MARK GAILEY, LIBERTARIAN FOR KY 6^th U.S. DISTRICT CONGRESS

I would like to respectfully object to the inaccuracies within the Herald-Leader story about my congressional candidacy last Friday, August 16, 2002. I hereby request either a clarification or correction of the following four points. I appreciated the opportunity that the Herald-Leader gave me to share my candidacy. But the misrepresentations of the story put the public at potential risk and infer a false presentation of my legal position. The intern who interviewed me did a respectful job, striving for accuracy. But the issue he focused on is tricky to address in a short news piece.

The most egregious statement came not from the story, but rather in the headline, "BEREA NATIVE SAYS HE DOESNT’ PAY U.S. TAXES". This is patently false. My statements to the reporter were that citizens, which I am one, are neither obligated nor liable for federal income taxes. And in fact, I pay all U.S. taxes for which a legal liability can be proven. Every time I buy gas or tires, alcohol or tobacco, or pay a phone bill, I pay U.S. excise taxes, the same as anybody else does. Technically, the headline was untrue. The sensationalism of the statement could have benefited both the Herald-Leader and myself. But the false statement implies that I am a scofflaw, also patently untrue.

Secondly, the reporter claimed that I was self-employed. That could be correct in dictionary terms. However this is a prime example of where legislative abuse of power has usurped simple rhetoric to create a technically legal definition. Self-employment now infers a relationship of "covered" employment, covered by participatory rules for accruing Social Security benefit credits. The joke goes, "I used to be self-employed and couldn’t afford it, so now I just work for myself."

Third and most important is the logical leap that I don’t pay income taxes because the Constitution disallows them. In fact, it is not that I don’t pay them, but rather that I don’t owe them. And the reason is that there is no law making me liable for them, except under treaty with some certain countries as foreign earned income. My position is based entirely on the law, Title 26 code, Treasury regulations and the IRS’ own manual. If someone tried to duplicate or emulate my position on the misstated basis of unconstitutionality they could end up in jail as an illegal tax protester. It seems that the government treats the people as if they were too stupid to read and understand a simple, straightforward document like the Constitution.

The IRS goes even further to classify an illegal protest category for those who obey the law as it is written. From my lifetime of study, I can guarantee that the law doesn’t require citizens to pay income taxes. However, I can make no claims on the assurance that IRS personnel or federal judges will operate within the law. So I must politically insist that any actions taken by others than myself should be based on their understanding of the law and not of the constitution. After all, giving advice is a taxably licensed privilege.

And the fourth point, I did not revoke my Social Security number on grounds that not paying the income tax would cause ineligibility for federal welfare benefits. The grounds for revocation are based on fraudulent presentation of the Social Security program, its rules and entering a minor into a contract without legal standing.

What was revoked was the application for the number, not the number itself. It wasn’t my number anyway. Enumerated identifiers belong to the issuing agency. It would be illogical to revoke a number. We can’t revoke the number seven or the entire system of math science would fall flat on its face. Either we would shift to counting in base nine, or eight would become seven and some other symbol would have to take up the slack.

I would like to comment on the story’s balancing source, IRS spokesperson Dan Boone, who admitted to a lack of awareness on this topic. His strongest statement used a qualifying word "if...residents have taxable income." While I certainly invite public forum on this issue, I regret that Mr. Boone has had to be included because I fear for his career. IRS trainees and the legal industry are generally not taught these foundational points of tax law. Instead, their studies focus on facilitation of socialist participation. If Mr. Boone becomes to curious, he will likely be asked to resign or be fired like the otherwise successful IRS employees whose multimedia testimonies can be found at http://www.sueirs.org/paralegals/index.htm.