Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Newsgroups: net.taxes Subject: Re: yet another reply Message-ID: <644@mmm.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 14:33:33 EST Article-I.D.: mmm.644 Posted: Thu Mar 20 14:33:33 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 07:09:11 EST References: <1706@decwrl.DEC.COM> Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Organization: none Lines: 98 Bob Alpert finally responds to my article (sorry about sounding antagonistic, Bob, but the fact that you didn't respond but still managed to post 180 line articles to this newsgroup led me to believe that you were another Ted Holden (see net.origins) who posts arguable claims and then won't acknowledge the opposition. As for your response: > >[regarding "right to privacy"] >> Really? Hey, Bob, which amendment to the constitution does this >>fall under? > >Take a look at the fourth, has to do with the right of citizens >to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects (I don't have >a copy handy at the moment, I can provide the entire text if you desire.) > You cleverly distort the issue by paraphrasing your original statement, which was: >Under the Constitution, >citizens cannot be compelled to provide information that can be used >against them and they are further presumed to have a right to privacy. Okay, I deserve a bit of blame here because it *was* a compound sentence, but I was referring to the first part about providing information to be used against them. I was trying to goad you into admitting that the 5th amendment did indeed disallow self-incrimination, which you first denied (see below) and then cited to back up your own arguments. > >I can recall no distasteful behaviour, unless it was to point out that the >phrase "self-incrimination" does not appear in the 5th Amendment (it is >a pet peeve of mine when people "quote" that phrase from it.) BTW, it >was an attorney who pointed out to me that "bearing a witness against >oneself" is a more general case than "self-incrimination." > > Bob Alpert > The "distasteful behaviour" was the tone of superiority that your article used: My statement: >>> I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is >>>unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination? Your reply: >>By the way, >>the 5th Amendment says nothing about "self-incrimination." Why >>is it that I get the feeling most people have not set their eyes >>on the Constitution since falling asleep in some Social Studies >>class long ago... This is not just pointing out that the words "self-incrimination" do not appear in the amendment - it's denying that the concept is there. Note that I never claimed that the words *were* there - do you see quotes around my statement? Your statement is certainly false, because the amendment does indeed say something about self-incrimination, although it doesn't use that phrase. You obviously know this, because you said as much in a later article that included a quote of the salient parts of the 5th. Anyway, sorry about the tone of hostility that I adopted - I'm glad you're discussing things now. As for your suggestions of what to do - you mentioned "taking the fangs out of the IRS." That's a start, and I even agree with you. It has always puzzled me as to why there is a separate tax court - one which has a vested interest in deciding cases in the IRS' favor rather than seeking justice. It seems to me that this is a violation of the checks and balances between the Judiciary and the Executive branch. I'd bet that many of the IRS abuses would go away if they had to answer to a more objective authority. However, I wouldn't want to de-fang the IRS too much - after all, they *do* need the ability to collect from unwilling parties. It just seems to me that they could do their collecting after due process has rendered a verdict about the case. One more thing - regarding the "Nazi" stuff and tax protesters - I would in no way accuse you of being of that ilk (I don't know you, there's no way I can tell that). However, most of the more vociferous tax protesters I have heard about on the news are members of that sort of organization (e.g. Posse Comitatus). I'll grant you that they're not "Nazis" in the strict sense of the word, but they walk like Nazis, smell like Nazis and quack like Nazis - they've just changed their name. I'm sure we don't have any real Nazis on the net - rn is probably beyond the comprehension of their walnut- sized brains. I like to hear your ideas - that's what discussion is all about, so please keep posting. Don't, however, be surprised if I don't always agree with you... -- --MKR "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein