Headline News

About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.


Bob Minarik
Rochester, Indiana
Feb 10, 2002

Do you think that federal judges in tax cases understand that the IRS has a hook in their fanny? Do you think that they consciously give the edge to the government because they come under the thumb of IRS control in personal matters? I most certainly do and here is why!! Here are also some suggestions what you can do about it!!!

Let's start by taking a look at what Judge Wyzanski said in Lord v. Kelley, 240 F. Supp. 167 at 169 (1965):

"When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and directed that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy. The original appearance in this Court by counsel for the Government was, if not insolent, at least none too respectful. The brief filed following the Court's adverse decision and asking for reconsideration thereof, showed more than hurt feelings and came close to being worthy of a rebuke."

"More than once, the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth, the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective."

This admission by Judge Wyzanski just confirms what we already knew. Although Judge Wyzanski admitted in written format more than any other federal judge we have encountered, he expressed his naivete, his pseudo machismo, his lack of broad knowledge or maybe his sarcasm, in stating that he doesn't think he can be intimidated. He did not appear to be aware, or at least he did not point out, that this was not just a casual happening on the part of the IRS, but a part of a planned program to keep judges in line in tax related cases.

And neither was he aware, at the time he expressed his view, of the federal judges like Judge Harry Claiborne in Nevada, who dared to cross the IRS, was prosecuted and jailed, or Judge Walter Nixon in Mississippi, who was prosecuted for perjury, but had acted as an IRS pimp and was not jailed, or Judge Alcee Hastings of Florida, who had a habit of coming in conflict with the IRS and the powers that be, was prosecuted and found innocent, but later impeached by Congress.

This 'attitude adjustment' program may have had an earlier start, but to my knowledge the first documentation arose on or about February 26, 1973, when Regional Commissioner Homer O. Croasmun, of the IRS's Western Region of California issued a Memorandum which included the minutes of the meeting held on February 9, 1973 pertaining to the "Tax Rebellion Movement."

This has become known as the infamous Croasmun Memorandum which opened the door to the realization that a planned program was already in operation to infiltrate and destroy the tax patriot movement and to implement an attitude adjustment on the federal judges.

The following are just a few excerpts from that one page memo and attached four and a half pages of minutes from that February 9, 1973 conference that was attended by IRS top brass from all over California:

"Mr. Croasmun pointed out that seven months ago we changed our direction on Tax Rebellion cases from a defensive posture and have now seized the initiative by infiltration of their organizations we now know in advance their plans before they execute them."

"Mr. Hansen (Chief of IRS Intelligence from Los Angeles) commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on the belief that IRS is 'highhanded'."

"Mr. Howard (Chief of IRS Intelligence from San Francisco) reported on a change of attitude of federal judges in San Francisco (emphasis added) after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents."

If we are to follow the principles of war, as pointed out by Sun Tzu, to know and understand our opponent, then we have to realize that we're not looking at a natural happening of just casual use of leverage by blackmail, but a ongoing planned effort that most certainly continues through today.

We know of the existence of other Memos, such as the above, and of the continuing combined efforts through Regional Coordinators assigned to monitor the "Tax Protest" and "Tax Rebellion" movements (their words not ours). The surface documents are readily available under the Freedom of Information Act. The heavier documents are highly confidential or have likely been destroyed.

We are certain however, that this 'attitude adjustment' by control is continuing today as it is mentioned in one of the IRS System of Records, specifically in their Case Management and Time Reporting System, Criminal Investigation Division - Treasury/IRS 46.002, which can be found in the Federal Register by searching the Privacy Act Issuances Compilation for the Treasury/ IRS, available on line through the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. 20408 - Gladys Queen Ramey, Editor - Ph. 202-523-3187.

In this system of records, under the sub-heading Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, are listed the Subjects of Criminal Investigation Division Investigations, U.S. Attorneys, Special Agents, and U.S. District Court Judges (Emphasis added)

Under other sub-headings is stated:

"This system of records may not be accessed for purposes of determining if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual."


"This system of records contains investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported."


"This system has been designated as exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act."

That we know this is happening means we can now address the issue via a logical and systematic approach and maybe use it to our advantage to give us that much needed equalizer.

We can base that approach on the fact that the Supreme Court has established a standard, determining the impartiality of a jurist. In 1971, Justice Thurgood Marshall, in the Supreme Court case of Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 at 502, said:

"Moreover, even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, this Court has held that due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the appearance of bias. This rule was well established long before the right to jury trial was made applicable in state trials and does not depend on it."

"As this court said in In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 at 136 (1955), '(f)airness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the

probability of unfairness." (emphasis added)

We should be aware, the Constitution for the United States of America, specifically mandates two requirements for judges appointed under Article III. Those requirements are that they shall hold their offices during good behavior and they shall receive compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Obviously our founding fathers wanted to insure impartiality, in that a judge would not be influenced by being fired or having his compensation cut and thereby intimidated, both psychologically and financially, by his appointee or any administrative agencies of the Executive branch.

So, if I'm forced to go into the courtroom against my will, I will be making my timely objection and my Demand For Recusal of any judge who is in any way beholding to or influenced by my adversary.

Now, that may honk the judge off. To me, that's the breaks. The important thing is that we have to make the challenge, not only to bring to the court's attention this awareness of IRS influence and potential bias of the court, but to inform the public as well.

We're not going to get any change if we wimp out because we're afraid to upset the judge. Until enough people in this country realize what's wrong, we'll continue to see the same bias accepted and repeated again and again.

At the beginning, our challenge may be construed as frivolous, without merit, or an already settled issue and some of us may go to jail for merely making that challenge. That's just the price we are going to have to pay. And if we must go to jail for demanding a fair trial and due process, so be it. For sure, every T.V. and radio station, newspaper and wire service will know about it. We need to remember that any publicity is good publicity, because those who have a hook in the judge's fanny want no publicity.

Another point to consider: If you're sliding down that "slippery slope, " you shouldn't worry if you tear up a little turf along the way. Baseball managers have been known to get in the face of an umpire. Maybe the ump gets teed off, maybe the manager gets thrown out of the game, maybe he gains the ump's attention and respect, and maybe he gets a reversal or a better break on the next call. You should do the same. You won't know what results you will get until you get in his face. You do know this, without that challenge, you're going all the way down that slippery slope.

If you are told that all judges file tax returns, and there wouldn't be any judges to try your case, you could respond with:

"My point exactly. There is not a judge in the 50 states who can be potentially unbiased in any case involving the IRS. That is precisely why the people can't get a fair tax trial when the IRS is involved."

or you could say,

"That is very presumptuous of you. Just bring in another judge, I want the opportunity to 'voir dire' him as to any bias he might have.

In concluding, there are two things that you need to do, if you feel you are going to be involved in a face to face confrontation with the IRS in a federal court:

(1) Research and understand both the law and the facts of this issue.


(2) Make the timely challenge with the conviction that you won't proceed in the charade until you have a judge that is not beholding to your adversary.

{my thanks to all who assisted for their input and critiques they so generously contributed to the development of this article. - bob}

Bob Minarik/Patriots For Liberty - 5288 N. 1000 W. Rochester, Indiana 46975

web site:
ph. 574-542-9065

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright © 2002. All Rights Reserved