Tax Dodger, Black Reparationist, or Both?

My trial is set for Nov. 23, 2010. I must surely be the first person to be brought before a judge for being a Black Reparationist (uh by the way, I’m white). But, of course, that’s not what I’m literally being charged with.

As of this writing, I owe Discover Bank $7,711.88 for amounts I’d charged using the credit card they’d issued me. And I’ve always made my monthly payments on time, until September 2009. That’s when I decided to stop paying them – directly. And that’s the critical word here – directly. I informed Discover I’d continue to make payments in their name, but instead make my checks payable to the United Negro College Fund. And I asked the Fund to send receipts to Discover as proof of payment. On the UNCF form, under type of donation, I listed “reparations.”

My two sources of inspiration

“Why,” you might ask, “would a middle class white male, who had always dutifully made his monthly payments for decades, stop doing so?”

Why did I decide to stop being a revolver and instead become a revolutionary? Revolver, by the way, is a term used derogatorily by many in the industry to describe a charge card holder who doesn’t pay off his outstanding balances, choosing instead to carry balances into the future.

I had two reasons. First, both of my card issuers (Discover and Visa) sent letters saying they were going to key my rate of interest to the prime rate as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. My rates were already usurious, and it would be only a matter of time until the Fed jacked the prime up a couple of points from its current, historic low.

My second reason: About the time I got those letters, I chanced to come across this fascinating article by Naomi Klein, which appeared in the September 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

Minority Death Match: Jews, Blacks, and the “Post-Racial” Presidency

Naomi’s article presented compelling reasons in support of whites making reparations to blacks as compensation for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

After reading this article, I knew exactly what I had to do.

How my income tax situation factors in

On November 2, 2010, I submitted my written response to Discover’s charges, to the judge and to Discover’s lawyers – a firm known as Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. The following quote is from a section in that response entitled First Motion to Dismiss:

First Motion to Dismiss begins as follows:

First Motion to Dismiss: SEARLE hereby moves that this case be dismissed due to dereliction of duty by Plaintiff’s attorneys … to inform the US Internal Revenue Service as indicated in the quoted statement which follows this paragraph. Since I have not been contacted by the IRS, since informing Weltman et al (before July 1, 2010, via Certified Mail), it’s obvious Weltman et al has failed in its duty as an officer of the court to inform the IRS of my legal transgression.

The following quote is from SEARLE’s letter to Weltman et al dated June 21, 2010 [Exhibit 1], which was received via Certified Mail on June 24, 2010:

QUOTE:

Suppose you win a judgment against me. Another quote from my enclosure covers this possibility:  “Besides, if you do win, I will notify [the] IRS of my failure to file federal income tax returns for the past 7 years. When IRS wins a judgment against me, there won’t be anything left for you.”

My last quote raises an interesting dilemma for Weltman, Weinberg & Reis. As members of the legal profession (officers of the court), you are now obligated to immediately contact the IRS and inform them of my violation of federal law. However, doing this will derail any attempt you might make to collect money from me for your client, Discover Bank. By the way, your client already knows I haven’t filed federal tax returns (since my enclosure tells them this), but they don’t have the same obligation as do you to inform the IRS.

:UNQUOTE.

Since Weltman et al has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that expected of officers of the court, they should not only be disqualified from representing DISCOVER BANK, but should be held in Contempt of Court as well.

:END of text for First Motion to Dismiss.

For the record: My failure to file federal tax returns, as well as those required by the State of Illinois, was intentional.

Concerning the feds: Even though I continued to have taxes deducted from my paycheck (as if I had a choice!), I stopped filing tax returns as a protest against two illegal wars of US aggression. In case you’ve forgotten: Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m sure I owe back taxes, since I had always owed more than my deductions covered. Not to mention what I owe for not filing.

Concerning Illinois: I refuse to support this level of corruption, which is a national embarrassment and qualifies as denying me my due representation. This might sound familiar, but it serves well enough as my battle cry: “No taxation without representation.”

From my Written Statement to the Court

The material in this section consists of selected portions of my Written Statement to the Court:

ONE: From Plaintiff’s VERIFIED COMPLAINT: “1. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Illinois.” Plaintiff, as a corporation, is a “person” under the law. SEARLE is also a person. However, these two persons are not being treated equally under the law. While Plaintiff has huge resources at its disposal, the imposition upon SEARLE that he pay an “appearance fee” of $178.00 to have his written arguments considered by this Court is patently unfair, burdensome, and discriminatory. How can anyone talk about “due process of law” and “equal protection” when the playing field is far from level? SEARLE did not authorize this Delaware corporation “to do business in the State of Illinois.” Rather, this authorization came about due to a collusion between the two major political parties in this State which, if they were businesses, would be considered in violation of prohibitions against monopolized, unfair business practices.

THREE:  From Plaintiff’s VERIFIED COMPLAINT: “5. Defendant made various purchases or cash advances on said account and failed to pay for the same.” Defendant is not guilty of having “failed to pay” – he has merely altered the form of payment. SEARLE’s contention is: If Party X owes Party Y, but instead pays that money to Party Z (owed by Party Y to Party Z), then it cannot be claimed that Party X failed to pay Party Y – though Party Y might not have approved of such method of indirect payment. In support of this argument, SEARLE had informed Discover Financial Services and Weltman et al of the following in his May 17, 2010 letter (copy attached to Exhibit 1).

QUOTE:

I had notified you back in October that I was canceling my Discover Card and, furthermore, to ceasing to make direct payments to Discover. The amount I owe Discover will be paid to the United Negro College Fund as reparations for what Discover owes the Black community. Discover owes this debt, yet refuses to pay. It is no accident that Discover and other financial services providers are in such enviable positions of wealth and influence. Much of that gain can be attributed to the benefits of the slave trade.

Discover owes, yet Discover refuses to pay. So I decided to make payments on behalf of Discover. In this way, it cannot be said that I am not paying Discover, since I am paying one of Discover’s debts.

:UNQUOTE.

            FOUR [not quoted in its entirety]: Defendant further maintains that requiring 40 years to pay off $35,185 constitutes usury, especially based on the current amount owed of $7711.88. [Plaintiff] might well claim that SEARLE made this choice; however, there is a reason why federal law mandated rules such as providing disclosure information... If, by way of comparison, a patron at a bar orders far more to drink than would be deemed as responsible consumption by any reasonable person, the bartender who furnished those drinks would bear a degree of responsibility in the event of a drunk driving accident caused by his patron that kills a pedestrian. In short, Discover Bank shares a degree of responsibility for cardholders’ indebtedness.

FIVE:  SEARLE invokes US Constitution’s First Amendment rights to free speech. By indirectly paying his debt to Discover Bank by directly paying (part of) what Discover owes as Reparations to Black Americans, SEARLE is making a statement. When a citizen makes a statement, he not only has a First Amendment right to do so, he has a Ninth Amendment right (cited above as reasonable expectation) to make a statement that has impact and could reasonably be expected to be heard by the greatest possible audience.

EIGHT:  SEARLE cites US Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 [June 11, 2009], which states:

QUOTE:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the sense of the Congress is the following:

… The Congress…(B) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws…”

:UNQUOTE.

SEARLE’s observation: Any such apology is meaningless without follow-through efforts to “make whole,” especially since this Resolution admits the following: “President George W. Bush…stated that slavery ‘was…one of the greatest crimes of history…’” Surely, any reasonable man would conclude that by such language from a former US president, this was a de facto “crime against humanity.” That becomes important as Klein points out in her article:

QUOTE:

The final Durban Declaration [in 2001] became the first document with international legal standing to state “that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade.” This language was more than symbolic. When lawyers had sought to win slavery reparations in U.S. courts, the biggest barrier was always the statute of limitations, which had long since expired. If slavery was “a crime against humanity,” however, it was not restricted by the statute…

:UNQUOTE.

Conclusion

My written response to the court consists of 15 pages of defense and 18 more pages of supporting documentation (exhibits). I will post more from my response on this blog site in a day or two. For now, though, I leave you with a question (and an answer):

QUESTION:  “How can someone who ran as a candidate for the US Presidency [back in 2008] violate the law in these two ways: Failing to file tax returns and failing to make payments on his credit cards?”

ANSWER: “My actions are meant to bring attention to issues being ignored by our elected officials, our courts, and (more and more) by We-the-People. Someone’s got to take a stand and say loudly and clearly, ‘This is wrong.’ And it looks like that someone’s going to be me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“For those who’d supported (and been sold out by) Barack Obama, the game is over. I ask for your help in getting elected and in electing true independents to Congress. There is no other way.”