more than a scam to avoid the responsibilities non-sovereign citizens carry every day.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
