Church Strengthened When Doug Phillips’ Supporters Leave

I’ve received a great deal of email thanking me for exposing Doug Phillips. Much of it is from people who have personally known Doug. Many of these people would like to be in a position to expose Doug Phillips themselves, but for various reasons, they haven’t.

A common thread running through all of it is intimidation. Many feel intimidated by Doug, and many have good reason to feel intimidated. Doug Phillips has threatened many people, some with legal action, some with ecclesiastical threats such as church discipline or excommunication, even from other churches. In more than one case, I’ve received emails telling me that if they went public with their story of Doug’s unscrupulous dealings with them that he’d use his significant political resources to ruin their business, or in some cases to get them fired.

It’s a common ploy of Doug’s that he demands the names of your church elders and he threatens “church discipline” against you. Some of these people have done nothing more than write Doug to ask him a question about an apparent contradiction in his teaching, and then he threatens them. The Christian thing to do would just be to answer people’s questions. Instead, he uses his employees to shield him and they play games of evasion. The majority of questions Doug does answer are from those who agree with him already. Doug loves his fan mail and has often posted it on his blog, but he hates it when he’s challenged for hypocrisy, and with Doug Phillips there is much hypocrisy. Anyone who disagrees is either ignored, and if they’re not ignored, they’re often threatened. Doug Phillips has even threatened a few pastors.

Doug Phillips’ threats have worked. His formula has worked for years to intimidate people into silence. I know because I’ve now heard from many of them, and I’ll probably be hearing from more. My hope is that some of them will soon muster enough courage to step forward and tell their own stories for themselves. For now what will have to suffice are their emails to me. With their permission, from time to time, I’ll post the emails of those who have known Doug Phillips personally, as well as from those who have personal knowledge of my situation, or personal knowledge of how Doug has threatened others.

The specifics contained in some of the emails I’ve received are sometimes so detailed that Doug would probably be able to figure out who they were authored by. So in order to prevent Doug’s retaliation against them, I won’t post any stories or emails without their permission. I also won’t post their names without their permission. I’ll also give them the option of whether or not comments should be permitted on their email. Even if they don’t want their name used, they still may not appreciate being subjected to the kinds of verbal attacks that I don’t personally mind being subjected to.

The following is an email I received recently and have been given permission to post on my blog.

Jen,

Wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your boldness with this whole Doug Phillips thing. I’m sure you’ve grown weary of hearing everybody’s advice and opinions, especially those with nothing really at stake. We had something at stake, though. This past year, our church suffered a split that just came out of the blue. It really wasn’t until you went public with your experience that we began connecting the dots. Looking back on it, I see that the Lord actually purified our body by removing the families that were causing these divisions. I have noticed that the three elders that left have really become big DP fans. And our remaining elders have made a concerted effort to be very upfront with just what we DO believe and WHY, leaving no room for unbiblical teachings. The solid teaching from our pulpit has benefited. Your boldness has helped dozens of families here!

I have also recognized a growing clique of DP homeschool families (I don’t know what else to call them). Their children sound like walking talking Vision Forum catalogs. My children have noticed and are able to discern the extra-biblical tidbits. Again, your boldness has given us a platform, as a family, to teach some important critical thinking skills and sift everything around us through scripture. As independent-thinking as I tend to be, I recognize that I had become lazy about some things. If you declared yourself Christian, and you homeschooled, you got a pass from me. I think that’s what put DP where he is today. LOTS of folks give him a pass without batting an eye.

So, thanks a million for what you were willing to do. I know your family took some blows, not to mention your marriage, friendships and even your children. Surely the Lord will see fit to restore all the broken relationships. I think you are wise to back off the whole reconciliation thing. And I think you are equally wise to continue to inform the public about this wolf. No more head butting, just investigative reporting.

Advertisements

63 Responses to “Church Strengthened When Doug Phillips’ Supporters Leave”

  1. Jen Says:

    This thread is now open to continue the discussion from “Doug Phillips, Constitutional Attorney, Tramples First Amendment.

  2. David M Zuniga Says:

    Corrie,

    One more note for your husband’s best friend, the “big IRS attorney”, if you don’t mind passing it through your husband, to him.

    Thanks.

    **********

    Dear IRS Attorney,

    In your daily activities as an IRS legal counsel, do you agree with these court rulings, or do you operate in contravention to them?

    ————————

    “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 176 (1960)

    “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

    “The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.”
    Boathe v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

    “Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is EXEMPT from taxation unless the same is imposed by CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.” Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 297 (1904) [Capitalised emphasis added.]

    “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” Gould v. Gould , 245 U.S. 151 (1917) [Capitalised emphasis added.]

    “In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer…” Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, 82 L Ed 858. (1938)

    ————-

    Sir, I have seen that Black’s Law Dictionary defines the legal principle ‘inclusio unius est exclusio alterius’ as dictating that “where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was INTENDED to be omitted or excluded.” [Capitalised emphasis added.]

    I see there are many sections of the Code describing “particular situations to which it shall apply” and I can find nothing showing that my activities are taxable. So as I read all the law and rulings and legal principles from Black’s, “an irrefutable inference must be drawn” that my income is not taxable.

    Am I wrong in this? What am I missing?

  3. David M Zuniga Says:

    Corrie,

    This is the last note I ask you to pass on to your friend the “big IRS attorney”. No more, I promise.

    Thanks.

    *************

    Dear IRS Attorney,

    Recognised as a core text on statutory construction by the American Bar Association, “Sutherland’s Rules of Statutory Construction” is a ten-volume exhaustive resource providing all the acknowledged principles of American statutory interpretation.

    Sutherland 66:1 is entitled “Strict Construction of Statutes Creating Tax Liability”,:

    “It is a matter of common understanding that the power to tax and the exercise of that power are indispensable to the effective operation of government. It has been said that the power of taxation is inherent in every independent government, and that “the primary objective of government is to provide for the welfare of its citizens.

    “For that purpose, laws are enacted to further the health, morals, and safety of the people. To carry that out, taxes are levied. Notwithstanding the crucial importance of tax revenues for the support of governments and its services, it is a settled rule that tax laws are to be strictly construed against the state and in favor of the taxpayer.

    “Where there is reasonable doubt of the meaning of a revenue statute, the doubt is resolved in favor of those taxed. Revenue laws are considered neither remedial statutes, nor laws founded upon any public policy, and are therefore not liberally construed.”

    ———
    Note, sir, that Sutherland’s is precisely in line with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts that I just cited for you?

    Do you think that a Christian, knowing these things in light of today’s collection and “enforcement” schema and procedures at IRS, is righteous to remain in the employ of that agency?

  4. Jen Says:

    David, I think this is the right thread for this, but if not, just blame it on my reading comprehension. 🙂

    I did spend a lot of very interrupted time on your site today. I am not done yet. I must have spent too much time on the phone with other men! I just wanted to give you an update. I probably won’t get any more done tonight, so I’ll check back there again tomorrow.

    I checked your sitemeter. Interesting spike.

  5. ReformedCalvinist Says:

    David,
    I’ve read your website and followed the links. I’m convinced that it’s Unconstitutional for the IRS to extort money from my every paycheck. I’m also convinced that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to pass legislation restricting dismemberment to a half-born baby as opposed to a five-sixths born baby.
    But am I any better off than the baby in question? Either way I’m subject to assault by people exersizing their unconstitutional powers.

    I can’t stop the government from taking money away from me, but it’s still not a crime to refuse to take any back.

  6. Jen Says:

    David, I read your introductory article and looked around your site. It obviously barely scratches the surface of the issue and I don’t have the time to research it in depth right now. To me, it was kind of like looking at Bible verses without the rest of the Bible, and I’m not willing to invest $95 in the tax code, nor the time to read the whole thing right now. Maybe someday. Besides, I’m a woman 🙂 and I get the feeling that you think the men should be responsible for paying the taxes. But we won’t go there right now.

    Let me see if I can summarize your position. Feel free to correct me if I don’t quite get it. What you are saying is that you cannot find any place in the tax code that defines the majority of Americans as being responsible for paying income taxes. There are certain categories of people listed as being directly responsible, but that you, as well as most Americans, are not listed in those categories, and therefore you have no legal obligation to pay Big Brother income taxes. Those that are listed should pay all the income taxes. You never advocate breaking the law and, in fact, encourage everyone to always obey the law. If questioned by the IRS, your answer is to query them to show you what law you are breaking. If they summon you, you say they have no legal right to do so; therefore, there is no reason anyone should be afraid of the IRS any more.

    Do I understand your basic position? (BTW, I was very impressed with your briefs. You can actually write well without all the sarcasm. We have enjoyed your crazy sense of humor here, but it is good that you can be serious as well.)

    I do not understand why you were so offended by what I said in this comment to you. After reading your position, again, I still think you are promoting flying “under the radar.” THAT DOES NOT MEAN BREAKING THE LAW. I would call it passive resistance. Let me reiterate that what I meant by “under the radar” is that the IRS does not see these non-filers. For the most part, the IRS has no record of these people. I am a taxpayer, and will remain so as long as my husband is a federal employee, which he has been for most of his adult life, so I am “on their radar screen.” They know about me. Now they know about you, because you are a more vocal non-filer than most, so you are also on their radar screen, but for a different reason. So, I retracted that you, personally, were “under the radar,” but I do think that is the position you encourage.

    Here are my thoughts about all this. Your main argument seems to be, “Show me the law.” Now, I realize that much of what you are saying is different from what Kent Hovind did; however, that was his main argument as well: “Show me the law.” I have a friend who studied this extensively for years. He says that it doesn’t always matter whether we are right or wrong, especially when it comes to taxes. And this is certainly not right either, but the federal judges pretty much rule however they want in these cases. It is NOT the IRS’ responsibility to show you the law. It is NOT the judge’s responsibility to show you the law. And in Kent’ case, it was not the prosecuting attorney’s responsibility to show him the law.

    So, in other words, it is entirely possible for you to obey the letter of the tax code, and for you to even have proof that you are right and that they have no legal standing, but still lose in court. Federal judges have that kind of power. They like to consider the “spirit” of the law instead. I really don’t want to see you go to jail, and it is usually the vocal ones like you who end up there.

    The following quotes are from your website.

    David: “the IRS prosecuted and convicted eight times more filers and ‘Taxpayers’ last year, than Nontaxpayers and non-filers.”

    I thought it was four times. Did this just change? No matter. My question is, what were the non-filers prosecuted for? We know very well that most people who do file cheat on their taxes, but if it is legal to be a non-filer, what were they prosecuted for? Are you stating that if a non-filer follows your plan exactly, they will NOT be prosecuted? Or is it just that you think they have a lower probability? In other words, if we compared a taxpayer who was scrupulously honest in all his filings versus a non-filer who followed your plan to a T, would either of them ever risk prosecution? Those are the statistics I would be interested in. Comparing law breakers (taxpayers) to ignoramuses (which you freely admit many non-filers are) is pointless. Let’s compare someone like you to someone like me, both of whom claim to be law abiding.

    Also, don’t you really think that fewer non-filers were prosecuted simply because they “fly under the radar?” Since the IRS has no visibility of these non-filers, doesn’t that make it a little more difficult for the IRS to find these people? Do you think that has any bearing on this apparent discrepancy of numbers?

    David: “The Tax Code doesn’t need to be abolished or replaced; it’s fine as is, believe it or not!”

    I have another question for you. Why do you think it is fine for me to pay income taxes and you not to? Why do you think that only some Americans should pay these taxes? If the shoe were on the other foot, would you still be advocating your plan? I don’t mean if you were a federal employee or if you fell into any of those categories listed, but let’s take a hypothetical situation and say that the tax code included all self-employed engineers as individuals obligated to pay income tax. We know that won’t happen, but let’s just assume. What if you were the one required to pay the tax, but not me. Would you still hold your same position? I am not arguing for communism here, but doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that only a small percentage of the citizens should have to pay for the federal government’s services that benefit all?

    Let me stop right here and state that I agree with you 100% that Big Brother has WAY too money and WAY, WAY, WAY too much power. I am absolutely for States’ rights and think that we, the people, and we, the individual states, need to take back that power. I think our government is extremely corrupt and has spiraled totally out of control. I am not even opposed to third parties, regardless of what I wrote to Doug about voting, provided they actually DO something. The problem is, like you have so eloquently identified, that most people, even most Christians, most “Reformed” Christians, most “Reformed” men, won’t do anything. We have become apathetic to the point where we now like Big Brother. We don’t have to do anything for ourselves; Big Brother will take care of us. I am ADAMANTLY opposed to that.

    So, my question to you really is: Is passive resistance to paying taxes really the reformation you are looking for? Yes, we will drain some money from the coffers of Big Brother, and it might make a dent in the amount of control they have over us. But is that really the best way?

    David: “The American Glasnost indictment dragnet is a simple tactical plan: the citizens of the 50 States, coordinated by a political party such as the Constitution Party or even by a Tax Honesty group like We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, would — using only extant State (not federal) laws on fraud — work with their District Attorney (in their State District Court) to gain the indictment, conviction, and incarceration of their U.S. Congressman and their Senators, in their home district of their STATE GOVERNMENT.”

    At least you have an active idea here. I have not studied the tax code enough personally to know if this is reasonable or not. But here’s another question: Do you think it might be best to try talking to these public servants first? I read this story and I realize that most politicians are not this teachable, but don’t you think an education/information campaign might be a good first step instead. I can almost liken this to what I have done with exposing Doug. What if I had gone public immediately after my excommunication and just railed on the poor guy? What kind of response would I have received? Even though I haven’t had a positive effect on Doug yet, taking my time in doing everything I possibly could has resulted in a far greater impact than if I had just simply attacked him. The same principle applies here.

    Grass root movements can be quite powerful if done right. If you are right about these laws, you should have many people who are up in arms about paying taxes they don’t owe. What if you educated them to the point where they were willing to develop relationships with their senators and congressmen, educating them in turn? Once they fully understood the laws, or lack thereof, then you could attempt to prosecute for willful disobedience, or whatever.

    I don’t know if you have the right answer here or not. I wish I had an answer to taxes. If I did, I’d be a hero! But I do agree that we need to take back our rights – somehow, someway, someday.

  7. Jen Says:

    David, I’d like to ask you about a certain person you wrote about on your blog, or maybe it was that American View thread. His name starts with a J. Shortly after you wrote about him, his family left BCA. Since this wonderful family was there for many years, I was wondering if your talk with him influenced that decision at all, or if you know.

    I know that you think it is your mission to motivate “Reformed” men. You and I are activists, so in some ways, we think alike. One thing I have learned in life, though, is that not everyone is an activist. In fact, most people aren’t called to that. When I think about the people at BCA, I just can’t even imagine you being there, unless you are nothing in real life like what you are here. Just picturing you there sends me into peals of laughter!

    Do you really think most of those men are going to “reform” in the way you want them to? You’ve been there two years now. Has there been any change? Don’t get me wrong. I really did love most of the people at BCA. They are very kind and gentle people. Very gentle. And I just can’t imagine them becoming activists with you. I guess I’d just like to encourage you to realize that not everyone has that same drive that you do, that drive to change the world. There are very few world-changers and you are one of them. Just remember that most people, even Reformed Christian men, are not world changers. I do pray that you change the world some day — for Christ.

  8. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen,

    The IRS passed on recommendations to indict EIGHT TIMES MORE filers than non filers last year. But as a filer, you are only FOUR TIMES more likely than I am to be indicted for a “tax crime” because there are TWICE AS MANY filers as there are non-filers in America.

    NOW do you understand?

    Do you also understand (yes, of course you do) that “flying under the radar” has been used for decades in American jargon to mean hiding from someone, or operating where you cannot be seen? This suggests — as you have done all along — that by being a law-abiding Nontaxpayer, I am somehow seeking to avoid detection by “the law”.

    You are very sly, Jen; I will grant you that. You strike me as someone who, when you feel you are being “wronged”, will fight to the death to make the one who ‘wronged’ you, pay for it.

    I haven’t wronged you; as I said before, I didn’t write the Tax Code; I’m just trying to get more Americans — including those who work for the IRS — to OBEY it.

    Your post is just seething with envy; you refuse to “get it” because you simply don’t want to. I have not advocated breaking (or even bending) any laws, and am not advocating “flying under the radar” — which, by the way, is what many non-filers do. They simply do not file, and also do not read the law that they BELIEVE makes them liable for a tax. But they refuse to pay the tax that they BELIEVE they owe.

    With respect to the federal income tax, THAT is flying under the radar, Jen. And from an ethical standpoint, it is just as wrong as breaking the law because the person BELIEVES they are breaking the law.

    I find it amazing that people — even sharp, diligent businesspeople — will spend thousands of hours in their career — and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be diverted from ministry, missions, support for the needy, and from productive business and instead plowed into the DC al-Qaeda’as coffers — just because Americans are too lazy or indifferent to buy and read a copy of the law that supposedly makes them liable for squandering all that time and money!

    You’re not in that group because your husband works for the government and you know that you are Taxpayers according to law. But you’re still making straw men and obfuscating the issue — whether wittingly or ignorantly. I wish you’d stop doing that.

  9. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen,

    I am not a world-changer. I am a follower of the One who already changed the world. After He came in the flesh and died for mankind, there are two kingdoms — whether people know it, or admit it, or not.

    I am not called to change anything; I am only called to speak the truth about what He has done, and how men should live as a result. Speaking the truth in the love of Christ is not “changing the world”. Only God can do that; I have no such pretensions.

    As for John (the accountant who left BCA right after I challenged him about Tax Honesty): I don’t know why he and his family suddenly left BCA. I suppose it could have been as a result of my challenge, but it also could have been a number of other things.

    John is a very dear man, with a love for Jesus and His Church. I pray that he will also have a love for the truth, and will begin to see that he can still make a very good living as a CPA while not colluding in fraud, or supporting state-sponsored terrorism.

    Surely this is a hard thing for a CPA to do; they are trained to only believe what the system preaches. But many CPAs have left The Dark Side and now support Tax Honesty. They leave the choice up to the client (whether to be a Taxpayer or a Nontaxpayer) and do their books accordingly.

    Joe Banister used to wear body armor and carry a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when he worked for IRS al-Qaeda as a “CID” agent. Now he is a law-abiding Christian CPA, at peace with himself. No gun and no al-Qaeda badge.

    Same thing with John Turner, Clifton Beale, Sherry Peel Jackson, and Paul Chappell, all former IRS employees. They came over from The Dark Side.

    You’re obviously upset that you have to pay part of your husband’s salary back into Leviathan’s till — but you don’t mention that he gets 100% of his salary from the government, and 0% from producing something of value in the marketplace. You’re jealous that most Americans don’t have to make a “tax return” (return part of the money they make from a government job, or from a government-granted privilege like manufacturing alcohol or tobacco for sale. Please realise that your family has the choice, as we all do.

    This is a free country. In fact a lot more free than the average “Taxpayer” ever realised. Most Americans receive a very deficient education in state-run institutions and do not ever hear the truth about many aspects of American history. Tax Honesty is perhaps the largest lacuna in education today: not only in state schools, but in private schools also. Until the rise of the Internet (the printing press on steroids, with wings) the corrupt Congress had a virtual field-day at their fraudulent hog-trough.

    That day is over. Rather than decry how “unfair” it is that many now know the truth, you should rejoice. But perhaps being employed by government all your life has given you the envious spirit so often seen in the socialist mind.

    I will pray for you, sister!

  10. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen,

    You have said that, “We have become apathetic to the point where we now like Big Brother. We don’t have to do anything for ourselves; Big Brother will take care of us. I am ADAMANTLY opposed to that.”

    But you also say that your husband has been employed by Big Brother “his whole adult life”.

    Can you please help me (ethically) reconcile your two statements? Or would you rather keep flying under the radar? 🙂

  11. Cynthia Gee Says:

    David wrote,
    “I am not a world-changer. I am a follower of the One who already changed the world. After He came in the flesh and died for mankind, there are two kingdoms — whether people know it, or admit it, or not.

    I am not called to change anything; I am only called to speak the truth about what He has done, and how men should live as a result. Speaking the truth in the love of Christ is not “changing the world”. Only God can do that; I have no such pretensions.”

    David, I beg to differ. People who have the guts to speak up and the intelligence to speak well do often end up being movers and shakers.
    And if a person is speaking God’s truth, controversy is bound to follow.
    Truth has that affect.

  12. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I mean “effect”.
    Sheesh…. it’s going to be one of THOSE kind of days.

  13. Lawdog Says:

    “Joe Banister used to wear body armor and carry a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when he worked for IRS al-Qaeda as a “CID” agent. Now he is a law-abiding Christian CPA, at peace with himself.”

    Wrong! Joe Banister was disbarred as a CPA and one of his tax protest clients, Walter Thompson, is serving a six year prison sentence for tax fraud, all thanks to Banister’s ingenious tax advice.

    If Joe Banister believes so strongly in not paying income taxes why does he file tax returns and pay the income tax?

    Where did you get your information that Joe Banister is a “Christian”? Does Joe Banister profess his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? Please provide a source for that.

    Zuniga, don’t you know that many tax protest leaders think that Joe Banister is a double-agent?

  14. David M Zuniga Says:

    Lawdog,

    Please see Joe Banister’s website; maybe he’s just a huge liar, or maybe he’s an “IRS plant”, as some of the Tax Dishonesty Movement’s proponents claim.

    Perhaps you know “Al” Thomspon’s fact situation, but I don’t. I only know that Walter “Al” Thompson believed in “admiralty law”, black helicopters, and a whole lot else; the guy’s theories were certifiable nut-bag theories. I don’t go in for any of that, and suggest you don’t either.

    He may well have violated laws; one way or another, he believed a lot of stuff that you won’t find in any law. He was certifiable. With respect to your feeble attempt at terrorising the uninitiated reader: I think you’re being less than honest in suggesting that Mr. Thompson is serving time “all thanks to Banister’s ingenious tax advice”.

    Joe Banister has been called ‘Christian’ by others in the Tax Honesty effort, and I understand he is a Roman Catholic, which certainly does not disqualify him from being a follower of Christ. Makes it harder, without a doubt (Rome is as full of fraud as the Congress’s IRS check-skimming scam has been) but it doesn’t disqualify a person from being Christian.

    I wonder what you think of Paul Chappell, former IRS attorney and now supporter of Tax Honesty? Or former agent John Turner, who is definitely an evangelical Christian (I’ve talked with him a great deal) and is now fighting for Tax Honesty? Or former IRS Fraus Examiner Sherry Peel Jackson, who also refers to herself as a Christian, and who is the one who made public the estimate of 67 million non-filers?

    Let’s say there are really only 25% that many non-filers, about 16,750,000. That’s about half as many as the estimate by IRS commish Charles Rossotti back in 1999. Last year, the DoJ recommended fewer than 300 “non-filer” indictments for ALL white-collar ‘crimes’, not just failure to file. That means the DoJ was recommending indictment of one out of about every 56,000 such “criminals”.

    Now really, “Lawdog”, if our system of justice is actually as remiss as that in even seeking to apprehend “criminals”, we are far, far worse than the very most corrupt banana republic on earth!

    But we already knew that, didn’t we! 🙂

  15. David M Zuniga Says:

    “Fraus” Examiner? Heh…

    I meant former IRS FRAUD Examiner Sherry Peel Jackson.

  16. David M Zuniga Says:

    Cynthia,

    The last thing I am (or shall ever be) is a “mover and shaker”. The very thought repulses me. I don’t like a lot of travel, or public speaking, or the harried life that “movers and shakers” live.

    I think we need to think in terms of centuries, and in terms of a much smaller “vision” for ourselves. Because God is sovereign over every man, mouse, and molecule we don’t need a :big vision”, we just need to be faithful over what we are given.

    Imagine that I convince 20 people during my entire lifetime to live for Christ. In terms of family, Church, and State this would entail giving up their silly denominational allegiances and legends; ending their financial support for government terrorism and corruption; no longer trundling their children off in a bus (or driving them to the Christian processing center) every day instead of training them up as God meant for us to do, as we work and live at home and in the shop or field.

    Now, imagine that each of those twenty would do the same thing in their own lifetime: just try to lead (20) others in real reformational living for Christ. In five generations — the same span of time since Lincoln’s War to Enslave the States gave rise to this Leviathan State — there would be 64,000,000 Americans living for Christ on the ground in real time, where it matters.

    My work is quite small; God’s sovereignty and power are quite large. We need a smaller vision, that’s all.

  17. Lawdog Says:

    “No more Tax Honesty banter; folks will think me a blog-hog, and I will waste as much of this week as I did of last week!”

    Aw, that’s okay Zuniga. I think everyone reached that conclusion about you days ago anyway. Please don’t try and duck out now. I’m just getting warmed up.

    “Please see Joe Banister’s website; maybe he’s just a huge liar, or maybe he’s an “IRS plant”, as some of the Tax Dishonesty Movement’s proponents claim.”

    Okay, sorry, I forgot. You’re part of the “tax honesty movement,” not the “tax dishonesty movement.” So which movement is Joe Banister a part of? I’m asking for your personal opinion here Zuniga, not the opinions of those in the “tax dishonesty movement,” which I think is a reasonable request. You’re very free in offering your personal opinions here. I’m thoroughly impressed by your expertise on such a broad variety of subjects. Regardless of the subject you appear to be one of the only people in the entire world who knows what you know. I’d just like to know if you personally think whether or not Joe Banister is an IRS trojan horse? You specifically mentioned him as though he were some sort of a poster boy, and I’m assuming you wouldn’t do that unless you thought he was part of the “tax honesty movement.” So is it fair to assume that you think Banister is legit?

    Which part of the tax movement is Sherry Peel Jackson a part of, the “honest” one or the “dishonest” one? For several years she and Joe Banister were pushing Larken Rose’s “861 Argument” and peddling his videos. Larken Rose himself ultimately wound up in the slammer over it. So it didn’t work out too well for him. Do you know of anyone who’s ever beat the IRS or won in any court anywhere in America using the 861 argument? Do you advocate the 861 argument as Banister and Jackson have, or is that too just another one of those many “certifiable nut-bag theories”?

    “With respect to your feeble attempt at terrorising the uninitiated reader…” Actually, Zuniga, I’m a pretty honest guy myself, including “tax honesty.” I’m not trying to “terrorize” anyone, just be “honest” about making sure that everyone here has full disclosure about the facts, since you only want to give the rose-colored glasses version of the story.
    You claim to be part of the “tax honesty movement.” So why the failure to disclose the fact that, sooner or later, practically all tax protest types like yourself get hammered by the IRS? You speak only of DOJ criminal indictments, and I agree with you that there aren’t that many of those. There’s a good reason why DOJ doesn’t run that many run-of-the-mill tax protestors through the criminal process. It’s time consuming and a major expenditure of valuable resources. So they generally save the criminal actions for the tax protest leaders, or those who are indirectly influencing others to become tax protestors, say like Kent Hovind. With your blog and all the “tax honesty” comments you post all over the internet you probably fall into that category too.

    But the IRS has many other hammers in their bag to destroy tax protestors with, including liens, levies, garnishments, seizures, and raids, none of which require a DOJ indictment. The IRS isn’t always so quick to smash a tax protestor civilly, and even less swift to do so criminally. It usually takes years before they’ll get fed up with your protesting and come after you. But when the hammer finally does fall it hurts real bad. If they want to be really mean they’ll seize all your assets and then criminally indict you too. Makes it real hard to hire a competent criminal defense team when you’re penniless.

    So Zuniga, for your sake, and your family’s sake, I hope that you’re already poor, broke and destitute. If you’re not then you will be when the hammer falls. Since you’re not writing books or producing videos the IRS may not consider you to be a tax protest “leader.” However, with your blog you’re still high profile, and with all the “tax honesty” comments you post all over the internet you’re obviously trying to influence others to join your “tax honesty movement.” So maybe the IRS does consider you to be a “leader.” Maybe you’ll get singled out for a DOJ criminal indictment. Or maybe you’ll just get hammered civilly. Either way it’s just a matter of time before you get pulverized.

    I don’t disregard anything you’ve said, Zuniga, about the corruption and tyranny of big government. In fact I think I take the tyranny a whole lot more seriously than you do. When it comes to tyranny the IRS makes Doug Phillips look like a pantywaist. You’ve taken a tiger by the tail Zuniga. Hold on tight! You’re in for quite a ride!

  18. David M Zuniga Says:

    Lawdog,

    Please, please read my introductory article. I will retract my suggestion that you are attempting to “terrorise” the reader; you are in fact giving nothing but facts about some of the people that have been nabbed by the IRS as very public trials, to keep folks in line.

    I can find no fault with what you have said; all those people did truly get “nabbed” by IRS al-Qaeda. As for Larken Rose and his “861 position”, I speak to this at length (I speak to EVERYthing at length, right?!) on my website.

    In a nutshell: Larken Rose publicly acknowledges he is an atheist and an anarchist, so obviously anything else he says is baloney in my book. Secondly, his “861 position” has no tactical merit (has been summarily, repeatedly trounced in court – never winning over a jury even once). I prefer just telling the truth and using the Tax Code, as written.

    But you keep trying to scare the groundlings anyway, “Lawdog”, so since you refuse to operate under your real name (that always speaks volumes) how do I know YOU’RE not an IRS al-Qaeda sleeper cell on this little blog, eh? I mean, at least Joe Banister uses his real name.

    And do you deny that the DoJ actually did indict fewer than 300 non-filers in 2005?

    And do you deny that the DoJ actually did indict almost eight times as many “filers” in 2005?

    My point remains: you can try to frighten Christians all you like, but the fact remains that whether IRS al-Qaeda comes after Zuniga or not, they come after FOUR TIMES MORE (per capita) filers than non-filers!

    Not only that, but they have already shot the blanks at me that you claim can so “pulverize” me. They sent an “IRS Summons” to two of my clients, but I sent a copy of the Texas Penal Code Section 32.48 (“Simulating Legal Process”) to those same clients! Guess what, ‘Lawdog’ champ? Texas law calls it a CRIME when someone other than a judge sends out a paper with the word SUMMONS on it! So I can “pulverise” a few IRS al-Qaeda operatives if I wanted to, but I don’t see the point of putting a couple of IRS employees in orange jumpsuits and leg-irons in a Texas prison. Who’s going to take care of their kids while they serve time?

    You see, I’m not as mean-spirited as IRS al-Qaeda; but no, I’m not quaking in my boots at your threats, either.

    While you’re performing your due diligence before spouting off again, let me direct you to Texas Government Code 51.901 (“Fraudulent Document or Instrument”) to show you that the “Notice of Federal Tax Lien” meets the two tests for fraudulent liens at (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C). Those “notice of lien” documents are NOT liens as required by Texas law for minima in an abstract of judgment (basically requires a court judgment, date of judgment, etc)

    So you see, the emperor is stark naked. You can preach to the moon about how gorgeous his robes arem, counselor. But you look stupid doing it.

    I’m sorry if you think I’m just being a know-it-all. I’ve spent many more years studying the matter, apparently, than you have. Diligence pays off, even for a person of very average intelligence like me.

  19. David M Zuniga Says:

    So “Lawdog”,

    I take it you’re not a woman. I’vbe been told by women on this blog that they don’t use their real names because they’re afraid of being stalked.

    What are YOU afraid of?

  20. David M Zuniga Says:

    So tell me again, “Lawdog”, how you believe you “take tyranny seriously”? How, precisely, do you (I assume you’re a Christian?) take “tyranny” seriously?

    I do not consider the present corrupt DC/IRS al-Qaeda to be “tyranny” at all. Classically defined, the tyrant has real power to rule, and does so in an ungodly ans cruel manner. The only “tyranny” you live under is the tyranny of your own chicken-heart.

    Admit it: you’re still a clueless* Taxpayer running in terror from about (3) public show trials per year that IRS al-Qaeda posts all over the media from Jan 1-Apr 15 each year. The terror works: even attorneys (who normally understand that every case stands on its own law and fact issues) run in fear from the “tiger” that Big Mister Lawdog has suggested I have by the tail!

    It makes no sense; in no other area of law are so many people living in such abject terror that they actually refuse to even RESEARCH the truth. They simply pay the terrorist, and live in “peace”.

    Read my little American Glasnost blog first, please. Stop trying to scare people who already stand on the Blood of Jesus Christ, and on the words of the actual Tax Code, as written.

    I am not afraid of the truth, or of the rule of law. In fact, I am standing in defense of both, and the Truth has made me free, praise God.

    You and Jen both (mendaciously) suggest that “when they find out about you, they will RUIN you!!!” and yet I have corresponded very forthrightly with my IRS employees for eight years, and they have not taken one dollar from me, nor harmed me in the least. I welcome the opportunity to be taken to court, if they wish such a thing; I would simply read, seriatim, the contents of my American Glasnost blog introductory article.

    Do you think the IRS would want twelve of my fellow Americans to hear what is printed on my introductory article? Notice my blog has no Larken Rose/Joe Banister stuff; no Irwin Schiff stuff; no Al Thompson stuff, et al? No; but it does have a lot of court rulings, sections of the Tax Code as published, and quotes from former IRS commissioners and agents — VERY damaging to the al-Qaeda’s check-skimming operation!

    No, I think I’m a LOT safer than you are, “Lawdog”. By the way, if you won’t give me your name, will you at least tell me what breed of dog you are?

    I’m guessing Mexican hairless.

  21. David M Zuniga Says:

    *When I use the word “clueless” with respect to Tax Honesty, I don’t mean a person is clueless about all subjects in life; only about his duty to keep records, file forms, and pay the demands of IRS al-Qaeda.

    The average “Taxpayer” that won’t even consider the claims of a movement that now numbers in the tens of millions, still continues to operate based on urban legend rather than based on law. This average “Taxpayer” ADMITS DOING THIS, yet also claims he is being a good citizen.

    In the days of our forefathers, that person would not have been considered fit for citizenship in the American colonies and later States.

    Thus, by “clueless”, I actually mean unfit for liberty; too lazy or terrorised to seriously study why Washington DC is so corrupt.

    Clue for the clueless: $2.7 TRILLION coming in this year…and even more next year, and MORE the next year, and…

    OK, really; I’m done. I know I got a Mexican Hairless by the tail this time, but if little LawDog hops off Jen’s lap to yap at me again, someone please slap him in the little tushie. Not too hard or he’ll spin across the floor. 🙂

  22. Ronnie McDonald Says:

    No, I think I’m a LOT safer than you are, “Lawdog”. By the way, if you won’t give me your name, will you at least tell me what breed of dog you are?

    I’m guessing Mexican hairless.

    AND

    OK, really; I’m done. I know I got a Mexican Hairless by the tail this time, but if little LawDog hops off Jen’s lap to yap at me again, someone please slap him in the little tushie. Not too hard or he’ll spin across the floor. 🙂

    Wow….d-u-d-e, LOL, if only you knew….

    *rolling on the floor in tears of laughter as you unknowingly embarrass yourself in ways unprecedented in blogging history*

  23. Lawdog Says:

    “I prefer just telling the truth and using the Tax Code, as written.”

    Now there’s a funny statement! That’s exactly what Larken Rose said. That’s what Irwin Schiff said (also in jail). That’s what every single “tax honesty” guy says. “I’m just telling the truth about the tax code, as it’s written.” Funny how they’re all telling the truth, how they all come up with such strange interpretations of the code, and how their interpretations even conflict with one another’s “tax honesty.” Hardly any of them agree with one another. Put two tax protestors in a room together and it won’t take long before they’re shouting at each other about all the things they disagree about. Not much of a “movement” if you ask me.

    You just dropped the names of several people that apparently even you don’t agree with! What’s that all about?

    “you are in fact giving nothing but facts about some of the people that have been nabbed by the IRS as very public trials…”

    As a “tax honesty” guy why aren’t you doing the same? You throw out names to garner credibility for your tax protest theories, but you’re not even giving us half the story. How does name-dropping the names of people who have been miserable failures and they and/or their clients have gone to jail and/or lost all their worldly wealth, lend you any credibility? It doesn’t. Unless, of course you were hoping that someone like me wouldn’t show up to burst your balloon full of your hot air.

    “So you see, the emperor is stark naked. You can preach to the moon about how gorgeous his robes arem, counselor. But you look stupid doing it.” Yes, in your tax protestor eyes I look stupid, and you are so very wise. Do you think I care? I’m not commenting to gain credibility in your eyes Zuniga. I’m commenting to demonstrate how dishonest you are by name-dropping the names of your heroes who, in reality, are losers. If you’re going to proffer “tax honesty” it begins with providing full disclosure. So far you’ve just told half-truths, which is no truth at all.

    “And do you deny that the DoJ actually did indict fewer than 300 non-filers in 2005?

    “And do you deny that the DoJ actually did indict almost eight times as many “filers” in 2005?”

    So what does that prove? That there are 8 times as many filers than non-filers? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way it’s irrelevant. In both cases DOJ indicts for tax crimes. Many people who file tax returns cheat on their taxes. It’s commonplace. But even of the ones that get caught, very few are ever criminally prosecuted. They’re usually just punished civilly with penalties and interest. The uncooperative non-filers are punished far more severely, with liens, levies, garnishments, seizures, raids, etc.

    As for those who don’t file, I’d be the first to admit that there are Americans who may not have any taxable income, and they don’t need to file. I don’t know the particulars of the 67 million you mention. Do you? Are you saying that most of them have reported income of $600/year or more and that they’ve refused to file tax returns?

    “how do I know YOU’RE not an IRS al-Qaeda sleeper cell on this little blog, eh? I mean, at least Joe Banister uses his real name.”

    You don’t know, Zuniga. You’re a high profile guy so you should always assume that anyone you’re talking to (especially anonymous guys like me) are IRS agents. As a presumed IRS agent you should work hard to convince me to become the next Joe Banister.

    As for “Joe Banister,” I’m amazed that you’re so naive as to believe that he “uses his real name.” (Oh wait, no I’m not amazed at all). Some of your tax protest heroes (the losers) believe that he’s using his real name. There are others though who have been convinced for years that he’s a trojan horse, and what they’re saying makes a lot more sense. “Joe Banister” acknowledges that that’s the name he used as a IRS CID agent. Yet, he’s still using the same name, and he claims that’s his real name. Since when do IRS CID Agents ever use they’re real name? They don’t. For their own protection they use assumed names. Even IRS Special Agents and Revenue Agents almost always use assumed names. Yet “Joe Banister” continues using a name that he claims is his real birth-name, and the name that he claims he used while in the IRS’ employ in a position that no one ever uses their birth-name.

    All I can say Zuniga is that you’re a very gullible man. But that’s no surprise. The “tax honesty” movement is full of gullible people.

  24. David M Zuniga Says:

    Um…better cast a teensy bit wider net there, “Lawdog”; AMERICA is full of gullible people.

    You’re one of them.

    Notice that on my blog, I don’t quote any of the people you claim are “my heroes”? Notice that the only quotes I give are those of the Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, the Congress (26 USC), the Texas Penal Code, the Texas Government Code, former IRS commissioners, et al?

    No; you didn’t notice. You were too busy trying to scare the readers, yapping “They’re coming to GET you!! BWAHAHAAAHAAA!!”

    I guess I really AM gullible, though, “Lawdog”; this is the first time I heard that my public employees can use false names while on the job! So what, you’re going to have me believe that IRS employees are some special class of administrative (remember your Constitution here, “Lawdog”- IRS is ADMINISTRATIVE, not judicial branch) employee that gets to use fake names?

    And you also question, with a straight face, why I would say the Congress is running a fraud with that check-skimming operation? If what you say is true (but I very much doubt it is) then that would fit the modus of fraud, as so much else that our IRS employees do!

    So, “Lawdog”, do you really have chips in the game? Are you a government plant? A tax attorney with obvious chips in the game, perhaps? And who is Ronnie McDonald…one of your shills? Employee, maybe? Just a fawning supporter? One of your paralegals?

  25. David M Zuniga Says:

    Sorry; that’s over the line. In fact, the past several posts about you have been rude and childish, “Lawdog” (whatever your real name is).

    I do tend to get heated when people reinforce the state-sponsored terror ploys of the income tax industry. People are already terrorised by those three little letters, “I-R-S”; of course, this is not the way it should be in America.

    Until the smoke settled from The War to Enslave the States, we were never terrorised by our federal government; since that time, we have been increasingly so.

    The spirit of Christ is not one of mean-spirited bickering, though. I too easily fall to that level.

    Forgive me.

    Read my site if you like; don’t, if you don’t like. (Truly, it’s a free country.) If you think I am simply “headed for heartbreak”, truly, you can spare me the concern. IRS has tried their best under the law, and I am just fine. If I one day have to go before (12) fellow citizens and read my American Glasnost introductory article to them (that would comprise the bulk of my defense), I believe those (12) citizens would acquit me handily.

    More importantly, I believe they would be (12) more Americans who know the truth about the Congress’ check-skimming scam. As the IRS’s only official historian, Shelley L. Davis, testified before the Senate Finance Committee oversight hearing ten years ago:

    “Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to be able to share a few of my thoughts and experiences with you today as you explore specific issues of IRS abuse of those the tax agency likes to call its “customers” — American taxpayers. For 16 years I worked as an historian for the federal government…the final seven were spent as the first and unfortunately, the last official historian for the Internal Revenue Service.

    “In my early years with the IRS, a good question to ask was, “Where are the records?” What I learned was shocking. The records had been destroyed. Gone. Shredded. Tossed. …It is as though the IRS assumed that laws which apply to the FBI, to the CIA, to every other part of the federal establishment can be ignored…. No other agency of our government could get away with this. I questioned…why it had taken so long for anyone to realize that the records were not just missing, but destroyed…. the answer is based on FEAR.

    “As taxpayers, would we ever question the one agency that can truly bite back? … Our fear of being audited has allowed the IRS to theoretically eliminate any potential smoking guns by trashing its own records …

    “How can you prove any wrongdoing when the evidence is …destroyed? The IRS has learned that the privacy protections are its best weapon in its war against its ‘customers’…”

    So: the IRS al-Qaeda agents use false names while on the job…and they trash records with impunity…yet require all ‘customers’ to be honest with THEM?

    Terrorism, corruption, and fraud are not acceptable in federal government, I don’t care WHAT you threaten they can do to me. Especially if you make a living off the status quo, you should be honest enough to admit it, and to use your real name. Even if you work for IRS, and even if it’s true that IRS people operate under false names.

  26. Lawdog Says:

    “Notice that on my blog, I don’t quote any of the people you claim are “my heroes”?” I haven’t noticed Zuniga because I haven’t purused your blog. But I have read your comments here, and I was responding to those comments in which you resorted to name-dropping. So in addition to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, you’ve also now resorted to straw man?

    “I guess I really AM gullible, though, “Lawdog”; this is the first time I heard that my public employees can use false names while on the job!” No, actually that’s just called ignorance. You’re also gullible, but that’s a different matter altogether.

    “And you also question, with a straight face, why I would say the Congress is running a fraud with that check-skimming operation?” Why are you attributing statements to me that I never made? I though you were part of the “tax honesty” movement.

    “So, “Lawdog”, do you really have chips in the game? Are you a government plant?” Wouldn’t it be ironic (and funny) after you’ve called me a “Mexican hairless” if a bald Mexican IRS Special Agent shows up to testify at your trial?

  27. David M Zuniga Says:

    It would be hilarious, yes. But am I supposed to gather then, since you still refuse to use your name, that you ARE bald? That’s hilarious!

    But a Mexican IRS Special Agent is a little far-fetched, L-dog; yeah, I know they do a lot of underhanded things, but so far I don’t think they use Mexican nationals in IRS al-Qaeda.

    Or are you just preying on my gullibility again?

  28. David M Zuniga Says:

    Whoa. I just noticed something.

    Imagine folks coming on this blog thread entitled “Church Strengthened When Doug Phillips Supporters Leave”, and finding a Mexican Hairless tugging at the pants-leg of a Tax Honesty supporter? Whaaaa?

    Hey, I sure don’t mind helping “the dog” (whatever his real name is) become a bit of comic relief from this whole sad affair!

  29. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “So “Lawdog”, I take it you’re not a woman. I’vbe been told by women on this blog that they don’t use their real names because they’re afraid of being stalked.”

    Uh, David — not all of the women on this blog use pseudonyms, and not all of us are afraid of stalkers. 😈

  30. Jen Says:

    David, thank you for the math lesson that 2X4=8. I shall try to remember that. 🙂 However, you have still not begun to answer my question, and subsequently Lawdog’s question, about why so few non-filers are prosecuted in comparison to taxpayers. My guess is that there are several reasons for that, and none of them have to do with your math and logic. First, since most non-filers are flying “under the radar,” the IRS is not aware of most of them. Second, since we know that many taxpayers also cheat on their taxes, it is reasonable to assume that a good many will get caught as well. Third, the IRS generally goes after people that rip off the government for large amounts of money. In fact, if you call in a potential tax fraud case, the first thing they want to know is how much money is involved. In a situation very closely related to this blog, when the IRS was called about tax fraud, they said to call them back when the amount of fraud reached $10,000. Now, obviously they conduct routine audits on the average taxpayer all the time. But the average non-filer is not the average taxpayer, since they are not on the IRS’ radar screen, so the IRS is not as aggressive in hunting them down. So, in other words, David, these particular numbers are rather meaningless in the big picture.

    I think it is only fair that you give us some examples of people, average or not, who have gone to court with an argument similar to yours, and won. Those are the numbers and names I am interested in.

    Yes, “flying under the radar” means operating where you cannot be seen. Exactly. And isn’t that what most non-filers do, yourself excepted? In fact, what I would like to know is how many of those non-filers do so because of due diligence and their own conviction on these issues, versus how many are just trying to evade the law.

    David, I do not think you have wronged me in any way whatsoever. Why would you say something like that? And I am not trying to be sly, either. I think you will find me quite forthright. I “get” your position quite well. At least, you have not indicated that I summarized it incorrectly. From what I can tell, you are probably not breaking the law, and I want to reiterate that I have never accused you of such. I fully acknowledge that your position involves always obeying the law.

    To say that my comment to you was seething with envy is quite a misrepresentation. The section about the tax liability being unequally apportioned was only a small section of that comment, and even that part was said with no malice. I just wondered if you agreed that it was a good idea that only some pay, while all reap the benefits. You are right that my husband can choose his occupation and we could choose to be non-filers someday as well. However, the reason there is truly no envy is that this is really the first year we have actually “paid” any taxes. For most of our tax lives, we have not really owed anything, so that doesn’t faze me at all. Even if I was a non-filer, I would see that disparity.

    I’m sorry I accused you of being a world changer. That’s too bad. I really like world changers. You came in here hard charging and that sure seems to be the trait of a world changer. But no matter. I like your idea of discipleship, for that is really what you are advocating. I think it is great. I’m not sure we really have that many generations left here on this earth, though, so I don’t know if your multiples of 20 will have as much of an impact as you hope for. Personally, I think you have the potential to be a world changer and I’d like to see you use those abilities to do something great. Discipleship is extremely important, but that can be done at the same time as changing the world. Just ask Doug Phillips.

    “You have said that, “We have become apathetic to the point where we now like Big Brother. We don’t have to do anything for ourselves; Big Brother will take care of us. I am ADAMANTLY opposed to that.”

    “But you also say that your husband has been employed by Big Brother “his whole adult life”.

    “Can you please help me (ethically) reconcile your two statements? Or would you rather keep flying under the radar?”

    Hmm. How do I answer that one? Guilty as charged? I am not my husband’s keeper? Actually, my husband has always worked for the military. I do think a strong military is necessary. It is possible that we could have fewer full-time soldiers and more weekend warriors, ready just in case. My husband would not agree because the weekend warriors have such pathetic training, but I think something could be done about that as well.

    I think we could probably both agree that some positions in the government are necessary. My husbands trains and tests the National Guard, local mayor, governor, police, hazmat teams, emergency personnel, hospital, FBI, and CIA on what to do if there is a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The biggest problem they have is learning to work together. Maybe we can blame that on too much government! But you will probably be grateful for him the next time we do have a terrorist attack and all the government personnel are well trained to respond accordingly or when we have the next hurricane and he is there to help the people recover. And, yes, he did help train the NYC police and fire departments after 9/11. I just thought I should throw that in.

    So, I’m torn. Who would pay for civilians to be the experts in this field in order for the government to step out? I would like to see it, but I’m not sure how that could be accomplished.

    In all actuality, you should probably be more concerned about my own hypocrisy in that statement, since I worked for the government (Department of Revenue, Fuels Tax, Motor Vehicles Division, Army) for about 11 years altogether. Actually, maybe that is why I see so much corruption and waste in the government.

    I will say you got me on that one. I do, however, reject government handouts even when I might be “entitled” to them. I would like to see a revolution against Big Brother, personally, but I will settle for a reformation. And right now, you do have more practical ideas about that than I do. I’ll give you that.

  31. Jen Says:

    I want to say something to Lawdog and David. Please remember that you are both Christians here. David, I won’t tell you who Lawdog is, but he did teach me about different tax positions, so I am deferring to him on the tax issue. I think if you knew who he was, you might have a little more respect for him. Likewise, Lawdog, be kind! And no ad homs from either one of you!

  32. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen, I did say I was sorry — admittedly not until after I went too far in personally attacking “Lawdog.” I think if he knew who I was, he might have a little more respect for me, too! As C.S. Lewis said (I don’t remember his exact words), if we could see that person whom we so disdain here on earth, as he will appear in glory, we would be tempted to fall down and worship him.

    Again, “Lawdog”, I’m sorry for calling you a Mexican Hairless, and all the other tasteless jabs I made. But I think you pooh-pooh Tax Honesty, and aid the “cause” of government corruption by lumping together first-generation “tax protestors” with those of us who have done a considerable amount of due diligence as Christians and citizens.

    Jen, I appreciate your apologies; I was too harsh on you as well. But if you go back and compare your earlier staements with your later ones, you really did seem to suggest that I was lying/confused/whatever because you didn’t know where the “4x as many” and “8x as many” figures figured in.

    You beg the question when you ask “who would pay for civilians to be the experts in this field in order for the government to step out?” We don’t need “experts”, and we don’t need some Ubergovernment to “make everything better” in life; this is the knee-jerk reaction of the statist and the socialist.

    The Constitution makes provision for “a well-regulated militia”, and anyone that believes this means a standing army or a gaggle of jack-bootes SWAT goons on every city block, doesn’t know the history of the American colonies, or of the militias of the several States, or of police states in Europe, Asia, and Latin America!

    Let me highly recommend the latest book by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., called “Constitutional ‘Homeland Security’ Volume 1: The Nation in Arms”.

    I consider Dr Vieira to be a friend and a great American. Holding four degrees from Harvard (including a JD from the Law School), Ed Vieira has been a practicing constitutional law attorney who has written scholarly monographs and articles, books (including the ponderous 1600-page 2-volume “Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution” and “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary”).

    Dr. Vieira is an NRA Firearms Instructor (in several firearms disciplines) and as well as being a teacher and lecturer, is an avid student of America’s colonial militias of the several States — the unique form of “homeland security” at the neighborhood and community level envisioned by the founders — and sundered by Dishonest Abe’s federal troops after The War To Enslave the States.

    In this, his latest work in a series to be continued, Dr. Vieira presents America with a simple, uniquely constitutional plan for securing the “American homeland” just as our forefathers meant us to do: one community at a time.

    In his multi-stage plan of action, the author first lays out the constitutional fundaments of “the militias of the several States”, showing that the Second Amendment is

    “the one and only time the Constitution explicitly cites and relies upon a principle of political philosophy and the cumulative experience of American history…to justify the right of the people…and a corresponding DISABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.” [Capital emphasis mine, to address your subject point, Jen.]

    The author goes on to show how a local group of men and their older sons can form local Citizens’ Homeland Security Associations PURSUANT TO — and NOT in place of — duly constituted, multi-disciplinary, citizen militias.

    Then, with the buckaroos and rowdies weeded out and the serious men (of many talents, not merely “aim small, hit small”) forming work groups to meet the ‘public order and emergency response’ needs of their own community, these groups begin to study their State laws on citizen militia, homeland security, et al — to make sure their laws are consonant with the intent of the Constitution (” a well-regulated militia”) and in no way impinge on the men of a given community being able to effectively defend their own hearth and home — and larger community — as is the clear intent of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

    All of this (obviously) is done in order, and with the cooperation and (mutual) respect for local police, fire department, EMS units, and other “government” first-responders. In short, this is AMERICA, acting like we were supposed to act in times of crisis, from the very first.

    Once the group is fully engaged in education (constitutional law, basic civics and history, et al) and in training not only in firearms use, force-on-force, CQC, etc — but in emergency logistics, CPR and first aid, etc — then it is ready to form a citizens’ militia that is worthy of the name, rather than filling the silly caricature of “militias” that is so common in the mind of gun-haters and city folks.

    I highly recommend Dr. Vieira’s book. It’s a breath of fresh air, and a way forward as free, brave American communities, rather than relying on the increasingly nefarious police state with armored personnel carriers and paramilitary units poised to clamp down on the people they are supposedly “serving”. Such a police state is too easily comandeered by wicked men — especially with the trillions coming in every year.

  33. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen,

    OK, one more wacky “big idea” from Zuniga, and I’m out of here. Should anyone like to run with this idea, have at it with my compliments!

    It’s the 4th of July, 2010. In the main public library of 535 American cities and towns (the hometown of every member of the U.S. House and Senate), a group of Americans, having previously organised as a “well-regulated militia” in an orderly, law-abiding way, hold a town meeting (with fireworks and barbeque afterwards). At that town meeting, the men and older boys of the community are invited to help forge a true “homeland security” workforce, unpaid but organised and with one goal: to restore the Constitutional form of local “homeland security” envisioned by our Constitution.

    This shindig could be called “AMERICA AGAIN!”

  34. David M Zuniga Says:

    This would be the America Again declaration, issued to the media in those 535 cities and towns, Jen:

    ********

    “A Declaration of the American People
    and these united States
    Resolving to Enforce our U.S. Constitution

    “Whereas We the People of these 50 States of America were the creators of the U.S. Constitution, and the three branches of federal government are creatures — things created by us in the U.S. Constitution; and

    “Whereas the national Constitution is the highest and most basic Law of the Land throughout this Republic so uniquely blessed by God among all nations; and

    “Whereas it is the sworn duty of all members of the U.S. Congress, and of every U.S. administration, and of the U.S. federal judiciary, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of these united States of America; and

    “Whereas in that U.S. Constitution, We the People clearly enumerated and limited the powers of the federal government and retained any powers not specifically enumerated therein, to ourselves and our sovereign States, and any exercise of power by federal government beyond those listed powers is a violation of the highest law in America, which law has been repeatedly violated by politicians and presidents for 145 years in America, through many wars and attacks on the People of America and of other lands, such violence being the economic engine of wicked men throughout history; and

    “Whereas President Jefferson said that “in questions of powers…let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”; and

    “Whereas such “binding down” can only be peaceably effected by binding the federal purse- for its present $2.7 trillion annual revenues have spawned a brood of corruptions, as unlimited sums of money have always done. This ocean of D.C. cash has birthed limitless unconstitutional federal powers, departments, agencies, agents, programs, projects, offices, and regulations that now threaten America’s future, our liberties and property, the U.S. Constitution itself, and the peoples of many foreign lands; and

    “Whereas the U.S. Congress was granted by us the sole responsibility to pass laws on federal tax assessment, collection, and enforcement, but the Internal Revenue Service has repeatedly violated those laws; indeed becoming a state-sponsored terror organization as defined by President George W. Bush in Executive Order 13224, “terrorism: an activity that… involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life…or…property… and…appears to be intended…to intimidate or coerce a civilian population…” and we agree with the President that this is a War on Terror, for such actions as now witnessed in these 50 States — armed teams of agents storming citizen’s homes and businesses, taking wife and children out of their beds or taking a man from his shower at gunpoint; ransacking personal belongings; seizing bank accounts and personal property including his means of feeding his family; destroying marriages and businesses — clearly meet that definition of terrorism!; and

    “Whereas this state-sponsored terrorism has continued for decades with consent and collaboration of a succession of corrupt Congresses and administrations even after every member of Congress and successive administrations have been hand-delivered extensive packages of evidence that the IRS has been fraudulently misrepresenting the Tax Code , committing such terrorism as previously described, and describing same as ‘Code enforcement’ — a shameless breach of public trust as witnessed in corrupt ‘banana republics’; and

    “Whereas these things are corroborated by former IRS fraud examiner Sherry Jackson, former IRS attorney Paul Chappell, former IRS –CID enforcement agent ‘Joe Banister’, and former agents ‘Clifton Beale’ and ‘John Turner’ — all of whom are now spokesmen against current Congressional and IRS fraud and in favor of Tax Honesty, and all these former IRS employees agree with over 65 million American non-filers including law-abiding Nontaxpayers who assert that IRS has been unable to show any section of law transforming the average person living and working in one of the 50 States into a “taxpayer” as defined in the law, or establishing a legal duty for him to keep records, file forms, or pay federal income tax — but that the arrangement is a financial boon to corrupt politicians spreading largesse and receiving power in return; and

    “Whereas Tax Honesty can restrict federal revenue sources to lawful sources — import duties, federal excise taxes, import tariffs, taxes on corporate profits and on other taxable activities listed as taxable in the Tax Code — such as the manufacture or sale of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and a few other activities and classifications — greatly reducing the present $7.4 billion per day flood of federal cash (the corrupting equivalent of 10,800 major drug cartels) and thus de-fund many illegal arrogations, powers, departments, and offices and greatly diminish the source of Washington , D.C. corruption that causes each successive generation of Americans to become increasingly cynical, powerless, and bereft of hope; and

    “Whereas We the People of these 50 sovereign States will not allow Congress to burden us or our future generations with any equally-corrupt “revenue neutral” alternative plan to milk the productive segment of the Republic — such as the national sales tax plan that is popular among solons; instead we demand that elected representatives show new respect for the Constitution by allowing reduced revenues to limit Washington D.C. to its enumerated powers — and thus limit the potential for corruption; and

    “Whereas President George Washington said that “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. . .A free people ought to be armed”;

    “Therefore, after over two centuries of failing to discharge our citizen duties and bearing the cost of our abdication on every hand, We the People of the fifty united States demand that those we sent to serve us in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate:

    “Pass legislation repealing the patently unconstitutional Presidential War Powers Act, which violates the delegation of war powers in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and has allowed American presidents to act as unchecked military tyrants around the world while allowing Congress to abdicate its deliberative role before sending America’s military to kill and maim people of other lands (many of whom have been innocent non-combatants) although they caused no demonstrable threat to We the People or our States but only to commercial interests;

    “2) Pass legislation that:
    A) Acknowledges the 4th Amendment privacy in the American people’s own persons, houses, papers, communications, and effects from any and all government surveillance, seizure, or detainment unless preceded by issuance of a specific, bona fide warrant issued on probable cause, and
    B) Announces Congress’s intention to refuse to fund (or continue to fund) any Executive Order or armed federal action, such as Department of Homeland Security, that violates the executive powers in the Constitution and threatens liberty by creating a coercive federal police-state, and
    C) Makes illegal any organization, department, or federal action to endanger or blur America’s sovereign status among the nations of the world, and
    D) Rescinds all portions of the USA Patriot Acts that violate the liberty and privacy of an American until a warrant is issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, and
    E) Makes clear that any future federal effort that violates the 4th and/or 6th Amendments is null and void, and
    F) Makes illegal any electronic or biometric tracking of any law-abiding citizen of these 50 States, or any federal government program of biometric or electronic tracking of domestic animals within any of the 50 States, and

    “3) Pass legislation that:
    A) Publicly acknowledges that manufacture of American currency by the Federal Reserve bank cartel violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and
    B) Publicly acknowledges that We the People granted power to coin currency only to Congress, and
    C) Repeals the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, and
    D) Repeals any unconstitutional sections of Legal Tender laws (i.e., authorizes currency not issued under authority of Congress and/or not backed by silver and/or gold), and
    E) Makes illegal any new issue of Federal Reserve currency, and presents to the People a very specific plan and timeline of Congress to retire all federal debt to that cartel and institute a system of American currency meeting Constitutional law, and
    F) Orders the immediate inventory, identification, and securing of America’s national gold reserves, and

    “4) Pass legislation directing IRS to immediately cease the fraudulent application of the Tax Code and immediately release all federal prisoners being held on “failure to file” or similarly unsubstantiated charges, and

    “5) Pass legislation making illegal any federal taking or federal use restriction of private land, and/or of water, minerals, or other God-given resources in, on, or under said private land in any of the 50 States, and

    “6) Pass legislation making illegal any new federal burden, restriction, registration, regulation, tracking, or other impediment on ownership and use of firearms and other weaponry by law-abiding Americans for self-defense or defense of family and property against any attacker, thief, or enemy force that should present any unlawful threat to life or liberty — whether said enemy be civilian or military, foreign or domestic — as was the manifest intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    “After almost 150 years of increasing federal abuse and arrogation of power, We the People and our 50 States have thought ourselves powerless; the federal power with its limitless ocean of cash, taken from our honest labor, having become a veritable D.C. al-Qaeda, holding the People and our sovereign States as terror-stricken hostages rather than its constitutional creators.

    “We the People of these States of America do here declare our resolve to enforce the foundational Law of the Land by which we gave birth to the national government, and under which we retained all powers not enumerated to the federal power, and declare our resolve to bind the purse-strings of that government as required, yet not barring any fellow American from volunteering as much of his wages as he likes, to the present IRS collection schema.

    “We have notified each and every one of our 535 elected federal representatives with ample advance notice that
    (s)he was invited to our 4th of July, 2010 public reading of this Declaration at the Main Public Library of the city or town being the seat of his congressional district, to appear for this orderly, respectful, solemn public hearing and remonstrance.

    “Although the member’s record since taking office speaks for itself, (s)he has been (and is being) given this opportunity to publicly repent his/her record of violations or support for violations of the Constitution, and declare his/her intention to share the American people’s resolve to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution as (s)he is sworn to do.

    “Should our elected representative refuse to cease violating the law; should (s)he prevaricate, obfuscate, or bloviate (as politicians are wont to do) rather than give support to this grassroots effort to restore the Constitution’s manifold securities against tyranny and for the people’s liberty, or should he return to his seat of power only to conspire anew with like-minded scoundrels (or with oligarchs and corporate powers who own his first allegiance) to continue the corrupt status quo, We the People do hereby express our solemn resolve to gain his/her ouster from office and/or criminal indictment and conviction for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy — not under the federal laws that Congress employed against the relatively miniscule corruption of Enron or Worldcomm executives — but under the criminal laws of our State, seeking a State Prison term and financial penalties thereunder, matching the severity of his/her crimes.

    “This citizens’ effort, called AMEWRICA AGAIN!, is now far more widespread than any one American faction; however, it was initially conceived by the Christian “home-schooling” community of these States, in an effort to illustrate how blessed we are to have this federal Constitution, warts and all — and how a diligent, dedicated minority of citizens, armed with nothing but faith in Jesus Christ, and the Law laid down by our patriot fathers, can see a restoration of the rule of law and a return to the limited government envisioned by the Constitution — even amidst widespread public cynicism, godlessness, and dissolution.

    “By his/her response to this citizen enforcement action of the U.S. Constitution that Congress and the federal government has so long violated and ignored, members of the Congress of our States shall now demonstrate to the world their repentant statesmanship and fidelity, or their ignominious corruption.

    “We citizens of these 50 sovereign, profoundly blessed States of America, consecrate this effort in the Name of Jesus Christ, the God of our fathers, in Whose Name alone the original colonies were planted and the early colonial documents were dedicated, and which no amount of political correctness can erase from history.

    “We ask that God bless these 50 States of America, to restore them truly as one nation under God, that we may live to be America Again!”

    ******
    It needs work, but there’s the first draft.

    Can you imagine: while government school kids go to Washington DC to gawk at the opulent halls of power and listen to the pandering demagogues’ lists of “accomplishments for you back home”, the home-taught Christian kids and their parents put together these AMERICA AGAIN! rallies to bring the scoundrels home to face the music!!!

    Now THAT is how you do Homeland Security and get “civilians into the field in order for the government to step out”, Jen!

    ONLY the “home schooling” population, in my view, is equal to this task. Never in our history has there been such a need for a “Johnny Tremain Regiment” of 13-18-year old American youth to really LIVE LIKE AMERICANS.

    I don’t mean to cut out girls, by the way; I think in terms of men and young men, but I think it’s equally important that women and young women be given the tasks that they are suited to fill, depending on their skills. For plain old accurate shooting, for instance, the women of our frontier often proved themselves the equal or superior of men. Whereas I think women should never belong to a standing army, I believe all women should be able to shoot well.

    But the militias of the several States are MUCH more than firearms; they are the potential “homeland security” that can disarm and disband George II’s burgeoning police-state.

    So you see that I have not spent all my time thinking only about Tax Honesty; it’s just the “financial embargo” portion of a full-orbed citizen plan to take back our families, churches, and communities from “do-gooder” Leviathan State that can only do us ill in the long run…and to break through some of the 500-year-old denominational headlocks that have held the American Church captive and powerless.

    I’d like to see AMERICA AGAIN! But one must read Dr. Vieira’s book first. Then the plan makes sense.

  35. Jen Says:

    David, for someone who claims to disdain book-lined studies, you sure do recommend a lot of good books! I really like this idea of a Citizens’ Homeland Security. This is worth pursuing. I shall make sure that my husband reads this comment you have written. This is the kind of action that makes sense to me. This is how we can take States’ rights back into the citizens’ hands. This is the best comment you’ve written so far. Thank you.

    And I did realize that you had apologized to Lawdog already. I was just trying to keep things from rising again between you two. You see, I’ve seen how you respond to certain people and certain situations here, and I know how “Lawdog” responds as well. And I can see the two of you tearing each other to pieces. You are both very intelligent and very well read and very opinionated! You are also both brothers in Christ, so I want that to be your focus as you discuss these issues. I’m glad for you to take this section of my blog to do so. This article wasn’t going to have any comments anyway. Just try to leave the tax conversation on this particular article. We like your jesting, David, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Oh, Lawdog already knows who you are, David, you do use your name! He knows you very well.

  36. Jen Says:

    I KNEW you were a world changer, David! I think this is a BRILLIANT plan! I love it! So, we have a lot of work to do in the next three years. Now, this would be something I would love to see my son make history doing. OK. I am definitely reading that book now!

    Can I ask you something? You didn’t just write that off the top of your head, did you? Is this something you’ve been working on for a while? So it needs some work, but there is a lot of potential there — but only if you let the women like me march, too. Otherwise, I’m outta here!

  37. Jen Says:

    David, I just realized that I did not answer your point about the 2X4=8. I think I was the one who was confused; I did not pay close enough attention to realize that you were talking about two different groups of people. I apologize for that. However, I do want you to know that I was not accusing you of lying; I was merely questioning the apparent discrepancy.

    You may not have noticed, but I do not accuse people of lying or being deceitful very often on my blog. That is not an accusation which I take lightly. Just wanted you to know that “mendacious” is not my favorite word!

  38. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen,

    The plan for AMERICA AGAIN! took a few months to ruminate, yes. Originally, it was to be a series of hearings, calling every member of Congress home to answer those charges. It included a great bit of political theatre not unlike a civilised tar-and-feathering: a lovely marble-topped 8-place dias with the following members of each Tyrrany Response Team conducting the hearing:

    – A local successful businessperson
    – A Christian attorney (who’d coordinate the criminal indictment of the member of Congress with the State D.A.)
    – two members of what Dr. Vieira calls the Citizens’ Homeland Defense Association (CHDA)
    – the best two speakers out of the local ‘Johnny Tremain Regiment’ (the local group of 13-19 year old Christian home-taught kids)
    – a member of AVIDD (American Veterans in Domestic Defense)
    – the STATE Representative for that district

    Then, on the hot seat would be the member of Congress, likely with his/her attorney, sitting at a plain plastic cafeteria chair, at a plain laminate top folding cafeteria table.

    The idea was to give the American people a bit of Washington DC theatre, turning the tables on the pompous monarchy that is Congress, especially when it conducts its hearings.

    Anyway, the Criminal Indictment Dragnet (CID) idea fizzled; as Dr. Vieira instructed me, the members would not even show up, even if under a State DA’s subpoena. They are simply above the law at this point. Dr. Vieira suggested the citizens’ rally with fireworks and barbeque — something that anyone can enjoy on the 4th of July.

    And with 535 AMERICA AGAIN! rallies coast to coast, it would be the most memorable 4th of July in history — at least since the first one.

    As I told Dr. Vieira, no segment of the American public could match the logistics, diligence, and cost efficiency, of the “home schooling” community.

    If you like the idea, run with it. I’d love to see AMERICA AGAIN!

    Um…but your husband will have to quit his job first. I’d expect he’ll lose it (dishonorably) if you took on such a project, once the citizens’ constitutional initiative would be made public.

  39. David M Zuniga Says:

    Incidentally, I have always kept Doug Phillips apprised of my efforts to reform Church and State: I have copied him on my Tax Honesty issues, and on the AMERICA AGAIN! national rally idea. He never responded in the least. I’m sure it’s all far too ‘nuclear’ for a father of small children, a leader of a national home-schooling company, etc.

    Even if he personally supports such courage and patriotic action, his Vision Forum board would never allow him to do any more than sell rubber swords and slingshots (and plastic breastplates) for little boys. And Henty books about courage and manliness!

    Alas: in America’s REAL War on Terror (which presently seeks to sunder our liberty, demoralise our men, and further split the Church into ever-smaller ‘denominations’) it’s safer to read books or give rousing speeches about the courage of our dead fathers, than it is to emulate them amidst the silly denominational bickering…

    and especially in the face of Leviathan.

    As Doug Phillips would say: Lord, give us the courage of our fathers, we pray!

  40. Vik Says:

    David Z:

    I have a series of books written by Richard Maybury (aka “Uncle Eric). I personally really like them and agree with a great deal of his convictions. Have you read any of them, and if so, what do you think of him?

    I ask because much of what you say are in his books.

  41. Jen Says:

    David, I like your second idea much better than your first. I’m glad you listened to Dr. Vieira. It is always wise to seek counsel from others.

    But this is your idea! Why aren’t you acting on it? Surely you, a Patriarchy guy, wouldn’t just turn it over to a woman?

    As far as Doug goes, don’t blame his board. They have explicitly stated that they are NOT an accountability board for Doug; they are merely a resource board (read: money). NO ONE holds Doug Phillips accountable in any aspect of life: church, work, personal.

    It seems that you are attempting to place Doug and RC, Sr. both in positions of accountability. Unfortunately, neither one is accountable to anyone. BTW, if you don’t know what they were talking about regarding RC Sproul, Sr., it might be a good idea to check it out. It’s on my other blog and MW. While I agree with your position on denominations (I don’t much care for them myself), I can sometimes see the value in the accountability aspect which seems to be so greatly lacking in independents such as Doug and RC. Ahh. How do we solve the problems of such extremes?

  42. Lawdog Says:

    Cynthia Gee asked: “If I understand it right, Jen, you said that the business portion of VF is non-tax exempt, while the ministry portion IS tax exempt.
    Now, if the business side of VF makes donations to the ministry side of VF and uses those donations as a tax write-off, is that legal?”

    Corporations can made charitable contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations. Their maximum contributions in any given year cannot exceed 10% of their total income.

    To illustrate, if The Vision Forum Inc. had $1,000,000 in total income this year, they could donate up to $100,000 to Vision Forum Ministries and receive a tax deduction for it.

  43. Cynthia Gee Says:

    So they can legally donate money to themselves, and recieve a deduction. Sheesh — it’s nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
    Another question:
    It seems that for every legal method that companies or individuals can use to minimize tax losses, there are a number of illegal twists on the method, which can minimize a company’s losses even more, if they can get away with it.
    If VF were to get greedy, how might they use the system of making donations to themself to even greater effect?

  44. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Lawdog,

    If your primary residence is in the name of your non-profit ministry, does that mean you get out of paying property taxes?

  45. RefCal Says:

    I can answer that one: Yes, especially if you are an employee of said ministry.

  46. Lawdog Says:

    Brandon (and this goes for everyone else too) I’m interested in the subject of “ecclesiastical tyranny,” and spiritual abuse, which is why I periodically check in here. If I can be of some assistance in answering legal questions that directly pertain to this subject I’ll try and do so. The only reason I got involved regarding tax issues is because of Zuniga’s tax protest rants. I felt that somebody needed to say something to counter Zuniga and give the other side of the story. I’m assuming that had Zuniga not mentioned that he was attending BCA that Jen probably wouldn’t have let him go on like she did.

    What I’m not interested in is answering general legal and tax questions on Jen’s blog, especially since her blog is about Doug Phillips, BCA, Vision Forum, etc. Brandon, if your question has some direct application to those things then I’ll be happy to answer it.

  47. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Yes, Lawdog, the last time I checked, Doug Phillips’ home is on the tax rolls under Vision Forum Ministries so that is why I asked. You can email off-line if you want by clicking on my name and visiting my site.

  48. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “……the last time I checked, Doug Phillips’ home is on the tax rolls under Vision Forum Ministries so that is why I asked. ”

    Hmmmm. And I’ve noticed that in the homeschooling industry, various “ministries” seem to change hands and get reorganized quite a bit, but they never quite change hands altogether (and all of these fellows seem to push each other’s books and products.)
    For example, take the Patriarch’s Path site and magazine. First Phil Lancaster had it, then I believe James McDonald took over. Then he gave the “Books on the Path” part of the ministry to another couple, and still later, he got rid of Patriarch’s Path altogether ans changed the name of Homeschooling Today magazine to Family Reformation, and sold it to somebody else. But if you go to the FR site, he is still listed as being in charge. Tax and business law are not quite my forte, but this all looks a little fishy. Awhile back someone commented that whenever a ministry becomes doctrinally unsound, money or sex scandals tend to follow, sooner or later.
    We’ll see.

  49. Corrie Says:

    Cynthia,

    I am pretty sure that Homeschooling Today and Family Reformation are two separate magazines. I have the recent issues of both magazines that I picked up at a the last homeschool convention.

    As far as Phil Lancaster’s site it is still operating and functional. I think James and Stacey started the Patriarchs Path as a new startup. I don’t think it had anything to do with Phil Lancster’s site. I know that the owner of Quiverfull Digest was ebaying off the list back around 2000. James and Stacey put in a bid for that. They did not get the list, it went to someone else. Soon after that, I think Patriarchs Path started up.

    I was on an email list in the mid-nineties for women and that is where I first met Stacey and a lot of other women I still run into. We were all a bunch of nobodys then. Or should I say, I am still a nobody! 🙂 This patriarchy thing has really become BIG business.

  50. Lawdog Says:

    Brandon asked: “If your primary residence is in the name of your non-profit ministry, does that mean you get out of paying property taxes?”

    RefCal answered: “I can answer that one: Yes, especially if you are an employee of said ministry.”

    Misleading answer.

    Brandon, let me first of all clean up and clarify the wording of your question. If a residence is owned by a non-profit ministry, then it can be “your primary residence.” However, you would merely be a tenant. The tax liability, if any, is on the ministry, not the tenant, because the owner of the property is the ministry. For example, if the property is later sold the proceeds and profits go to the owner — the ministry, not to an individual.

    The ministry could use that residence for various purposes, say like hosting visiting ministry guests, or even housing the ministry’s own President. Even for-profit businesses purchase residential properties for such purposes.

    As far as the property tax issue goes, that’s entirely a function of state and county laws. What may be true in one state may not apply in another. The 501(c)(3) might make it a little easier to get a ministry’s residential property off the property tax roles, but then again it might not make any difference at all. It depends on the state and county. Churches are almost always allowed to own one or more “parsonages” to house their pastors and ministers. Ministries, however, are a bit more nebulous legally than churches, and just because they get a 501(c)(3) is no assurance that ministry-owned residential property can or will be removed form the property tax roles.

    “Yes, Lawdog, the last time I checked, Doug Phillips’ home is on the tax rolls under Vision Forum Ministries so that is why I asked.”

    Brandon, in reviewing the county property tax roles did you notice whether or not the Vision Forum Ministries residential property is classified as tax exempt?

  51. RefCal Says:

    In Texas, a non-profit org can choose to declare any its property subject to property tax.
    Madalyn O’Hare did, and was proud of it.
    This is probably true in any state–I can’t imagine why not. The only question I guess would be whether just a portion of the property can be so declared (as is the case in my state) or it is an all-or-nothing deal.

  52. David M Zuniga Says:

    I had vowed to stay out of here because I was monopolising this blog. But I must call out a chicken$%&* operator on this blog.

    “Lawdog”, I have made no “tax protest rants”, and I don’t protest the Tax Code; I OBEY it, and I demand that my IRS employees obey it, too. That is good citizenship, and good stewardship, brother. If it makes your career choice look bad, I’m sorry. Be a man about it.

    If you want to make allegations here that I’m protesting a tax, you’d better be able to cite the one I’m protesting, or retract your statement!

    It’s no different than if I was speaking to my bratty child, whom I do love. I can’t let him do whatever he likes, when it’s wrong. I love you, my brother, but you have stated in this venue that I am a “tax protestor” and that I am violating federal laws and those are SERIOUS allegations.

    I repeat: either back it up with citation of law, or RETRACT IT.

    Only a hit-and-run coward would post libelous accusations against somone under a pseudonym, “Lawdog”. I forgave you on the other thread, but I won’t allow you to continue it.

    I repeat: if you make another false and scurrilous suggestion about my character, I will ask Jen to get me your real name, and we shall have a Matthew 18:15 chat.
    I’ll check back here from time to time for your retraction. If I don’t get it, I’ll take the next step, per Matthew 18:16.

    Thank you for considering the impact of your actions, and I look forward to your apology so that the cockles of my heart can cool.

  53. Bryan Says:

    I think Lawdog and Pape Zuniga need to cool it.

    You are guests here on Jen’s blog. Please show some courtesy as brethren in Christ.

    Galatians 6:1

    Bryan

  54. David M Zuniga Says:

    Brother Bryan,

    Paul, in speaking to the brethren in Galatia, is admonishing them to use meekness in correcting a brother. I have indeed used as much meekness and love as I could in my post above, to “Lawdog”.

    In fact, on another thread I even forgave him for alleging that I am violating federal laws and teaching others to violate them! Even without a retraction or him having to post evidence for his libelous accusations, I forgave him.
    (I’ll bet you wouldn’t do the same, if someone went online and accused you of violating federal laws, and of being a “protestor” against the very law that you are telling people to OBEY!)

    Christ instructed us (recorded in Matthew 18) how to deal with a brother in sin. I should first go to him alone with his sin, and perhaps he will repent it. But “Lawdog” is a chicken-heart who not only is content to tell very serious liea about people..but he does it under a false name.

    So how am I to confront him “privately” if he slinks around the corner, only to come back here a few days later, and begin the false accusations and innuendo once more?

    Please give me some advice I can actually follow, and I’ll be happy to do so. Since “Lawdog” is offering all sorts of tax advice on this blog, people automatically invest him with expertise. He must be very knowledgeable about the law, since he can run through deductions and loopholes like a hound after a fox! He MUST know the tax laws, right?

    OK, then surely he can be man enough to use his real, full name; and he can show the tax that I am “protesting” or the law that I am violating?

    This is the PRECISE principle — unfounded slander — that gave rise to Jen’s blog. But at least everyone knows the real name and (public) character of Doug Phillips. No one here yet knows the same about the person referring to himself/herself as “Lawdog”.

  55. Bryan Says:

    Your Holiness Pape Zuniga:

    My suggestion would be to take it off Jen’s Gems and communicate directly with one another.

    I am sympathetic to your cause, having been following Joe Banister’s trial, et al, for several years.

    But remember, ultimately this is a blog about Doug Phillips’ ecclesiatical tyrannies, and while I appreciate how the rabbit trail was taken to this point, I personally think it’s time to return to the main point of the blog, that’s all.

    And I am not certain that the direct and pointed tone that you used in your post above to Lawdog objectively qualifies as “meekness and love” as you say. To me, it sounds more like “throwing down the gauntlet” ( a DP tactic, I might add!)

    (RECANT, or burn!!!) 🙂

    And I could be wrong, too! lol I’ll let Jen decide; it’s her blog.

    Blessings,

    Bryan

  56. David M Zuniga Says:

    Bryan,

    OK, one more time, exuding love if I can, bro:

    A man/woman/something, posting under a fake name, has accused me repeatedly on this blog, of violating federal law. If his/her accusations are true, then I deserve to know what law I am violating, right? Else the thing is libel.

    As I said, if some pseudonymous blogger accused YOU of violating federal laws and being a “law protestor”, I promise, you’d “throw down the gauntlet”, as I did!

    N.B.: I let it go the first time; I even told him/her that I loved him/her, and he/she didn’t even have to retract their mendacious, very serious allegation. All I asked him/her was to please not do it again.

    He/she did it again. And again, right here on two threads of this same blog, after he/she thought I was gone. And I WAS gone, too! I came back here on the one matter of legally actionable libel of a fellow Christian and professional, accusing him of moral turpitude and federal crimes!

    If you think that’s niggling, brother, you’re daft.

    I have followed Christ’s instructions on the issue, but I could not “take it up privately” as Christ instructs, and as you suggest because the man/woman uses a fake name, get it??!

    Do you understand NOW, Bryan?

    Think about it, and you’ll see the point. It’s the very same point of law and honor upon which this Epstein blog is predicated. I thought you’d see it the first two times I made the analogy, but you still don’t get it. You still want me to “take it up privately” with a person that operates anonymously!

    Thanks for staying with me, bro. Look, just for you I’m going to drop it right here, and let people judge the credibility of the “tax advice” and allegations of “Lawdog” by his/her own actions on this blog.

    Again, sorry to disturb the atmosphere here. Blessings on your houses.

  57. Pape Blastus XVII Says:

    Bryan,

    My child, RECANT or burn!!!

    I have spoken.

  58. Pape Blastus XVII Says:

    Lawdog, my son,

    You told Zuniga,

    “I’m commenting to demonstrate how dishonest you are…If you’re going to proffer “tax honesty” it begins with providing full disclosure. So far you’ve just told half-truths, which is no truth at all.”

    And you are appearing here under the name “Lawdog”, rather than your own name!?

    “Full disclosure”, my little dog, would at the very least begin with your full NAME, no?

    I have spoken.

  59. David M Zuniga Says:

    Over the past eight years of studying the history of the IRS scam, and of the growth of the Leviathan State, I’ve dredged up these quotes. Taken together, they’re amazingly enlightening:
    ________

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” (Sam Adams)

    ________

    “In a government of laws… Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that…the end justifies the means… would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” (Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

    ________

    “I don’t see why these damned people can’t just pay their taxes like everybody else. I think tax protestors are offensive.” (Bernie Bailey)

    “This is a revolution, damn it. We’ve got to offend SOMEbody!” (John Adams)

    ________

    “I’m referring to the Taliban, of course. And that’s how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear…the United States of America must…never forget the natural rights that formed our country.” (President George W. Bush; 3/20/06)

    ________

    “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.” (James Madison)

    “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” (George Orwell)

    “Facts are stubborn things; whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (John Adams)

    ________

    “No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.” (U.S. Constitution)

    ________

    “An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question…. in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor…

    “This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property…under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth…for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.” (Vivien Kellums; “Toil, Taxes, and Trouble”)

    ________

    “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.” (President Andrew Jackson)

    ________

    “The sixteenth [16th Amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune . . .it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens…it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary.” (Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)

    ________

    “A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.” (Ian Williams Goddard)

    ________

    “Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.” (“Do not give in to evil, but strive against it bravely.”) (Virgil)

    ________

    “Maybe we ought to see that everybody who gets a tax return receives…a Communist Manifesto with it, so he can see what’s happening to him.” (Former IRS Commissioner T. Coleman Andrews)

    ________

    “The IRS’s primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system.” (Jerome Kurtz, former IRS Commissioner)

    ________

    “Occasionaly, you will meet taxpayers who refuse to file (a tax return) voluntarily. In this lesson, you will learn how to deal with some of these situations…to manage your TDI inventory.” (Internal Revenue Field Manual)

    “Today’s methods are a real refinement of the older methods of terror… The person is subjected to a form of terroristic stress, but for the purpose of inducing a kind of “voluntary” acceptance of the psychological state into which he has been driven…” (Aldous Huxley)

    “We believe that the present IRS outrages [levies, raids, incarceration] are symptoms of the system’s demise. It’s dead. But like the dinosaurs, it has a pea brain and a primitive nervous system which is taking too long to send the message.” (Alan Stang)

    ********

    Everyone who has ever watched the animated Pixar classic, “A Bug’s Life” realises that the movie’s humour and innuendo is WAY over the heads of children. But it took literally years before clueless Americans began to realise that the producers had offered America the most masterful political satire on the IRS scam, ever made.

    Rent “A Bug’s Life” next weekend (or watch it again, if you already own it). First you’ll laugh at how obvious the IRS satire is, and then you’ll cry at how much those little ants in the line, resemble you and your neighbors at the Post Office every April 15th.

  60. David M Zuniga Says:

    It has been ten days since I issued my challenge to “Lawdog”. After his libelous suggestion that I’m a scofflaw or “tax protestor”, he refuses to give his real name, refuses to answer me, and in fact even ceased to answer tax questions on this blog.

    I think I was correct when I guessed the pedigree of my brother in Christ who travels by the name “Lawdog”… a Mexican Hairless.

    While this has nothing whatever to do with Doug Phillips or the Epsteins, I wanted to challenge a man who would make serious, libelous statements on the Internet.

    Thanks for letting me expose his tactic.

  61. Brett Rollins Says:

    Speaking of “exposing tactics,” Mr. David M. “I challenge you to a public duel of words” Zuniga…

    David, it’s been over a month since you promised to email me a copy of the letter that you allegedly sent to Dr. Kenneth Talbot which allegedly backs up the numerous accusations that you’ve made against him here on this blog. I have repeatedly accused you of bearing false witness against Ken Talbot, and I’ve asked you to retract your libelous statements and apologize.

    Not only have you reneged on your promise to produce the letter, you’ve even blocked my email address so that I can no longer correspond with you.

    To quote now your own challenge to Lawdog, “I wanted to challenge a man who would make serious, libelous statements on the Internet.”

    Rather than accepting the challenge, Zuniga, you’ve run away like a coward.

    From: Brett Rollins [mailto: rollins.brett@gmail.com]
    Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:28 PM
    To: dmzuniga@stx.rr.com
    Subject: Ken Talbot letter

    David,

    Please forward a copy of your letter to Ken Talbot.

    Brett

    [several more emails to Zuniga, with several lame excuse responses from Zuniga]

    On 6/4/07, David M. Zuniga wrote:

    Sorry, Brett; I have a one-man engineering practice and it’s summertime.

    It’s quite simple, really; “due process” does not include publishing “church censure” on the Internet before the matter has been resolved at the lower levels as Christ describes in the Matthew 18 record.

    You can certainly see that Ken took the matter public before RC Jr had been given the opportunity to repent at the ‘local’ level (this is why the rather quick succession of “de-frocking” and “re-frocking” took place.

    If you’re unwilling to ask Ken Talbot himself, then you’ll just have to have him dispute my “numerous allegations” (only ONE allegation, really) in the same public venues where I made those assertions of fact (not allegations).

    I can tell you right here: Ken will not do that, because he can’t.

    Thanks, and good day.

    David M. Zuniga

    From: Brett Rollins [mailto:rollins.brett@gmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:42 PM
    To: David M. Zuniga
    Subject: Re: Ken Talbot letter

    David,

    Your “one-man engineering practice” excuse didn’t in any way hinder your posting over 200 comments on Jen Epstein’s blog after you’d already posted several very derogatory comments accusing Ken Talbot. Even today you’ve posted some more of your “Calvinian” attack pieces.

    You were asked repeatedly for proof of your accusations against Ken Talbot. You ignored those requests for a time, but then ultimately offered your alleged proof to any who requested it of you via email. I complied with your directive. Then you added to your directive a requirement that I keep your letter in confidence, which I agreed to. Then you came up with this excuse that you now can’t seem to lay your hands on it because it’s too much trouble to retrieve from your archives. Mr. Zuniga, you’ve given me no indication at all that you’re a man of your word, just the opposite. After all your excuses I have no confidence that you’ll ever forward me a copy of your letter. Now on top of everything else your latest excuse is that you believe that the burden is entirely upon Ken Talbot himself to publicly deny your slanders.

    With your latest email you have now once again accused Ken Talbot of “publishing ‘church censure’ on the Internet before the matter has been resolved at the lower levels as Christ describes in the Matthew 18 record.” Based upon my own recollection of having followed the Sproul defrocking very carefully, I will state for the record that no such thing ever happened. You are bearing false witness against a brother in Christ. The burden is not on Ken Talbot. The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your accusations.

    Please back up your accusations, and do so promptly, or withdraw them altogether and publicly apologize for your slanders.

    Brett

    David M. Zuniga”
    to Brett Rollins
    date Jun 4, 2007 4:03 PM
    subject Talbot (aka RPCGA) v Sproul Jr, Chapter 53 (et finis)

    Brett,

    We’re both defending a brother against what we consider slander and untrue public remarks. Your bluster doesn’t impress (or trump my bluster, at any rate)

    As “defenders” of the two principals, you and I have different recollection of the events/timeline. Ken and RC Jr know the truth; I do not have my letter to Ken available to me at the present time but since you’re so very keen to get it, I suggested you go to the parties directly. I neither regret nor retract what I said to Ken’s “face” (electronically) or online, nor do I think it right to do so.

    If you want more “satisfaction” than that, for whatever reason, then seek it from those who DO have it available, IF they will even share it with you…and perhaps you can add a fourth level to the silly recriminations and frock-related hooplah in denomination-land. As for me, that dust is no longer on my sandal.

    Now, I shall practice that venerable tactic shown me by Ken Talbot, after I upset him by calling his little private denomination a sham, and his actions unbiblical: I shall add your e-mail address to my “blocked senders” list.

    But I shall nonetheless pray God’s blessings on your house, my brother in Christ.

    David M. Zuniga

    “David M. Zuniga”
    to Brett Rollins
    date Jun 4, 2007 4:13 PM
    subject Bull ex cathedra ad Brettium

    Mr. Rollins,

    Although I have thus far acted ex cathedra and in charity to you as a member of the “Reformed Faith”, I can always don my fish-hat that has 1600% of the de-frocking power of Calvin’s commentaries, and anathematise you.

    If you wish to avoid this, do not step over the line.

    Pape Blastus XVII

    Bull ex Cathedra ad Brettium

    Zuniga, you are the last person in the world entitled to issue “challenges.” Quit running like a coward! Stand and deliver!

    Thanks for letting me expose his tactic.

  62. David M Zuniga Says:

    Brett, thanks for including our whole exchange! As you saw, I never defended RC Sproul Jr’s actions.

    What I said about Ken Talbot is true, but totally immaterial. So I am happy to oblige you and to retract it, and to hereby apopogise to Ken Talbot!

    And please note that in all of this, I have never operated under a false name.

    Blessings on your house; have an excellent weekend.

  63. David M Zuniga Says:

    “Apopogise”? Indeed; I offered my fully apopogy to Ken Talbot. That’s exactly what I meant to do, Brett; I meant to apopogise.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: