Letters


Brown gives examples of his argument
Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Ocean View Town Council and forwarded to the Coastal Point for publication.

Dear Ocean View servants:

I have read the newspaper stating your desire to illegally raise property taxes.

To avoid future problems, you need to know some facts. Property tax, as with income tax, is unconstitutional, therefore illegal. They are direct taxes, therefore those demanding such a tax may be charged with a crime. It should not matter that “everybody does it.” Those who do it are criminals, which is an indictment of government today.

Below are Supreme Court decisions verifying what I just said.

• Pollock v Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895)

“Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state…”

• Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 12 (1916)

“…that all embracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, Direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excise, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law unconstitutional in substance for these reasons; concluding that the classification of Direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal…”

• Knowlton v Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900)

“Direct taxes bear upon (hurt) persons, upon possessions and the enjoyment of rights.”

Direct Tax: “Direct tax means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.”

Indirect Tax: “Indirect tax means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, (transfer?), inventory; or equipment tax or an import charge.”

• U.S. v Whitridge, 231 US 144, 147 (1913)

“…not in any sense a tax upon property or upon merely as income.”

• Stratton’s Independence, 231 US 399, 417 (1913), and Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, 165, 55 S.L. ed 107, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. (1912) B 1312

“…in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation, as a franchise (213, u.s. 399, 417) or privilege, was not debarred by the constitution from measuring the taxation by the total income (of the franchise) although derived in part from property which, considered by itself, was not taxable.”

• Redfield v Fisher, 135 Or. 180 292 P. 813, 819 (1930)

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which a tax cannot be imposed.”

• Doyle v Mitchel Bros., 247 US 179, 183 (1918)

“An examination of these and other provisions… make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property, or the mere conversion of property (to buy or sell), but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations…”

• Jerome H. Sheip Co. v Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 (1930)

“A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege…”

• Butchers Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746, 756 (1884)

“It has been well said that the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

The citizens have the right to work at a job; to buy, own and sell property. Rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be taxed. Privilege can be taxed. Property ownership is not a privilege.

• Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

• McCulloch v Maryland, 4 Wheat 316

“The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the state has been considered by the Supreme Court. The right of the state to impede or embarrass the constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the rights which the citizen holds under it has been uniformly denied.”

No state, or portion thereof, can act in contradiction to the rights of the citizen.

• 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law, Section 202, p. 987

“Personal Liberty — or the right to enjoyment of Life and Liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions…It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights, as sacred as the right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.”

• 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Constitutional Law, Section 70

“No public policy of a state (county, city or town) can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”

A simple point often overlooked or forgotten is that the citizen is above the constitution. The various levels of government are all beneath the constitution. The constitution, created by the citizen, limits government; not government limiting the citizen. See Chisholm v Georgia.

These dozen or so court cases are but a fraction of those cases where some level of government has attempted to violate the constitutional ban on taxing income or property. Citizens’ rights are non-touchable.

Any one case, by itself, would be enough to close down the illegal attempts to extort money from property owners. For the first 100 years, everybody knew it was illegal to do so. However, as time passed, our elected illegally spent themselves into holes and needed to raise money.

As many people no longer take the time to read the constitution, it was easy for the elected to lie to the people, or otherwise have crooked judges say it was right to tax. It is not! Even the IRS is now facing just and proper challenges, and in fact has already been defeated very often.

Why the media never mentions their defeats is a question. The same with the states’ tax on income and those on property. Transfer tax falls into that gray area where one case said yes and one said no. Ethical and honest people with good character would not resort to it when a question about its legality exists.

Now look up United States Code Title 18, Section 241 (conspiracy to deny rights) and 242 (color of law). Under Title 42, section 1983, it says “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state (or part thereof), …subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the U.S., or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured…”

The states also have their version of these laws, i.e. extortion and misprision, as two examples. To insist that a property tax is demanded and must be paid is to violate the constitution.

I voluntarily pay only because it has so far been within reason, although that limit is now reached. However, you are now on notice that any addition to any tax is unacceptable. Where you have spent money without express permission, you solely are responsible to repay that amount, as well as return that amount already spent.

Remember, as I have stated many times, that I reserve all my rights. To open publicly this can of worms the various levels of government have created would see many people charged with crimes by those they have stolen the money from. Regardless, how basic the need to raise money is, no one has the right to violate the rights of the citizens or the constitution.

I took cases from the years on both sides of the 16th amendment, as well as property cases, which, by the way, was (a) not properly ratified, and (b) was written to tax corporations, not people. Further, should you be told we are within a state, and not restricted as the federal government is, therefore not subject to the restrictions set forth by the constitution, know this.

The Constitution Act of 1844 remedied that misunderstanding. Our founders from all colonies ratified the contract, and then set forth the state constitutions to comply with the federal. In 1844, the congress, by request of the several states’ citizens, passed the Constitution Act mandating the states be bound equally with the federal government by the constitution. Therefore the U.S. constitution limits all government, down to the homeowners association. And it denies direct taxation.

So that the citizens of Ocean View can all share this knowledge (they also may have something to say), I have requested that the local papers print this information under “Letters to the Editor.”

Wally Brown
Ocean View

The trash talk begins with Army-Navy game
Editor:

Out of respect and in honor of our Marines (part of the Navy) and the separate Naval Air Service, as well as Army serving in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean on ships and shore, we hope that Navy (on Dec. 1) defeats the Army in Baltimore’s MT Bank Stadium by more points than Annapolis humbled the once-powerhouse of Notre Dame.

As the Army has almost as many lost as our Naval Marines, and to reinvigorate the Army and its National Guard (volunteers with pay and two weeks vacation paid in the past), summer vacations such as at Bethany Beach Camp.

With thanks to all of our service persons.

Commodore Dick and Air Force Medic Mary Peters
Ocean View

Writer remains loyal to his beliefs
Editor:

I am responding to Mr. Cleary’s comments published as a letter under “Nation needs to look at information sources” in the Nov. 23 Coastal Point. Since Mr. Cleary’s letter is mostly a recap of the same old tripe that the Democrats and their henchmen the liberal media have bandied about since they lost the White House, the caption is right one the money. Beware of your information sources.

However, even I have to agree that the Iraq situation was originally mishandled, but it is at long last being properly addressed and the situation is improving. But it is hard to see this because of the liberal media’s bias and their blatant hatred of President Bush.

At long last a positive plan is being implemented and we should support it for the sake of our service men and women.

Speaking of plans, it was alleged that Kerry had a plan for Iraq and the Democrats before they took control of the House and Senate hinted that they knew how to resolve the Iraq quandary.

Of course that was cheap talk from both of them. Kerry’s plan was never really articulated and we all know that the Democrat controlled House and Senate continues to suggest surrender. Because of this and their other failures the House and Senate has the lowest approval rating — ever.

Mr. Cleary also mentions Neocons like they are a continuing problem. I would not abandon the philosophy of the Neocons because of the mistakes made by a few of them. The reason the Neocons were formed remain valid, i.e., they were formed to combat social liberalism and the counterculture of the left.

The Neoconservative agenda supported: lower taxes, smaller government, traditional moral values, antiworld government and the preservation of our national interests.

Surprise! I wholeheartedly agree with these objectives and I honestly believe that the Democrat front runners for the 2008 presidential election are all totally against all five of them. I, also, sometimes wonder how they can call themselves Americans.

And now I will offer a little of my own recollection of history. Under Clinton the United States of America was attacked as follows: New York World Trade Center (1993), Khobar Towers Military complex (1996), Nairobi U.S. Embassy (1998), Dares Salaam U. S. Embassy (1998) and the USS Cole (2000).

He did virtually nothing other than tie the hands of our defense agencies and our enemy was emboldened to attack us on our own soil.

The current Democratic Presidential candidates apparently will follow his same inaction because they all espouse talking to the enemy. Do they think that talking would have prevented 9/11? Unfortunately, they probably do, but they are totally out of touch with the reality of the world today. In fact it seems to me that the Democrats still do not believe that we have enemies.

Do we have problems? We certainly do! Did talking, talking and more talking embolden our enemies? It certainly did! Have we been attacked since we told the world that we will not take it any more? No and I pray along with my president that we will continue to be safe from another attack on our soil.

Mr. Cleary has apparently resurrected himself for the 2008 election. Welcome back! I am sure that it will get interesting and sometimes scary. Especially since it appears that our liberal-biased media seems to think that the only candidates worth mentioning are Democrats.

In fact, it even looks like they have virtually anointed Hillary Clinton as their candidate. But they were also enamored with that other disreputable human being, her husband. Her slick sound bites and slicker campaign is attempting to recreate her as a moderate.

Oh, I’m sorry, the new catch term is progressive. I am not fooled! Because she is still a socialist card carrying ACLU-supporting far left Democrat.

And as Mr. Cleary says, stupidity is not a curable disease but we can always hope and I dare say pray that the so afflicted do not give us another Clinton.

God bless President Bush, forgive him his foibles and strengthen his efforts to lead the greatest nation on earth.

Thomas M. Keeley III
Ocean View

Writer believes Markell is the one to lead
Editor:

Finally, we have a candidate for governor who is thinking about the future of all Delawareans. State Treasurer Jack Markell’s plan to make healthcare a top priority of his administration is just the type of forward thinking we need in our next governor.

Markell’s plan will make sure every Delawarean has access to affordable quality health care by expanding health coverage for children. His plan will provide a “clearinghouse” for people to purchase affordable health insurance, and even allow those participating in the program to have their premiums deducted on a pre-tax basis, thus reducing the amount of their taxable income each year. And his proposal is also good for small businesses that find the cost of providing health insurance to their employees cost-prohibitive.

And he isn’t sugarcoating what it will cost. Markell’s proposal is not free, but his plan to raise taxes on tobacco will help offset some of the costs. However, the cost of having uninsured Delawareans continue to live in fear of becoming sick or not being able to care for the health of their children should be a greater concern for all of us, a concern that Jack Markell will face head-on as governor.

Meyer J. Persow
Rehoboth Beach