|
It has come to my attention that there are some misunderstandings about the Legal Research Society and further that it is under scrutiny. I hope that this can clear up any confusion.
The organization has been in existence for about 20 years. Most recently, John Wilde and then J.C. Chisum ran the organization for probably the last 18 years. There is not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a "membership" list. I was told that John himself knew who the members were, but I was never provided any information about it. So if you say you are a member, then I guess you are.
When John died in June 2006, J.C. stepped in as the new leader of the group and presented his own opinions and strategies at meetings. He continued in this capacity until July of 2006. These meetings have always been a forum for First Amendment-type discussions.
Today, since J.C. became indisposed, we do not have any designated leader. I am not qualified to run any group regarding the study of the law or research. There may be members who could handle that task, but there is no one who does "paralegal/legal-type" work for the members as John used to do.
Attendees and "members" have asked, "What should I do now?" In each instance, they were told to contact a man in New Mexico if they wished to continue on a path of litigation as John used to do. If someone is interested in approaching a tax problem in a way different from what John propounded, I have a friend that is a former IRS agent who handles tax returns. He will be happy to assist with bringing someone up to date. There are others to whom we have referred people as well.
I have always made it clear that I have never been in a position to give any legal advice. I have my own problems that are probably the result of following Mr. Chisum's bad advice in the past, and have attempted to find solutions within the law.
John's method and approach was to continue to "fill the courts" with cases and "fight" on the legal, courtroom front to "overwhelm" the system so that the politicians would be forced to actually listen to the proposals to do away with the Income Tax. Well, the view of most of us in the Legal Research Society today is that that approach was neither effective nor helpful to those of us that followed it and the end result has been, for many, disaster after disaster.
J.C.'s approach was to attack the Internal Revenue Service, like John did, on the administrative level. The difference was that J.C. inserted many different "arguments" into his material. Most of us found the approach was not on point - even if correct in places - and that when you argue everything but the "kitchen sink" the truth gets lost in the pile.
The trusts that J.C. recommended to others and taught about were of numerous different forms. I was engaged in working for one of the trusts that J.C. set up for me. The problem is, when the request for information came, I was not authorized to provide the information because only the trustee can handle those matters on behalf of the trust.
An IRS examination was done without ever contacting the trustee, however. It is unknown what exactly prompted it to begin with, and at the outset I informed the agent who contacted me that the only one with authority to handle his questions was the trustee. I did not then, nor do I now, have any authority to disclose the kind of information that the agent was seeking. Thus my problems today stem from the fact that certain individuals within the agency appear to be so bent on going after Mr. Chisum that they will ignore proper procedure.
I expect to have J.C. replaced as trustee on the trusts that I was associated with so that the new trustee can clear the record. So far, though, I have run up against a solid wall of non-response to and stonewalling of my requests. I have never believed and certainly do not now believe that we need to engage in "criminal activity" to reach our ends. It has always been the objective of the Legal Research Society to work toward peaceful redress of grievances. That has not changed.
The Legal Research Society today has focused on remaining issues and ongoing "problems" that some of us have been left with from the earlier era. We are also beginning to branch out to new areas. For instance, one of our members had an issue with a school which necessitated some legal follow-up; we will be taking a look at her situation and discussing it at a future meeting.
Freedom is not free. It takes vigilance. Our parents and grandparents were not aware and therefore could not be very vigilant; the result is a government today that needs correction. The only way that we have to legitimately attempt to correct our government is to use the law and the administrative procedures that are in place for that purpose. We need to get back to the founding principles of our nation. At the same time, it is my fear that we may be too late to fix the system. The problem is, the power structure was built over many years and it will be very difficult to regain the freedom that has been lost. However, I believe that I owe it to my Grandchildren to try.
John used to tell us that the real solution would be a political one. In that I agree. The problem is: how do we find politicians who understand the problems and have real solutions to get us back on track? The two major political parties, Republican and Democrat, have certainly not provided the leadership to get this nation on the right track so far, and I honestly don't know if they can, or will.
|