Benjamin Franklin said:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
With the promise of keeping us safe from “gun violence”, “violent extremists”, and “domestic terrorists”, Congress wants you to give up your essential liberty to be free from unreasonable searches. H.R. 5764 is the first step to a writ of assistance against anyone who buys or sells firearms. This has been done before, so why shouldn’t Congress think they can get away with it again?
To understand the dangers of H.R. 5764 we need to understand a little bit of our history. One of the most intrusive abuses in the colonial era was the use of writs of assistance.
a writ authorizing officers of the British crown to search any premises for smuggled goods.
Writ of Assistance – The Free Legal Dictionary
The idea of a writ of assistance is simple. Government actors would be given legal permission to search your premises for contraband without probable cause. If they found something, then they would fill out the warrant to seize what they have found. As James Otis put it in 1761:
I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book…
JAMES OTIS SPEAKS AGAINST WRITS OF ASSISTANCE (1761)
The idea of writs of assistance was so onerous that when the first Congress drafted the amendments that became our Bill of Rights, they specifically prohibited anything like them.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV
The idea behind the Fourth Amendment is also quite simple: You have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches. For a warrant to be issued to search your person, houses, papers, or effects, it must be based on probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. In other words, someone had to go to court and swear or affirm that the information showing probable cause was true. Not only that, but any warrant issued must be specific in where people can search and what they can seize. In other words, the very concept of a writ of assistance is anathema to the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That, however, has not stopped Congress from authorizing writs of assistance, in direct violation to their oath of office.
Internal Revenue Service
(a) Authority to summon, etc.
For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized-
(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;
(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and
(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.
26 U.S.C. §7602 Examination of books and witnesses
Congress passed a law supposing to give the Internal Revenue Service the authority to search your books, papers, records, or other data, for the purpose of seeing if you filed your tax returns correctly. That means, should you receive an audit notice from the IRS, they are seeking to search your records with an invalid warrant.
A written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforcement officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice.
Warrant – The Free Legal Dictionary
This law also claims to allow the IRS to summon you, without probable cause, oath, or affirmation. The purpose of this summons is to take testimony, under oath, to determine if you have violated the IRS code. In other words, Congress has claimed the power to have the IRS issue invalid warrants, perform unreasonable and illegal searches, and to have you witness against yourself, which could be used against you later in a court of law. 18 U.S.C. §7602 violates both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution in only one paragraph. Yet each year thousands of Americas voluntarily submit to these illegal searches for fear of what the almighty IRS would do to them if they do not comply. And this is only the beginning.
Financial Transactions
(a) When a domestic financial institution is involved in a transaction for the payment, receipt, or transfer of United States coins or currency (or other monetary instruments the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes), in an amount, denomination, or amount and denomination, or under circumstances the Secretary prescribes by regulation, the institution and any other participant in the transaction the Secretary may prescribe shall file a report on the transaction at the time and in the way the Secretary prescribes. A participant acting for another person shall make the report as the agent or bailee of the person and identify the person for whom the transaction is being made.
31 USC 5313: Reports on domestic coins and currency transactions
This little piece of tyranny basically says the Secretary of the Treasure gets to tell banks and other financial or trading businesses to collect and report whatever information the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, without probable cause. If you watch crime dramas, you’ve probably heard that banks are required to submit a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the government for every transaction of $10,000 or more. One of the things Congress tried to do was lower that threshold to just $600. While that attempt was defeated, the constitutional violation still exists. This “law” assumes that any transaction of $10,000 or more is not only suspicious, but probable cause that a crime may have been committed. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the price of a car, home, motorcycle, land, and many other perfectly legitimate transactions are greater than $10,000. So the claim that any transaction of $10,000 or more is probable cause of a crime is offensive, ludicrous, and yet another violation of the oath of office every member of Congress took before assuming office. And should you wish to comply with this law by conducting transactions in smaller amounts than need to be reported, you are charged with structuring transactions. So even if your transaction was perfectly legal, Congress considers it a crime to hide it from the federal government.
They’re Coming For Your Guns
With H.R. 5764, Congress wants to use the same writs of assistance technique to track firearm transactions.
IN GENERAL.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, FinCEN shall request information from financial institutions for the purpose of developing an advisory about the identification and reporting of suspicious activity relating to—
(A) how homegrown violent extremists and perpetrators of domestic terrorism procure firearms and firearm accessories for the purpose of carrying out lone actor or lone wolf acts of terror within the United States; and
(B) the ways in which the firearms market in the United States is exploited to facilitate gun violence in the United States.
H.R. 5764
This legislation doesn’t demand reporting of transactions yet, but it’s the first step towards doing so. It appears Congress wants to expand the definition of suspicious activities for financial institutions to report on, including what they think “homegrown violent extremists and perpetrators of domestic terrorism” might do to acquire firearms. The questions that never seems to be asked in legislation like this is: What makes a transaction suspicious?And what makes these transactions probable cause that a crime has been committed?
For example, you may think that buying 10,000 rounds of ammunition is suspicious. However, everyone from competitive shooters to people who are looking for a bargain or just concerned about shortages, may see this as a reasonable action to take. And if someone finds 10,000 rounds suspicious, what about 1,000? 100? Or just ten?
One day I was at a gun store and they had nice older rifles on sale. So I bought two; one for me and one for my father. Some people may see a person purchasing two rifles at the same time suspicious, while I was just thinking it would be nice for my father and I to have identical rifles with consecutive serial numbers. And let’s face it, if someone is planning to perpetrate some form of domestic terrorism, they’re either going to buy their weapons on the black market or make sure their transactions are squeaky clean to avoid attracting attention. So the only real outcome of this attempt to develop a reporting system for “suspicious activities” related to firearms is a further erosion of our right to be secure from unreasonable searches and potentially create another illegal federal firearm registry.
Conclusion
Some of you may be thinking that if people don’t have anything to hide, why are they worried about those in government checking their actions? While you may have nothing to hide, you do have everything to protect. As Benjamin Franklin said, if you are willing to give up essential liberties for the promise of temporary safety, you deserve neither. If you’re willing to give up your right to be secure against unreasonable searches for either of these reasons, who will protect your rights when someone else comes up with an even more intrusive reason? You may think it’s reasonable for the government to poke around in your financial records to make sure you paid your taxes correctly, but what about making sure you pay your mortgage and credit cards on time? You may find a $10,000 transaction suspicious until you need to borrow money from a friend. And sure, you may think that your neighbor purchasing firearms and ammo are suspicious, until the day the mob shows up and only one who has the tools to protect you is that neighbor. The question shouldn’t be whether someone thinks something is suspicious, but what are the requirements before government can go snooping around your stuff? Those in government claim that these laws are necessary to keep the people safe. As William Pitt (the Younger) said
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
The Constitution requires there be probable cause before you or your stuff can be searched. Not what a government bureaucrat thinks is suspicious or not what your neighbor thinks is suspicious. The Constitution also requires that said probable cause be supported by oath or affirmation before a warrant is issued. Not legislation that demands you show people your books or that you show up to witness against yourself. Yet today the government in Washington, D.C. has claimed the power to issue these writs of assistance, and we the people have given up our right to be secure against unreasonable searches in exchange for the promises that government will keep us safe. Because Mr. Franklin was right; the American people deserve neither liberty nor safety. And we will not deserve them again until we refuse to give up our rights every time someone in government claims it’s to keep us safe or for our own good.
Mr Engel,
Another good article but hardly complete.
For now there are two things I would like to state: 1-you wrote about 18 U.S.C. §7602. This is incorrect, it is 26 U.S.C. sec.7602 and, 2-I refer you to IRS Pamphlet 5 in which it states in the middle of page 2 I believe it is that one cannot “use the Constitution” in argument with the agency.
This is the IRS’s own document. We can’t use the Constitution?!
There is more, much, much more.
Keith,
Thanks for catching the typo… I’ve edited the article.
As for the IRS pamphlet, the Constituiton is the supreme law of the land, not an IRS pamphlet. Should they claim an IRS regulation as the basis for denying you a right protected by the Constitution, they are committing a crime under 18 USC §242.
Mr. Engel,
Thanks for your Reply.
I did not know about 18 U.S.C. sec 242 when I brought suit against the IRS in 2011. I was waaaay over my head in doing so at that time but I could not afford, or find, anyone that would ‘assist’ me.
I did submit 104 requests for Discovery & Interrogatories and received responses to, none. Not one.
I did refer to Pamphlet 5 but received no response on that either.
At the onset, on the record, I identified myself as a “Natural living man, I am not a Commercial Entity” which caused the judge to sputter and call for a recess.
I also told the ‘court’ I wanted to question the ‘government’s’ attorney but the court did not allow that either. I was the only one sworn-in. Therefore, I had to address my arguments to the court and I argued with the judge for over an hour. You can imagine how that turned out.
The fact that the IRS deems the one who wishes to challenge them “has the burden of proof”. This is baloney; just because they, or your local tax collector, says you did this or that does not make the issue(s) cut in stone. In other words, there has been no adjudication at that point. They have presumed authority and status. In law, these can be argued and brought to light at ANY time; they never go out of ‘time’.
When you go into that hearing they have to prove their points and are subject to discovery and interrogatories, the whole shot. They have the burden of proof; we cannot be found guilty or liable based on their assumptions and presumptions.
There’s actually an interesting constitutional issue with IRS “courts”. Judicial power is delegate to the Supreme and Inferior Courts of the United States, not the President or the executive branch. As I understand it, IRS “courts” are “administrative law courts”, which are part of the executive branch. They are, therefore, unconstitutional since the President as never delegated the authority to both execute the law and judge cases under those laws. That violates the Constituiton’s separation of powers.
Mr. Engel,
You are correct in all you have just written about the Tax ‘Court’ except it is even more corrupt than one can imagine. They do nothing according to law or even to their own procedures.
To complement their thievery and criminal actions another aspect of that pig pen is that over time, the ‘government’ has made major changes to the long-standing Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure. The states have even jumped in on the scams. ex. “shall” can mean “may”.
They have developed, through the Administrative Procedure Act, (the feds and every state has had an APA since 1947) what they refer to a quasi-jurisdictional ‘courts’. These quasi courts have now been granted the ‘authority’ to handle civil and criminal cases: there is only one court in America now, the Civil Court.
And, these ‘courts’, in reality, pay no heed to the Constitution.
There is more, much more. Thanks for your efforts Mr. Engel.
Mr Engel,
A little more about the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and also the status of lawyers.
The APA itself is unlawful beginning with its primary foundation. It, and the government entities cited within it, are merely granted ‘authority’. Yet they are allowed to exercise extreme powers; all under the ‘auspices’ of Congress, the Courts and the President. None of the agencies of our ‘government’ have the enumerated power to grant or cede its authority to another agency of government. No federal agency of ‘government’ has the enumerated power to address the 2nd Amendment in any capacity, including Interstate Commerce. No agency of ‘government’ has the enumerated power to create or deny any lawful individual his God-given Natural or Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Lawyers, who are presumed to be licensed, are also merely granted authority to function. They claim to be ‘licensed’ but they are not. The States’ BAR associations are not part of government; they are privately owned corporations. In fact, they will not even define what “BAR” means. Lawyers are not truly licensed because if they were there would be a contract between the State, the BAR and the people. Admittedly on their part, a lawyer is an “officer of the court” and his primary allegiance is to the State. Everything involved in that cesspool is unlawful; but what else is new?
Some have said, and I believe to be true, that BAR actually means British Admiralty Regency which is an entity beholden to the Queen Mum (the British Crown). Titles of Nobility (Your Honor, Esquire) are outlawed in the Constitution For the united States of America yet lawyers and their black-robed criminal co-conspirators, the judges unabashedly wave those ‘titles’ in our faces. The whole lot of them should be brought to a lawful court, and if found guilty they should be executed in my humble opinion. There are also arguments about Admiralty Courts, etc but I won’t go into that now.
Okay, I got a little windy. I apologize Mr Engel there are many things going on in America today that makes me angry.
Thank you for work and efforts to help Americans.
Keith,
I agree with most everything you say. The one exception is, I have yet to see any evidence that the “bar” referred to in courts is anything but the bar at the front of the court, that railing you see separating those in the court from those in the gallery. Hence, “passing the bar” was when a lawyer was qualified to pass that railing and participate in the proceedings.
As for the term Esquire, although it does have roots in the English gentry, it is used as a “title of courtesy” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/esquire). However, as you noted, this title is not granted by the government, but by a private organization. It is therefore not a violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…”
Mr. Engel,
Some of what I write here is redundant to what you just wrote but I feel it necessary for me to be as complete as I can regarding Titles of Nobility. A generic definition is: 1- a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight. 2- a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight. 3- used as a title of courtesy often by attorneys usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname John R. Smith, Esq.
According to law: Find Law (https://www.findlaw.com/): “Esq. or Esquire is an honorary title that is placed after a practicing lawyer’s name. Practicing lawyers are those who have passed a state’s (or Washington, D.C.’s) bar exam and have been licensed by that jurisdiction’s bar association.”
Bar Associations are privately owned corporations. Private corporations cannot ‘license’ anyone; they merely bestow membership with a card with a BAR number on it. Lawyers do not have licenses; they are “granted” the ability to ‘practice’ in front of the Federal or State’s Supreme Court. The ‘identification’ a lawyer readily presents as a ‘license’ is merely a membership card.
It is then ‘assumed’ that if a lawyer is granted authority in ‘practice’ in front of the jurisdiction’s highest court they most assuredly (presumptively) have the ability to ‘practice’ in that jurisdiction’s lower courts. Ah, assumptions; presumptions; the way of the IRS Code also.
There is no licensure involved. The methods lawyers and judges (judges are merely BAR members also) use to disregard the rights of the people are willing gestures of treason.
I have a friend (one of my mentors) who is not a member of the BAR, who has not graduated from an ‘accredited’ law school, and who ran for a seat on the STATE OF TEXAS SUPREME COURT. The STATE OF TEXAS of course tried to disallow his candidacy because he was not a licensed attorney or a member of the BAR. My friend appealed (he is an amazing researcher) and he was finally allowed to run for office which he did.
The Founders’ rationale behind inserting No Titles of Nobility restrictions in the Constitution was because they wanted it to be emphatically known that ALL ties to The Crown (England) were to be severed completely. But, the Founders made a mistake: their original No Titles of Nobility Clause lacked a punishment for the crime of associating oneself with The Crown.
We have a few ‘STATES’ in America who have identified themselves as a Commonwealth. A Commonwealth, originally, was an Affirmation that the new State’s admission into our Republic was predicated on a further emphasis that the State vehemently disassociated itself from The Crown. So much for that; today, those ‘STATES’ are on their knees like the rest of the rats.
That was the reason the original 13th Amendment was passed: no lawyer could run for public office AND anyone who assumed a Title of Nobility would be deported immediately with no rights of Citizenship. The original 13th Amendment, even though it was enacted, is referred to as the Missing 13th Amendment.
Conclusion: lawyers, judgeships and courts in America are all a big scam and have been for a very long time.
The result? Today we have judges who legislate from the bench and lawyers who ‘lawyer’ on their knees; each perfectly satisfied with their treason.
There may still be some integrity to the Art III Courts but in these times, I do not believe there is ANY law in America any longer and that is one reason why we have local terrorists who are treasonously identified by elected officials as patriots!
I agree that the government is denying people their right to redress by requiring membership in a private organization to represent someone else. And I’m glad to hear your mentor fought for and won his right to run for the Texas Supreme Court. I’d love to see a non-lawyer be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. I’d also like to see someone testifying in Congress refuse to refer to the members as “Honorable”. To me, that is a greater title of nobility than Esquire.
As for the “original 13th amendment”, sadly it appears Virginia never notified the federal government of its approval, which is why it was not engrossed into the Constitution.
Mr Engel,
Re: regarding Congress taking away rights, you wrote: “This has been done before, so why shouldn’t Congress think they can get away with it again?” Today of course, there is nothing stopping them at all. But allow me to visit the history of such unlawful actions:
The European bankers have always wanted to take control of America. They wanted to become our banker they wanted to circumvent our Constitution and to totally control our economy.
The South, up until the Civil War, was bitterly at odds with the bankers and their ‘partners’ in America, the Tories and the Carpetbaggers. This included a banking ‘agent’ they had ‘planted’ in America, the father of J.P. Morgan.
In short, the bankers wanted the South out of Congress and out of our state Legislatures. So the bankers (the owners of our present-day Federal Reserve Bank) planned, financed and implemented the Civil War.
As soon as the War was over, Congress immediately, without the presence of the South, ‘passed’ the 13th Amendment. And right on top of that the 14th Amendment. Let me now add a relevant fact: no amendment was presented or passed in Congress between 1812 and 1865.
The bankers knew that if the original (“Missing”) 13th Amendment were to be ratified, any subsequent amendment would ‘cut-in-stone’ the passage of the original (Missing) 13th Amendment and their scams would unfold.
The ‘new’ Congress (absent anyone from the South) was composed of illiterate Negroes, Carpetbaggers and bankers because they ‘passed legislation’ that “Anyone associated with the Southern rebels during the War were stripped of their rights and could not hold office or vote”.
This, to my recollection, was the first time Congress openly denied citizens of their rights.
To my knowledge, and I ask for your input Mr. Engel if I am wrong, no agency of government has any enumerated power/authority to create or deny a right. Further, “Civil Rights” legislation is also unlawful, invalid and unenforceable.
First of all, you are making several claims without any citation for proof. You claim that Congress had no representation from the southern states, then where did the “illiterate Negroes, Carpetbaggers and bankers” come from and what proof do you have that they were ineligible to serve in Congress?
I can tell you that this was not the first time Congress openly denied citizens their rights. While I am not an expert in all of American history, I do know a federal income tax was implemented during the Civil War.
Mr. Engel,
Adding ‘citations’ would lengthen articles too much. If you notice almost none of what ‘government’ states today has citations or any form of specificity.
I feel safe in stating government, like the IRS, cannot exist without the world of assumptions and presumptions.
Intentionally, most all of the traditional rules of, and for, law are vague and nearly incomprehensible.
Congress has no enumerated power to involve itself with the 2nd Amendment. Correct me if I am wrong.
An administrative agency, the IRS, was granted the authority to enforce “gun laws” under its own ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ and in its own purported ‘court.
I ask you may “Any agency of government transfer, cede or grant any of its enumerated powers”? As is in the case of the IRS Congress granted/transferred/ceded the powers of the Judiciary to the Treasurer who then ‘granted’ that power to the Commissioner. Both of these entities are not elected nor do they take an Oath of Office. Is any of this Constitutional?
I write again: to my knowledge, and I ask for your input Mr. Engel if I am wrong, no agency of government has an enumerated power/authority to create or deny a right. Further, I believe, “Civil Rights” legislation is also unlawful, invalid and unenforceable. What say you?
The bankers planned and implemented the Civil War, in part, to ‘remove’ the South from Congress.
When the South ‘walked out’ of Congress, Congress was still in session, they made a grave mistake. Congress then used the right of quorum to continue doing business. And doing business they did, to this VERY DAY.
The South, in my opinion, had more than enough right to secede.
But, they made another grave error when they fired on Fort Sumter. They fired the first shot. In law, in my opinion, lacking a formal trial on the issues, the first shot actually made the South the aggressors.
To enumerate all of the ills the South created for our Constitutional Republic by walking out of Congress would take many pages.
But one of the many unlawful ills was Congress declared the secession was an insurrection and they declared all those involved in the insurrection were criminals. And they added and added more crap to that declaration for years to follow.
Another ill was Congress declared the South had no rights whatsoever which included the right to hold office, vote, possess firearms or protect its property. There are many citations substantiating this statement. This was the ‘formal beginning of the war on guns’.
In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes. The law was amended in 1864 to levy a tax of 5% on incomes between $600 and $5,000, a 7.5% tax on incomes in the $5,000-$10,000 range and a 10% tax on everything higher.
Averages for 8 top wages for an average American in 1862 @10 hours per a 6 day workweek was $473.25 per year. The tax was almost immediately repealed after the War.