Taphouse News Flash 2/10/06:

Guns and Badges

DOJ hearing on IRS liability of Hank Goltz in the Federal District Court, San Antonio 8:00 AM 2/9/06:


The Judge called the case “US versus Hank Goltz and said he had given Mr. Goltz a copy of the law regarding his alleged requirement to appear and bring records to an IRS agent. The Department of Justice (DOJ) called their witness, a “Revenue Officer” working for the IRS under the pseudonym of “Mr. Dietz,” who refused to tell the court what his real name was. He testified that Revenue Officers are given the option of using a pseudonym for the purpose of avoiding “bogus liens” and harassment by “taxpayers.”


Mr. Pseudonym (Mr. P) testified that he had worked for 18 ½ years for the IRS as a Revenue Officer and had conducted investigations of some 600 to 800 cases. Mr. P said Hank’s case was assigned to him after an “assessment” had been made by the IRS that there was a delinquent balance due on Hank Goltz for years 1999 and 2001 or 2004 and some returns were not filed. Mr. P testified that he is required to get the “taxpayers” to voluntarily comply with IRS to obtain information to justify why there is a “balance due.” He said if the taxpayer showed supporting documents proving that they could not pay then certain arrangements would be made to get that balance over time.


Mr. P testified that he is required to seek the taxpayer at their last known address and that he went to the home of Hank Goltz with a summons for two years of tax information to come into the IRS office and bring financial records showing ownership of assets such as cars, houses, bank accounts etc. He said he did not find Mr. Goltz home so he went to the neighbors house and was told that Hank was gone. He said that a “gentleman” drove up in the driveway at Hank’s house and Mr. P asked the man if he was Hank Goltz and he replied “who wants to know?” Mr. P said he “identified himself as Mr. Dietz of the IRS” and said Hank replied that he was entitled to privacy. Mr. P asked Hank if Angelina was his wife.


Mr. P delivered the summons and left. Later Mr. P said he got a fax from Hank stating he would come in to the office if he could record it. Mr. P said he granted it and that Hank came in and challenged his authority to look at any records and had asked for the “delegation order” showing a delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to examine books, issue a summons and take testimony. Mr. P said they arranged another time for Hank to come in and Mr. P said he showed Hank a “delegation order” from the Commissioner to employees of the IRS and showed Hank the 433A “Collection Information Statement.” Mr. P said they met 4 times and no information was volunteered by Mr. Goltz. On the last meeting, Mr. P said Hank brought in a copy of a 1040 form for 1999 and 2004 that showed it with zeros on all lines with an attachment stating that Hank did not have “income” that was taxable and therefore not due. Mr. P said these were joint returns. The Judge asked the Mr. P how long it would take to fill out the 433A form if Hank would have complied or cooperated. Mr. P answered about an hour.


The DOJ passed the witness.


Mr. Goltz made an “opening statement” by saying he thought it right and fair to operate under an old maxim that says, “You should know who you are dealing with.” And Hank said that would apply to dealing with the government by knowing if the agent who purports to have authority to ask you questions about your private affairs actually has that authority.


Mr. Goltz then turned to Mr. P, and asked if Mr. P had been approached in his driveway asking a bunch of questions would he inquire into their authority to ask those questions and Mr. P said that he probably would. Mr. Goltz asked Mr. P, what he would do to determine if the person had authority to ask questions. Mr. P said he would ask for some “ID,” and follow up by calling the office to verify the credentials.


Mr. Goltz then approached the witness and gave him a document that Hank had received from Mr. P identified as “Provisions of Revenue Code” Hank asked Mr. P to read page 3 the first paragraph which he did. This was the provision that said the “Secretary of the Treasury” was authorized to examine books, issue summons and take testimony. Mr. Goltz said this does not say the “President” has authority to do those things.


Mr. Goltz asked Mr. P if Hank had asked him if he was the “Secretary of the Treasury” in those meetings. And Mr. P affirmed that. Then Hank asked Mr. P if Hank had asked him to show him a “delegation order” for Mr. P to perform those three functions for the “Secretary.” Mr. P affirmed again. Mr. P said that Hank had asked him for this “delegation order” every time they met and each time Hank was shown the delegation from the “Commissioner of the IRS” to act for the IRS. Hank pointed out that the document he was shown by Mr. P said the “Commissioner” had authorized all IRS employees under all laws under the IRS by authority of the “Director” and that for most people that sounds alright but to Hank that document did not say the authority came from the one who had it, namely, the “Secretary of the Treasury.” Mr. Goltz asked Mr. P if he understood that we weren’t here today about taxes but about authority and who has it to ask questions concerning my private affairs and who had authority to commence this hearing. Hank asked Mr. P if this form you showed me for the “delegation order” was xeroxed out of the IRS employee manual.


Hank asked Mr. P if he was happy with the results of the meeting where Hank did not provide the information Mr. P had requested and Mr. P did not provide the “delegation order” requested by Mr. Goltz. Mr. P answered that he did show Hank the “delegation order and that Hank still did not provide the information. Hank said you weren’t happy with what I gave you but you were satisfied with what you gave me so he asked Mr. P what he did then. Mr. P said he notified the District Council Office that a “last chance” meeting should be held before it would be turned over to the DOJ for prosecution. Hank asked Mr. P who sent him the letter that Hank received concerning a “last chance” meeting. Mr. P said it was issued from the DOJ office. Hank asked then why did it come in an envelop with marked with IRS advertising “E-file” from the IRS. Hank said this just looks like you are using the DOJ when you have no authority to intimidate me into providing what you want.


Hank asked Mr. P if he was aware that the form he was requesting the information did not have an “OMB” number. He further asked if Mr. P was aware that all government documents must have approval from the “Office of Management and Budget.” Mr. P said that the “taxpayer” in “collections” must fill out this 433A form.


Hank reminded Mr. P that Mr. P was to get people to cooperate voluntarily. And Mr. P said yes but if they don’t we have to resort to a “summons.” Hank asked, and you do this even if you can’t provide a “delegation order” to initiate a “summons” right or you think you have this “delegation of authority” to do that, right. Mr. P said yes. Hank asked Mr. P if he remembered during their last meeting if Hank had said to Mr. P to just forget the “delegation order” and had asked Mr. P to just sigh an affidavit already prepared by Hank that stated Mr. P had authority to examine books, issue summons’ and receive testimony. Mr. P replied that he did remember that and had refused to sign it because he did not know who prepared that. Then Hank said well Mr. P do you had prepared a document that said that you had authority to examine books, issue summons’ and receive testimony, would you have signed it. Mr. P replied that he would not have signed it. Hank said well we have dispensed with the importance of who typed the affidavit and determined that you were not comfortable with assuming that authority talked about in the affidavit. Hank said then Mr. P you’re not really comfortable with assuming the authority to do what you do but we are just supposed to take it on faith right that you have it.


The Judge intercedes at this time and says, Mr Goltz, Mr. P here has proved his authority by evidence that Mr. P is an employee of the IRS and US Attorney, Mr. Gargata, is sitting in here and I, a US District judge is holding this hearing today and I have made a determination that I have jurisdiction over this matter and I am going to rule in this matter and if you want to challenge my jurisdiction you may do so on appeal and that is your right to do so. The judge continued that it is time to move to another line of questioning because I have determined that Mr. P here has jurisdiction to do what he did and I have jurisdiction to resolve this case.


The judge continued and said the real issue here for me is not jurisdiction Mr. Goltz, but whether you cooperated with Mr. P and gave information to Mr. P that he requested. Now Mr. Goltz you are in “contempt” right now and you were in “contempt” when you came in here because you are not cooperating. And if you continue to talk about jurisdiction and refuse to provide the information the IRS wants I will have those three US Marshalls back there take you into custody for a minimum of 18 months in jail and then we can start all over again.


The judge went on and said Mr. Goltz you have shown no willingness to comply by providing the information required on form 433A. You, Mr. Goltz are acting foolish, and I don’t know what you are trying to prove to your friends back there, because hundreds of millions of citizens file their taxes and comply with the tax laws passed by their elected representatives. I don’t know what you think you are doing to contradict the law, tradition and practice of this country. Hundreds of millions of citizens pay their taxes every year without argument to follow the laws.


Hank Goltz now takes the stand to testify at the hearing. Hank said to the judge, I remember you saying in our last hearing that there were more important things then tax matters in this day and age and that we are all obliged to obey the law. There is a section in the IRS code that deals with authority and this is being ignored by everyone in here. And I think that authority to collect information and taxes is one of the most important things in this country at this time. I’m not a tax protestor; I’m not out in the street; I’m not preaching that people should not comply with tax laws; I’m not challenging the 16th Amendment; I am trying to have the tax laws enforced, so when I see people hiding behind pseudonyms and alias and can’t show authority to do what they are doing and violating the IRS Code I don’t think we have to go to Abu Ghraib to have torture to acquire information because these people right in here did not follow the law. I used to be one of those hundred million people that filed their taxes and I did it because everybody else was doing it, I did not know the law and did it ignorantly. These “hundreds of millions” of citizens don’t know the law and they don’t look it up in the thousands of pages of code but they file their taxes because they are afraid of the government. But I believe that we the people formed this government as our servants and we have a right to know the law and we have a right to expect that it is followed by all in government. And that’s about all have to say about this hearing today.


The judge said I am not going to play this game any more. You either answer the questions the DOJ has for you today or I am going to have those three US Marshals back there take you into custody for 18 months and we can start all over then. So what is it going to be Mr. Goltz. Hank replied, sure I will tell you anything under duress and threat of imprisonment.


The judge then asked if the DOJ had any questions. The US Attorney commenced with the asking of questions that all related to the information sought on form 433A. The attorney asked Hank what his name was. Hank replied, “I am Hank Goltz.” Do you have a mortgage? Do you have a house? When were you born? Are you self employed? Where have you worked? When the US Attorney asked what Hank did for one company he said he did not know if he had authority to answer that question and the US Attorney said he was being unresponsive and that he be made to answer and the judge said Hank could take the 5th Amendment to not incriminate himself or be found in contempt.


The judge said I have never met anyone that refused help as much as Mr. Goltz. The judge said again that Mr. Goltz was already in contempt. The judge said he had “bushels” full of these IRS cases and only two did I need to incarcerate. He said these kind always leave no choice and deny help and if you don’t answer I will have these US Marshals take Mr. Goltz into custody. In the confusion the question was not asked again and the US Attorney continued with other questions. How long did you work there? Did you graduate from high school? Did you go to college? Do you have a degree? Do you have a social security number? Did you make any “income” in 2002? Do you have an IRA? Do you have a 401-K? Does your wife work? Does your wife collect Social Security? Do you have a checking account? Do you have a savings account? Do you have credit cards, Do you have a car? Do you have life insurance? Did you make any “wages?” Do you have any wages under “garnishment?” Are you party to any lawsuits? Are you in “bankruptcy?” Have you transferred any property? Are you the beneficiary of any trust? Did you have an unforeseen increase in “income?” Do you pay “sales tax?” Do you pay ad valorem taxes? Do you have life insurance? What debts do you have?


Then the US Attorney said as you can see you honor we have determined that Mr. Goltz has things that we need more information on to determine his liability and we need him to bring those things into us. He continued and said we would like for him to bring those things into us tomorrow at 10:00 AM to Mr. P’s office and if he does not have those things then I want those US Marshals to take him into custody at that time.


The judge ordered Hank to do those things or he would be taken into custody.

The hearing is concluded

Witness (Ron Avery) notes:

So again we see that the law and authority is ignored in favor of what most people do by tradition. Even though you are required to know every word of the tax laws, consisting of the US Constitution, and the IRS Tax Code (some 2500 pages) once you do know them you will be treated as if you never saw them and forced into doing just as your ignorant neighbor is doing who has never seen the tax code or read the constitution or bothered to read any US Supreme Court cases. In spite of over 2500 pages of definitions of terms and provisions related to IRS tax collections, when the IRS agents and DOJ talks to you they pretend that we are all just a bunch of cowboys with no knowledge of the strict definition of “income.” Without the IRS telling you exactly what “income” is, you better not answer them. And if you don’t answer them you will go to jail.


This situation has a name. Our forefathers called it: