Q When was this?
A This was about 1978.
Q And you moved to?
A We moved --
Q Decherd?
A We moved back to Alto.
Q Alto?
A Yes, sir. It was kind of one of those things. We put our house up for sale. We made the decision thinking we had plenty of time; we drove the sign up in the yard and the house sold in four days. So, we had to make like a mass exodus to get home. And my mom --
Q What did you do after that?
A Okay. We moved in with mom and dad. They were gracious enough to let us move in. We had two households of families, two families in one household, with two households of furniture, and I didn't have a job because it all happened so fast. So, in the interim, while I wasn't working at a job, I decided, well, we've got to have a house. So, I decided we'd build us a house. I got my dad, he's good at calculating and planning, so we sat down and calculated the cost. We hired a man to dig the basement, and we set out and built the house. We started in December and finished in May. My wife was pregnant at the time. And we moved -- the baby was born, my little daughter was born in April and we moved in the house in May. From that time, shortly after that, I --
Q What year would that have been?
A That was May of '79, I believe.
Q What did you do after that?
A At that point in time I was offered a position at First National Bank as a loan officer. And, of course, I've never done anything like that. And they wanted me to start out back in bookkeeping to learn how the paper flows through the bank. So, I was filing checks and looking at signatures. I lasted about three weeks. And there was a teaching position came open there at Franklin County High School, where I had gone to school myself, in cabinetmaking, which was one of my certified areas. And so I told the bank that I appreciated it, but I believed I'd go back to teaching. And so, I started teaching. That would've been in the middle of the year. The guy for some reason had to leave. Taught cabinetmaking for about two years and a half, Franklin County High School, And I had a lot of good students. Lot of good memories.
Q When did you --
A I had an opportunity then -- sir? Excuse me.
Q You were at Franklin County High School for two and a half years?
A Right.
Q When did you leave? '82 or '83?
A Yeah, somewhere in there.
Q Okay. What did you do after that?
A Well, I got an opportunity at that time to go to a neighboring town, which is called Tullahoma, and teach machine shop. So, I transferred because it paid a little more money. And I worked there for approximately two years, I believe. And then I had, by that time I'd been teaching about ten years. And for a shop teacher, you've got to have discipline in the shop or somebody can get hurt. And during this period of time in the schools, the discipline started changing drastically. And so, I got concerned that I was getting a lot of students that didn't really want to be in my class, and they were hindering me from teaching the ones that did want to learn, and I was afraid that there was going to be some accidents that I couldn't control. So, I decided that I'd do some things on my own, and I resigned from Tullahoma. My wife had a sister who had gotten in a thing called Shakley. And so, we kind of got into it to help her. In the Shakley business, you buy products and that's how you make money, and hopefully you sell some of them, you know. And so we'd buy them and then we'd sell a few, and we'd buy some more and we'd sell a few. So, needless to say, after a year or two, we really didn't make any money, but we met an awful lot of nice people. We went to a lot of nice meetings and learned a lot about health and nutrition. And that kind of faded on out. And somewhere in that period of time, which would've been about '83 or '84, we decided that we felt like we needed to teach our two children at home, home school. And so we did that for about the next five years. I just worked odd jobs here and there, and my wife taught, doing what she could. She did the English and stuff; I'd try to do the math and the science. And we felt like that was just really important, because we wanted to instill in them our values as much as we could. And they always tested out every year. So. you know, we feel comfortable with what we did in that.
Q So, when you got involved in the Shakley program, that enabled you to engage in home schooling?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Well, --
A That and just doing odd jobs and contracting.
Q So, you were -- what was the time range in which you were doing Shakley and odd jobs?
A From about '83 to somewhere around '86.
Q Okay. Now, in '88 what happened?
A In 1988, as I recall, I don't remember the exact month, I ran into a young man that I had had as a student at Motlow College, where I had set up an apprenticeship program for them one summer. And he informed me that his brother was in charge of hiring for the new trainees at Saturn and they needed some machinists that had teaching experience to teach the new employees, and wanted to know if I was interested or if I would be. And I said, "Why, sure." So, I called his brother, and his brother said, "Send a resume." I sent a resume. And to make a long story short, I went for an interview and didn't think I'd ever hear anything from it. The next thing I know they called me to come to work.
Q Okay. About when did you start? Would it be like July 1st of '88?
A I think it was in March of '88, seems like.
Q Okay.
A I mean, we could look back.
Q But sometime in '88?
A Yes.
Q What were you doing at Saturn?
A I was in charge --
Q Did you go out to the plant itself?
A Yes, sir. We were on site. Now, we weren't in the plant. They were building the plant at the time.
Q Did Saturn, the corporation that runs Saturn, did they hire you?
A No, sir.
Q Who hired you? Was it Maury County?
A I was hired through Maury County.
Q So, Maury County paid you?
A Right.
Q Now, you heard the lady that came from Maury County, right?
A Ms. Belanger, yes, sir.
Q They introduced checks and your contracts and stuff like that, right?
A Right.
Q Was she accurate, you know, about when you started and what you made and things of that nature?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Now, what did you do? Just briefly describe for the jury what you did out there at Saturn.
A I was hired to develop the programs to teach basic machine shop, from handtools up to using the more advanced machine tools. But basic machine shop. Not necessarily computer stuff, but we did do some of that. I also taught -- I developed programs and then taught the courses. I also taught mobile crane and some safety courses. That's basically what we did.
Q You taught the people that worked at Saturn?
A The people they brought in, the new employees that were moving in, yes, sir.
Q Now, how long did you work there?
A Approximately three years.
Q And would March of '91 be the time that you left?
A Somewhere close to that, yes, sir.
Q Okay. Did you -- so, during that three-year span that you were working for Saturn, is that the only company you worked for?
A I think I was still selling a little fertilizer with Grower's. It was a liquid fertilizer that we used there on the farm mostly, and I'd buy a little extra to sell to some of the neighbors because it was food grade material which had no contaminants in it and you could use it on anything.
Q Now, this other company, Grower's what?
A Grower's Chemical.
Q You mentioned farming. Do you also farm?
A I help my dad. He has about two hundred acres. We run cattle on part of it and cultivate about half of it.
Q Do you live close to your dad?
A Yes, sir. Right next to him.
Q And he's in the farm business?
A Yes.
Q So, you helped him out during these years?
A Yes, sir.
Q And on this Grower's thing, you would make sales to your neighbors, get paid commission?
A Some of them, yes, sir.
Q Now, you heard the lady that came from that company. I think she said they paid you a check for something about seven hundred and fifty bucks, or thereabouts, for '89?
A Yeah. That's about right.
Q So, for '89 and '90, you had -- well, you also had the credit union, correct?
A Yeah.
Q So, you were paid by Saturn, or Maury County, and worked at Saturn?
A Right.
Q You were paid, you had something like eight hundred bucks or so each year from the credit union?
A Right.
Q And then you had the check from Grower's?
A Right.
Q And you don't contest any of that, do you?
A No, sir.
Q What they said is accurate?
A It looks real close, yes, sir.
Q Now, after you quit working at Saturn, can you briefly tell the jury what you've done since then?
A Well, for me, working at Saturn, it was a hundred miles one way. So, for the first year we drove every day. We split it up some. And then for the next year I tried staying periodically and, you know, coming home about the middle of the week. And by the last year I was having to just stay over there because the drive was getting to me and I just couldn't be effective as a teacher, having to drive four hours a day. Plus, it was really beginning to take a toll on my family. And I'm a family man. It was the best, one of the best jobs I ever had my life. It paid real well. But I decided that I had to come home. And so, we came to a mutual agreement that it was time for me to leave. And so they didn't renew my contract and I came home. And I've been doing contract work here and there, remodeling jobs, and a farming little, helping Daddy farm. That's basically it.
Q Now, for these years that you were working for Saturn, if you look at your broad work history, those were the best years, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And typically what you made was less than that?
A Yes, sir.
Q In a typical year, working for Franklin County?
A Much less.
Q Being a shop teacher?
A Much less.
Q About how long were you a shop teacher?
A About ten years.
Q And then you were still a shop teacher for Saturn?
A Basically, yeah.
Q So, that's a total of 13 or 14 years?
A Right.
Q Okay. And now you're doing odd jobs and helping your dad?
A Right.
Q Now, did you work at any time in 1969?
A Whew. I don't really remember if I did.
Q well, you remember the chart that the government showed up here that said -- one of these charts says that you started in '69 working. That's when you filed a return, right?
A Right.
Q Okay. You don't challenge that, right?
A No.
Q That's probably the first one you filed, right?
A More than likely.
Q From '69 all the way up through 1980, did you file returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q All the way up, let's go up through 1985. Did you file returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I think -- before we came to court, you had an opportunity -- I don't want to dig out the documents right now, but the '86, '87 and '88 returns that the government offered into evidence. And you've seen them before now, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You filed those returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, from '69 through '86, you filed ordinary Form 1040 federal income tax returns every year?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell the jury why you did that?
A I did it because I was always told you was supposed to.
Q Did you ever engage in any study of the tax laws?
A No, sir.
Q So, you were just doing what everybody else did?
A Yeah.
Q Now, we don't have them all here, from '69 to '86 or '85. Did you prepare all of those returns yourself?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have a judgment or an estimate of the ones from '69 through '85, about how many of them you prepared yourself?
A Not really. My wife prepared some of them and some of them we'd go to H & R Block or something like that. Maybe half of them. I'm not real sure.
Q So, some you did and some H & R Block did?
A Right.
Q And for '86, '87 and '88, you prepared those yourself, right?
A I think we did, yes, sir.
Q And all of these returns were prepared not based on any study of the law?
A That's correct.
Q Now, Mr. Long, let's get to the heart of the matter here. You know, the government, Mr. Collier's boss, has filed this information against you. And you've seen it, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You've read it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell the jury what is your understanding of what you're being charged with here. I'm being charged with willful failure to file an income tax return.
Q For what years?
A '89 and '90.
Q Well, let's just be point-blank, Mr. Long. Tell the jury whether or not you filed returns for '89 and '90.
A No, I did not.
Q Well, how about '91?
A No, sir.
Q '92?
A No, sir.
Q '93?
A No, sir.
Q Oh, gosh. I'm sorry. So, you didn't file one for last year?
A No, sir.
Q Is there a reason why, Mr. Long?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, can you tell the jury -- what's the first event that occurred that relates to this?
A Well, it goes way back.
Q When?
A To 1982.
Q All right.
A At a meeting that I attended in Monteagle at the Smokehouse Restaurant.
Q Well, can you tell the jury -- when was this in '82?
A It was in, probably around October. The leaves were falling. And the reason I remember it was '82 was I remember pulling up in my pickup truck. I had a red '73 pickup truck, and I know I traded it in '83. So, that's how I remember. And I remember getting out of my truck --
Q Why -- did you hear about a meeting?
A Yes. I had heard about a meeting that was going to be held up there and they were going to talk about the common law, the Constitution, and I had heard that there might be some talk about taxes. And I was a little concerned because I was beginning to have some real concern about what all was going on in government, and, you know, just basic concern. I've always been a person that I like to understand why things are the way they are. So, I attended this meeting.
Q So, you found out about it. Drove up from your house?
A From home, yes, sir.
Q Went up the mountain to Monteagle?
A Right.
Q To the Smokehouse Inn?
A Smokehouse Restaurant.
Q Can you tell the jury what happens? You pull into some, I guess a spot in the parking lot and park your truck.
A I get out --
Q Tell the jury what happened after that.
A I sure will. I got out of my truck. I remember locking the door and I remember looking over my shoulder, because it really bothered me. I was a little concerned. I was scared, because for the first time in my life I had started to question some things about my government, about the law. I started to wonder. And I felt a little funny. And, you know, you see all these TV programs about these FBI and SWAT teams coming in and arresting all these people. So, I was a little nervous, because I didn't know anybody at this meeting. But I overcame that because of this willingness I have to try to understand things. And I thought, "Well, maybe I can learn something," you know. You just have to be open to things in order to learn. Because I'm a teacher and that's just how it is. So, I eased on, found the room and eased in and sat down on the back row. Still kind of looking over my shoulder.
Q Mr. Long, can I stop you right there?
THE COURT: We're going to take a short recess at this time. We'll get to the next chapter in just a moment. Be in recess for about fifteen minutes. (Brief recess.)
THE COURT: Okay. Continue.
MR.BECRAFT: May it please the Court.
MR. BECRAFT:
Q Mr. Long, before we get into that meeting that you attended, I need to back up and ask you some questions. Do you recognize that in this case you're not going to be telling the jury the law? You do you recognize that?
A Oh, yes, sir.
Q And you understand that when this trial is over with, it's going to be the judge that gives the instructions in the case about what the law is, right?
A Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q Do you also understand that when you testify here this afternoon, you're going to be giving your opinion of the law, right, your belief about the law?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you understand that that's not an effort on your part to tell the jury what the law is?
A Yes, sir.
Q It's just your belief.
A Just my belief, yes, sir.
Q Now, let's get back to this -- in the fall of 1982 you went to Monteagle?
A Yes, sir.
Q To the Smokehouse Inn. Now, that's where we were right before our short break.
A Right.
Q Now, what happened?
A Well, like I said, I found the meeting room. I eased on in and sat down on the back row. And as I recall, a man by the name of George Gordon was the main speaker. And he was a real robust type fellow. I won't ever forget him. And he was talking about the common law and how it came over here with the pilgrims, you know, from England. And then he did something that I'll never forget. He said, "In order for you-all to understand what I'm going to tell you, you've got to remember the story." So, he went over to a white board and he drew a great big box up at the top. And in that box he wrote "people." And I'm thinking, you know, "Where's he going," you know? And then he came down below that and he drew a box and he wrote the word "state." Well, then he came down below that and he drew a smaller box, and in that box he put "government." He said, "Now, listen to me, folks. Remember your history. Remember the story." He said, "This is how it happened." He said, "Our forefathers came over here, they established colonies or states, if that's what you want to call them, and then they got together, after they went through starvation and fighting Indians and a little bit of everything else, cold weather. Once they got established, they decided that they had to have a government to help them with conflicts between the colonies and things. "And so they got together and they elected some representatives, and they got together then and they established a government."
I'm thinking, "Yeah, I'm remembering American history and all that, how it happened. Sounds about right." So then he said, "And when they had done that, they decided that since they had just come out from under King George and all the tyranny that he had caused, you know, arresting them in one little community and hauling them all the way to England and prosecuting them, just all kinds of things that just weren't right. So, they decided that in order keep to this government that they just established from getting out of hand, they'd draw them up something called the Constitution." Well, I remember from high school, we studied the Constitution. And he said that the purpose of this Constitution was to bind government down and to keep it from getting out of hand. So, in this Constitution they explained specifically what the power of government had. And then in it they said anything that we don't give government, we're going to leave it to the people and to the states.
Well, you know, I'm sitting here, and it's been a while since I was in high school, but that's beginning to trigger some memories. I remember studying that in American history. Yeah. Made a lot of sense. So, then he got to talking about the common law and all the rights that the Constitution provided. Said, you know, it only mentions three basic ones: like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then he talked about that within those three you could not sit down and list all the rights we have that are just, come under those three categories. The list would be endless. And that as long as you never damaged somebody's life, liberty or property, whatever it is, you could do it, under the common law.
Well, now, that made a lot of sense. I remembered that. We didn't really study that in school, but it made sense. And he also went on to say that these rights that the Constitution guaranteed that were given to us by God, -- now, the Constitution I believe says that we are granted these certain inalienable rights by our Creator -- that those rights could not be taxed. Well, now, that got my attention. So, he just went on and on and on about all these rights, you know. If the man said "rights" one time, he said it a thousand times.
And you could tell that he had studied this Constitution and that he believed in it so firmly. You just tell by the tone in his voice. Well, I'd remembered studying all that, but I remember us studying it as a well-written document or something. I didn't remember a teacher in high school getting into all this stuff, explaining the rights. I remember them talking about us having rights, but I don't remember getting into this. He kept explaining, you know, -- and the fact that he kept saying that these rights cannot be taxed because the Founding Fathers, that was the main purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee us these rights. Well, man, you know, I'm sitting here thinking and still looking over my shoulder because I'm thinking the FBI or somebody is going to come in at any time. But he begins to say we also have the right to assemble, the right to study, we've got the right to vote. We've got all kinds of rights.
And then he said something that just made me sit up in my chair. He said we've got a right to work. Well, -- and then he said that our labor is our property. Well, now, you could've knocked me over with a feather because, now, I hadn't never thought about that. But here's this man telling me that my labor is my property. He got my attention. And then he went on to say that we have a right to work and that if we have a right to work, that right can't be taxed. Whew, I said, "Man, I like the sound of that, but," I said, "you know, I'm filing and paying every year on my labor. I don't understand." But he got my attention. And I said, "I'm going to listen."
Well, he went on to say then that privileges -- you know, I'd heard people talk about it's a privilege to drive. Some people talk about that. But privileges, something that the state or the government gives you as a privilege, they have a right to tax that. I'm thinking, "Man, we've got rights and we've got privileges." And, you know, I've got two degrees, but I don't remember being taught this in school. Maybe, you know, somebody mentioned it sometime, but, gosh, I didn't remember it. This guy has really got me to thinking. And here's all these rights I didn't know I had. And he's just telling me I got all kinds of rights. And now he's telling me that these inalienable rights that were given to us by the Creator, they can't be taxed because God don't tax us on them. Whew. I'm telling you, he had my attention.
And then, he just went on and on and on about all the rights we've got and how over the years we've forgotten them. And I'm sitting here thinking, "Boy, you got that right, because this ol' boy sure has. I didn't know I had them." And, you know, if you don't know you've got something, sometimes it's awful easy to give it away. And so, then he went on on this labor thing. And he quoted, put it up on the overhead, from a case called Coppage vs. Kansas, where Justice Pitney explains about this labor thing. And it was a case involving some labor unions, I think, where they'd been trying to force some of the employees to join unions and they didn't want to. And Justice Pitney, -- now, I can't quote it, but I can tell you basically what it says, from what I remember. He said that the right to live and own property is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the most basic of that right was the right to your labor, to be able to exchange your labor for other types of property. And he went on reading it, and he said that that right to exchange your labor for other types of property was as important to the poor as it was to the rich, it was as important to the laborer as it was to the capitalist, and that it was most important for the poor because it was the only way a poor person had honestly of beginning to accumulate property, and that was to work for somebody for money. And he said, "Should anything ever strike this right down or abridge it in any way, it would be in direct conflict of the Constitution."
Now, I'm telling you, that hit me right in the heart, because I'd been wondering, you know, -- I hadn't complained. I'd been filing and paying and just doing this, all this. But something inside me said, "There's something ain't right here. It just ain't right. There's something wrong." Well, he went on then to explain that the Constitution only allows for two types of taxes; that's all we got to worry about. Ain't but two in there. That's a direct tax, which is like a property tax. You know, we all have those. You know, you got your county property and you got your city property tax. That's a direct tax, imposed on your property. Well, then he said there's an indirect tax. He went on to say that an indirect tax is like the booze tax. And what makes it indirect is if you want to go down here and buy a gallon of booze, then you pay the tax. The taxes goes on back to the person that makes the booze; but in the fact that you don't have to buy it, you don't have to pay the tax if you don't want to. Me not being a drinking person, I don't care what the booze tax is. I don't have to pay it because I don't buy it. Well, now, that started to make some sense. Direct and indirect taxes. Because I realize, you know, we pay all kinds of taxes on tires, the booze. And I'd heard someone one time say we farm, grow wheat, I'd heard, I believe, that there's something like 87 different taxes on a loaf of bread. So, I was beginning to see some of this stuff. It was really getting me to thinking, you know, "This guy may have some of the answers I've been looking for." So, needless to say, as far as I remember, that was basically about what I got out of that. I couldn't stay for the whole thing. And --
Q Can I stop you right there?
A Sure.
Q How many people were at this meeting?
A I guess there was a hundred.
Q And you arrived during the evening?
A Uh-huh.
Q How long did you stay?
A About two hours. I think we had one break.
Q And you listened to one man speak?
A One man, uh-huh.
Q And that was a fellow by the name of who?
A George Gordon. I'll never forget him.
Q Did you know him before then?
A No. Never heard of him in my life.
Q Have you ever, after that meeting did you ever physically meet him again, you know, like in person?
A I don't think so. Maybe one time, I'm not sure, at a meeting that we were all at. He might've been there.
Q Okay. Now, the meeting went on after you left?
A Yes.
Q And you stayed there -- you got there at what, 6:00, 7:00?
A Around 6:00. You know, that time of year it gets dark. Might've been a little earlier. Maybe 5:00 and I left around 7:30, about dark, because I had some livestock to take care of.
Q So, you left the meeting early and it was still going on?
A Right.
Q What was your impressions of what you learned at this meeting as you -- I guess you went out to your truck and drove home?
A Right.
Q Okay.
A Well, I left that meeting with just an extreme appreciation of the rights that I have. He made me conscious of the rights that we have. And he also made me conscious of the fact that this ol' boy has been asleep and I'd failed to learn. And I do remember one quote that was made. He said that the price of liberty -- I won't never forget it -- is eternal vigilance. Got my attention. And I just decided to go on home, that, "Hey, I'm going to try to learn everything I can about the Constitution and about my rights, and I'm going to try to study and just become a better citizen," because if we're informed, we got to be better citizens. So, that was basically what I got from that meeting.
Q Now, you mentioned during the course of that meeting there was a case that he talked about?
A Yes, sir.
Q Coppage?
A Coppage vs. Kansas.
Q Did he mention any others?
A I think he mentioned quite a few, but that was one of the main ones I remembered.
Q Okay. Now, after you thought about this going home and you got home, can you tell the jury what happened next in reference to how you formulated your beliefs about your obligation to file returns?
A Well, during one of the breaks, the break that we had, I met some people there that were from Tullahoma and discovered that they had started holding some meetings in Tullahoma about once a month to start studying the Constitution and trying to learn and be informed, try to find out things. And I got some of their names and found out where they were meeting. So, I determined, you know, I'd try to go to some of those meetings.
Q You live in Decherd?
A Decherd, yes, sir. I live in Alto. It's about ten miles out of Decherd.
Q And how far is that from -- is that south of Tullahoma?
A It's 25 miles from Tullahoma.
Q Twenty-five miles?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, you learned about these meetings in Tullahoma. Did you attend any of them?
A Over the next few weeks or months I really didn't. We was working a lot. And like I say, I'm a family man. I had young children. And I think during that time it would've been right in there when we started teaching them at home and some of that kind of stuff. So, I might not have gone to a meeting in Tullahoma for six months. I'm not sure.
Q Sometime in the early part of '83?
A Right.
Q So, tell the jury what happened. After the George Gordon meeting, you waited about six months and then you go to this Tullahoma meeting, right?
A Right.
Q Okay.
A Well, the first meeting I recall going to, I get there and they're showing a video of George Gordon. to my surprise, they had bought the whole study guide of his common law study guide and all the videos that went with it.
Q Let me stop you right here. We're not going to offer this into evidence, Lloyd. But you mentioned study materials?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is this some of it?
A That's it.
Q Are these your study materials?
A Yes, sir.
Q For the George Gordon course?
A Common law course, yes, sir.
Q Before we get into what you learned, you've got common law course -- they got labels on here, "Common Law Course," right?
A Right.
Q So, at some stage you acquired all these materials?
A Right.
Q And generally describe for the jury what's in here.
A Well, there's all kinds of, copies of Supreme Court cases and state Supreme Court, you know, the United States Supreme Court cases; and there's some motions in there, you know, that you could go by if you had to file a motion in court to kind of become a pro se.
Q Now, let's back up. We've gone over that. You went to this meeting and they were looking at a video.
A Right.
Q Of the same guy that you already heard speak live?
A Right.
Q Tell the jury what you learned at this first meeting.
A Well, as I recall, Mr. Gordon, one of the first things he said, you know, -- at the other meeting he had told about the two types of taxes that the Constitution allowed. That's the direct and indirect tax. Well, he said something that really got my attention. Right off the bat he says that the income tax is an excise tax. And, you know, I didn't know what an excise tax was. I'd remembered a little bit about what he said about indirect tax. He kept going on that the income tax is an excise tax. And he said, "I'm not telling you it is." And he quoted a case called Sims vs. Ahrens, which was a case in Arkansas, where the Arkansas Supreme Court had said that the income tax is neither a property tax nor is it a tax on occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax, "Boy," I thought, "whoa, the income tax is not a property tax," which would be a direct tax, "it's not a tax on occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax." Now, that got my attention.
So, then he went on to say -- he mentioned a case called Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which is a United States Supreme Court case, I believe. And he stated that in Flint vs. Stone Tracy they stated what an excise tax was, and that an excise tax is a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, and it's also laid upon a particular privileged occupation or corporate privileges. Now, that's an excise. Then he went on to say that, you know, we all know about those because some of those things are alcohol tax. We all know that there's an excise tax on tires. Then he went on to say that all through Flint vs. Stone Tracy they talk about how the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity and what an advantage those people have over private firms. Well, I'm listening, you know.
Then he gets into a case, puts it up on the overhead, called Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad. And he explains that the Brushaber case plainly states -- and this is another United States Supreme Court case -- that the income tax is an excise tax. And then he goes on to say that the Brushaber case settled once and for all the fact that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did not give Congress any more power at all on any new subjects. And, you know, I remembered, when he said 16th Amendment, I'd remembered studying that in high school, and I believe I remembered him calling that the income tax amendment. And now this guy is telling me that this Supreme Court of the United States has said in this case that that didn't change anything, that the power that Congress had was still exactly like it was in the Constitution, that the only thing the 16th Amendment did was try to simplify why it was imposed on the people that owed it. Now, I didn't know much about it, but, yeah, it really got my attention.
Then he went on and he talked about a case in Oregon, Oregon State Supreme court, called Redfield vs. Fisher, which said that the individual, unlike a corporation, cannot be taxed merely for the fact of existing, but that the individual's rights to live and own property were natural rights upon which an excise could not be imposed. Well, now, I'm starting to put some of this together. And he's back on rights again: common rights and natural rights, you can't put an excise tax on common rights, the Arkansas case talks about occupations of common right, and Flint vs. Stone Tracy talks about corporations having certain privileges, and an excise tax being on occupations of certain privileges. And he just really gets me to thinking.
And then he comes up with a case, puts it up on the board, called Spreckels Sugar Refinery vs. McClain. And in this case, I believe it's a United States Supreme Court case, it made the statement that keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless that tax is imposed in clear and unequivocal language, and that should there be a doubt about the language of a tax law that the doubt should be resolved in favor of the person it was sought to be collected from. Well, now, boy, I hadn't tried to read much of the law, but that really caught my attention because it made sense, you know.
It ought to be clear. Because I deal, as a machinist, within sometimes 2/10,000ths of an inch. So, I deal in specifics. So, that's not new to me. And I'd always heard that the law is supposed to be specific, at least everywhere that it can. And I thought it was supposed to be everywhere. So, you know, I deal in precision things. And like I say, I like to know how it works and why it works and what causes it to work. So, the cases that he brought to my attention have really got me to thinking all over again, you know, because I didn't remember them telling us any of this kind of stuff in school, and I got two degrees from college.
Well, the group, after we had kind of watched some videos of these -- now, this didn't all happen in one meeting. This is probably over a month or two, you know, because we'd stay maybe an hour and a half or two hours and then we'd come back and try to finish that one up. But all this time I'm thinking, you know, let's just let this soak. I'm still -- I don't know if there was another year gone by, but I'm filing and paying, because, you know, I dated my wife for six years and we finally decided the Lord wanted us to get married, and we got married. That's the best move I ever made. But I'm thinking.
Q Well, let ask you this. You said this tape that you were watching of this George Gordon fellow, a videotape. You have a group of people that meet in Tullahoma and they sit around a TV?
A Right.
Q Watching a video?
A Right.
Q So, what you've just related to the jury is some of the things you learned from this video?
A That's correct.
Q And you had several meetings over a span of every month or two?
A That's right. And we also had the study guide.
Q So, you watched these videos?
A Uh-huh.
Q Would this be sometime in the early part of 1983?
A Uh-huh.
Q Okay. About how many people would come to these meetings?
A Oh, ten to 15, sometimes 20, maybe 25.
Q Were these people that you knew before?
A I met a few of them, three or four, at the Monteagle meeting. But I didn't know them before, no, sir.
Q So, they weren't friends of yours or associates?
A Oh, no, no.
Q So, they invited you to the meetings and you attended, and 15 or 20 people would show up and watch the video?
A Right. Sometimes we'd listen to just cassette tapes, if it was something somebody thought was interesting. We'd listen to things about environment, you know, all kinds of things, not just this.
Q There were other topics?
A Oh, yeah.
Q Now, in 1983, can you tell the jury about how many of these meetings you went to?
A Oh, maybe six.
Q Now, as a result of attending these meetings what, if anything, did you do?
A Well, all of us, realizing what Mr. Gordon was saying here, that the United States Supreme Court had said and that the state Supreme Court had said, and being who I am, I don't take anything for granted. We decided that we would start going to, maybe once a month, instead of the regular meeting we'd just load up in a van and go to the Vanderbilt law library and we'd pull these cases up. Even though we had them in some of the study guides, we wanted to make sure that they were exactly what he said they were. And so over the next few months, I guess, that's basically what we did. I won't never forget the first one. Of course, I was kindly used to the MTSU library. It's a pretty good-sized library. But we walked in the door down there and saw this Vanderbilt law library, and it'll swallow MTSU's library. We were lost, even me. We almost turned around and come home.
Q Why did you go there?
A Well, we wanted to pull up these cases and prove that Mr. Gordon was telling the truth.
Q All right. So you --
A We didn't want to just take his word for it off of his video. And we were sincerely wanting to learn about this, and if these cases exist then we've got a right to know about it. So, that was the driving force behind that. And just the desire to become more informed.
Q So, take the jury back in time. And you walked through the, you walk upstairs and go in that entrance to the library there. You open the door, walk in and see all the levels of books.
A Whew.
Q What did you do when you got there?
A Well, we almost turned around and come home, because it was just awesome. But having had same experience, I knew if we went to the library we could probably make it. So, we went to the library and told them what we wanted to do and some of the cases we were trying to find. We had a list. Some of us were going to go to one and some of us were going to go to the other, because it's about an hour and a half from Tullahoma to Nashville, and then an hour and a half back. So, you don't have a lot of time if you're going to get back in time to go to bed. And so, I don't remember, we may've gotten two cases that particular night, by the time we got situated on where the index was and how to locate everything in all these books and the racks and where they were and all that. I think we got maybe two cases and copied them and brought them back with us. But it was quite an experience. And as I recall, somewhere within the next few meetings or something we sat down together at the meeting and started trying to read through these things. We'd copy them to where we could pass them out.
Q Did you-all only get two cases?
A Well, we went after more, but we only had time to get two that particular time.
Q Well, these other cases that you wanted to get, did you eventually get them?
A Oh, yes.
Q Well, how did you do that?
A Well, we went back. And by this time we'd figured out, you know, kind of where the racks were. So, we eventually had all the cases, more than what I've mentioned, but I just remember these real well. And we had them, brought them back to where we could study them, because a lot of the language in there, it's all written in legal terms and, you know, we had to sit down and really ponder over these things, read them together and talk about them with one another and try to understand. But we did find out, finally figure out that most everything that's important in these cases, after they've been recorded, they have little footnotes or captions in the front that tells basically what was decided, and then tells you where it is in the body of the document, so if you want to go back there and read what was discussed, and what was said, you can read all that.
A So, yes, we eventually got them all.
Q The ones that George Gordon had talked about?
A The ones he had talked about on that particular tape that I remember.
Q Did you get others?
A We got others.
Q So, the time frame we're talking about here would be '83, '84?
A Maybe '84 by now, yeah.
Q Let's come forward then in time to a point where, in '84 where you've got all these cases and you've read them.
A Right.
Q Okay. Can you tell the jury now what cases you read and what. you understood them to mean?
A I believe I can.
Q In fact, have you made copies of those cases?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
A Got a lot of them right here.
Q Now, tell the jury which cases that you read and what you learned from them.
A Well, in Flint vs. Stone Tracy, I learned exactly what Mr. Gordon had said was right. It explains what an excise tax is. "An excise tax" -- can I read it from here?
Q If that's your understanding. You can give your belief about what that document says.
A Okay. It said that an excise tax was a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale, and consumption of commodities within the country and upon licenses to pursue particular occupations and upon corporate privileges. There's areas there: manufacture, sale and consumption, there's a tax on that. And then there's a tax on licenses to pursue certain privileged occupations. And then there's a tax on corporate privileges. There's three taxes, as I understand it.
Q Now, you said something a moment ago that you believed was what was in that case. Is that from memory?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. You didn't read the document right new?
A No.
Q Well, so what's so important about that case?
A Well, i's a Supreme Court case, United States Supreme Court case, and it explains what an excise tax is.
Q So what?
A Well, in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific. It plainly states that the income tax is an excise tax.
Q Now, is that a case that you pulled and --
A That's a case that George Gordon told us about. He plainly said it's an excise tax, that that's what the United States Supreme Court said. Who am I to question the United States Supreme Court? So, I go get the case. That's what it says. And it also, like he said, explains in there that they settled once and for all that the 16th amendment never changed any of the power that Congress had to lay and collect taxes. All it did was try to simplify the method in which they collected -- they imposed the tax.
Q So, it's your view and belief that the federal income tax is an excise?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you've read and relied upon this other case, Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which told you what an excise was, right?
A Right.
Q The Brushaber case, have you got it there with you? Just tell me yes or no.
A Yeah, it's here.
Q You're familiar with it?
A Yes.
Q You've read it?
A Yes.
Q What else, what are the other cases that you've got that you studied?
A Well, I mentioned Sims vs. Ahrens, which is a case in Arkansas, Arkansas state Supreme Court case. And it said that the income tax is not a tax on -- it's neither a property tax or a tax on occupations of common right -- now, that got my attention -- but is an excise tax. Okay. Then we went on to the Redfield vs. Fisher case. It was a state supreme court case in Oregon. And it went on to say that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, that the individual's rights are natural rights and that those rights, for the enjoyment of those rights an excise cannot be imposed. Now, these are state supreme court cases, and they're talking about common rights, occupations of common right cannot be taxed with an excise. So, I start to put some things together. And I'm not doing this, you know. These are, the highest courts in the land are saying that the income tax is an excise tax. well, I start saying, "Well, big deal," you know. But then I start realizing -- I can't remember which case it was in, but one of them explained -- and maybe it was Flint. Anyway, they explained that the income tax is a tax upon privileges, certain privileges, the tax is laid on the privilege itself. And the only reason they call it an income tax is because they finally came around and the best way they could measure to make it -- what's the term -- equal all across the country, is to base it upon the income from that privilege. Okay? But the tax itself is on the privilege, not the income, because the income is property. And while we were looking for these cases, we ran upon two Tennessee Supreme Court cases.
Q When would this be?
A This may be '85. Somewhere in there.
Q All right, sir.
A And one of them was Jack Cole Company vs. The Commissioner of Tennessee. And Jack Cole was a trucker, and he hauled freight all over Tennessee for money, but he wasn't incorporated. He was just Jack Cole. Well, the state decided -- he was opening a business, so they decided they was going to tax his business. So, they did. He took them to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said the right to receive income and earnings is a right belonging to every person, and that that right cannot be taxed as a privilege. Well, now, that got my attention, because me and ol' Jack is just alike. Now, he's a trucker. I'm a school teacher. I drive my truck over to a particular place and I teach somebody what I know for money. And the state says that that's an occupation of common right and that it can't be taxed as a privilege. I don't have no license. I'm not incorporated. Where's the privilege? That really got my attention. Well, then we run upon a case called Corn vs. Fort, which is another case in Tennessee, where these individuals decided to form a partnership in a coal mining company. Well, the state decided they were in business, so they was going to tax them, like they did Jack Cole. They weren't incorporated. They were just individuals who had come together to form a partnership. The state tried to tax them. They took them to court. The Tennessee State Supreme Court said that individuals have a right to combine their activities as a partnership and that right is common right and it cannot be taxed as a group.
Now, this blew my mind, because, you know, okay, you know, Jack is by himself. He's -- but now they're saying that you can be a partnership, and, as long as you don't have some particular privilege, you're operating under natural rights and the state can't touch you with an income tax or a privilege tax. Whew. And then in Jack's case, the big word, you know, the right to receive income and earnings is a right belonging to every person, and that right cannot be taxed as a privilege. Now, that got my attention, folks. And it wasn't me saying it. That's the Tennessee State Supreme Court saying it. And if Tennessee can't tax me for a privilege I don't have, I don't believe the federal government can. Now, that's what's going on in my mind. I'm still filing and still paying, but I've learned a lot. It's really got the wheels a squealing up here and smoking and everything else. I'm just, -- you know, it's hard to work when you've got this kind of thing going on in your mind. I don't remember if I'm teaching school about this time or what. But you just kind of let it soak. You go on and do whatever you got to do, but this stuff is still rolling around back here. And then somewhere along there, we came to another meeting. And now keep in mind, now, already, the United States Supreme Court --
Q Can I stop you right here?
A Excuse me.
Q You've mentioned a series of cases. I don't want to call out the names again. But the ones you just talked about in the last five or six minutes, are they the ones that you've got with you today?
A Yes, sir.
Q And so, those cases you mentioned, you've read and relied upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you read and relied upon them in '85?
A Yes, sir. I didn't --
Q Were there others?
A Sir?
Q Were there others?
A There might've been. I've read so much and we've swapped so much of this material back and forth in the group.
Q But. those are the principal ones?
A Those are the principal ones. And I didn't really figure I needed too many more.
Q All right. Now, I interrupted you. You were about ready to talk about something beyond those cases at another meeting?
A Well, you know, I started thinking back, you know. The United States Supreme Court has said, in Brushaber, income tax is an excise tax. All these state supreme courts, Arkansas said it's an excise tax, the income tax is. Oregon Supreme Court has said it was, Tennessee has said it was. These are the highest courts in the land, now. This is documented fact, from the United States Supreme Court and from the state supreme courts. We go to this meeting, and someone from another group like ours, you know, -- they was kindly corresponding and we was always swapping information back and forth -- sent us a copy of a Congressional Research Service report. And I believe the particular guy's name that had done this particular one was a Mr. Howard Zoretski.
Q Can I stop you right here?
A Sure.
Q Mr. Long, let me stop you right here and take care of a little matter.
A Okay.
Q You mentioned -- take a look at Exhibits No. 1 and 2, Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2.
A Okay.
Q Now, those are two documents?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those documents that you read and relied upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the formation of your beliefs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Just right now, quickly, tell us in what respect. What did you get out of those?
A Okay. This particular one stated that the income tax was an indirect tax of the broad category of impost -- what is it? Oh, duties, impost, and excises.
Q What is the next one?
A The next one is an update that was done in 1984. This one was done in '79. And it stated more expressly that the income tax is an excise tax.
Q That's something that you read and relied upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q By '85?
A Somewhere around there.
Q MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd offer 1 and 2.
A MR. COLLIER: Again I would object to both of those for the reasons stated last week. The defendant can talk about them and he can quote from them, but I think that the case law is that those documents should not be admitted into evidence.
THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to admit the documents. I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, however, that the defendant has offered those documents into evidence -- what is this? The CRS reports, 1 and 2?
MR.BECRAFT: Yes, Your Honor, two of them.
THE COURT: This evidence is offered and received into evidence only for whatever it may show about the defendant's state of mind. You should not consider this evidence as proof that anything said in these documents is true. All right. (Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence.)
MR. BECRAFT: And along the same lines, Mr. Long, you recognize that those documents, you're not telling this jury that's, quote, the law?
A Right. No.
Q Now that we've got them admitted, let's take a look at Exhibit No. l. And what I'd like for you to do is just tell the jury basically what you learned from that and how it has an effect upon your beliefs.
A Well, I like said, we'd already studied these supreme court cases, and they had said the income tax is an excise tax. This document came into our possession, and it plainly stated that the income tax was an indirect tax of the broad category of duties, impost, and excises.
Q Mr. Long, I think I left my -- there it is, that yellow Magic Marker. Can I get you to line through in yellow that part of Exhibit No. 1 that you're talking about that was important to you?
A Yes, sir. (Witness complies.)
Q And that's the particular passage you found important?
A Uh-huh. Yes.
Q Okay. Let's move on to Exhibit No. 2, the next one.
A Okay.
Q Can I likewise, while you've got the pen in your hand, turn to the spot in there that. . Take a look at the last page.
A Yes, sir. (Performs marking.)
Q So, out of those two documents, you have, for the benefit of the jury you've lined through in yellow what you thought was important, right?
A Yes sir.
Q Now, are both of these documents alike, essentially?
A Basically.
Q Okay. Now, what did you understand these documents to be?
A I understood that if they were done by the Congressional Research Service, that basically this is a branch of the government, the government is saying this.
Q Both of them?
A Yeah. They're from the same place. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Q And you understood that the government was telling you what through those documents?
A That the income tax was an excise tax.
Q Now, did that match your beliefs that you'd already reached at that time?
A Well, the Supreme Court in Brushaber had said it was an excise tax. The state courts that we had studied said it was an excise tax. So, you know, who am I to question the highest courts in the land? And now the government is saying it's an excise tax. Sure I believed it was.
Q Okay. Now, of what effect does a belief like this have upon your obligation to file returns?
A Well, it really makes you question it, because I'm operating from what I know under common right: no privileges, I'm not incorporated, have never been incorporated, don't want to be incorporated, that an excise tax has to be on privileges. So, it appears to me that if an excise tax involves the exercise of a privilege, and I don't have any kind of license or anything, I'm not exercising a privilege, I'm not required or I'm not liable.
Q Is there something else you were going to say?
A No, I'm sorry.
Q Mr. Long, this is in '85 when you reached these conclusions, right?
A Yes.
Q And for '85, come April 15, 1986, you filed a return, right?
A That's correct.
Q April 15th of '87, April 15th of '88, April 15th of '89. You came along and filed returns for the other years, April 15th of '89 being for '88, right?
A That's correct.
Q Now, just to kind of move through this quick, is this your instruction booklet for '88?
A Right.
Q Now, I've handed to you copies of -- are they accurate copies of a part of the book?
A Appear to be, yes, sir.
Q Now, is this something you've read and relied upon, Exhibit No. 3?
A Yes, sir.
MR.BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd move for its admission.
THE COURT: Received. (Defendant's Exhibit 3 was received into evidence.)
MR. BECRAFT:
Q Now, what's so important about Exhibit No. 3?
A The Privacy Act notice.
Q Okay. Now, what do you know about that?
A Well, I attended a meeting and I remember a fellow telling us about that.
Q Now, when would this meeting have been?
A Probably '86.
Q Now --
A Maybe '87.
Q Through '83, '84, '85, and '86 when you were attending these meetings, in reference to the income tax was, was the major area of study on this argument that it's an excise?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did there come a time in which you studied something else in reference to the tax at one of these meetings?
A Well, we pretty well had established that, you know, if the United States Supreme Court says it's an excise tax and all the state supreme courts say it is, or at least the ones we've studied, and that the government themselves says it is in their own Congressional Research Report, then it must be an excise tax. So, we pretty well nailed that down, in my mind anyway, because I studied the material to make sure it said what Mr. Gordon had said it did. And then I went to a meeting, walked in, and the guy on the video said, "Are you required to file income tax returns?"
Q Now, when was this meeting?
A Probably '86.
Q Was it one of these same Tullahoma meetings?
A Sure was.
Q About how many people are there?
A Maybe fifteen.
Q This was a video?
A Right.
Q TV? Everybody gathered around a TV?
A Right.
Q What did you learn by looking at that video on that occasion in '86?
A Well, like I say, that was the first question he asked. And it really got my attention.
Q Let me stop you right here. Who was this?
A I believe the guy's name was Carter.
Q Have you ever met him?
A No. Never met him in my life.
Q So, the only thing you've seen is a video?
A Video. That's correct.
Q Of some fellow by the name of Carter?
A Right.
Q Well, what did you learn by listening to Mr. Carter?
A Well, he got my attention with that, about being required to file. And then he started in about the Privacy Act. And I thought, "Man, what's that got to do with anything?" But then he went on to explain that back in the early '70s that, the way he explained it, all these government agencies got kind of carried away with one another and they got to competing to see who could gather the most information, and they were sending out forms everywhere and asking people to send back all this information. And of course, the people didn't know if they had to send it back, if they didn't have to send back, or whatever. And they got kind of aggravated about it. So, they complained to Congress. Congress passed a law called the Privacy Act. Okay. So, then he went on to say that the important thing about the Privacy Act was that any governmental agency now, after the Privacy Act, that sent you a form and wanted some information, they had to, number one, tell you if it was voluntary or mandatory for you to give them the information.
Then, if it was supposedly mandatory, they had to go back and quote or state the statute or the law that gave them the right to ask you for that and would require you to do it. Well, now, that made all kinds of sense to me. In fact, I've wondered why they didn't do that to start with. Because I'd been to the law library and I realized that if you didn't at least know one or two items, the average individual would never walk in a law library and try to look up whether they was required or not to furnish this information. So, that made a lot of sense to me. So, in the next few minutes he pulls out the Privacy Act notice for the Internal Revenue Service. And it says, "Our legal right to ask for this information is Internal Revenue Service Code 6001, 6011, and 6012A." He says, "Okay, now, let's go to 6001 and see what it says." So, he flips his book. And of course, on the video they put it on an overhead where you can see it. And it says, "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements and make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe." And he points out, it talks about persons liable, but it doesn't say anywhere in that body who that is. It's this entity out here, "person liable."
Q Could I stop you here? After he explained this to you, what you --
THE COURT: I think we're going to cut this off for the day. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like you to come back at 9:30 tomorrow morning. And while you're away tonight, remember the things I told you. Don't discuss the case with anyone and don't permit anyone to discuss it with you. Don't read anything in the paper about the case or anything like that. We'll resume trial here promptly at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Until that time this court will be in adjournment. (Whereupon, court was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to continue October 13, 1993.)