OCR Text |
Show The A Independent : Dedicated To The Constitution, Liberty, Morality, and Breitling Ml IN X OH v City-Coun- y ty Merger On Thursday, November 1, at 9:55 A.M., Tom Breitling and Pete Grundfossen will present opposing viewpoints of Metro government and its meaning to residents of Salt Lake County. The session will be held in Room 255 of Orson Spencer Hall at the University of Utah and is a part of the Hinckley Institute of Politics coffee and politics seminars. Breitling is an opponent of Charter Government which is being proposed by the Salt Lake Government County Study Commission, while Grundfossen is Director of that Executive RPLAN program that will promote regional government and break down local self government. The in indicating the model below matrices are law goals and how SB 184s recommendations match very well the requirement of the Model Law. The grant of power, in SB 84 is contrary to the of controlled traditional constitutional concept government pow'er and grants to government all powers not excluded by law. We, therefore, urge that you diligently oppose any merging of local governments when the program is not a local one and especially one that grants to government all power over the people. for any law's commission. County Study Commission on several counts. Let us consider the source of the material being used to promote us into accepting an all powerful County Government. Senate Bill 184 provides for an appointing commission to appoint the Study Commission. The Study Commission ends up with a majority of the members already committed to the merging of city and county government before they start the study. Their reference material in the main is Mr. LeRoy F. Mr. Harlow is a. member of Harlows Report. International City Managers Association, centered at 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago. That center will provide model Senate Bill 184, Section ' charter is adopted. 2 (2) protecting Metro for at least 6 years if self-explanat- ory 1 Article 5, Section 5.02(c) shows that actions of Council, while Community Councils can be vetoed by the Council can be vetoed by County Executive. all actions of Model Plan Nq. 1 City-Coun- ty City-Coun- ty (c) (2) Witnever fhc voters of any county. shall have adopted an optional purusant to this act, r.o sutsequent proposal leading to plan of gov-.rrsr.- SjJV November 1, 1973 25$ R1 on KHtVf T Truth Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Vol. 4, No. 44 t JM-JS- may be s Initiated until at least six years shall have elapsed afterthe date of the election at which nflotii both area --wide and local In nature, which have been approved fry t possible adoption of a different plan The recommended programs for governmental a community council shall be submitted to the CltyGouflty suchplan cil for was adopted. Continued On Page 8 ' C0UH implementation and shall be carried Into effect by the Qlty executive unless, by a vote Continued On Page 8 Council and CltyCounty County DR. ATTACKS STATE BUREAUCRACY STATE EXPERIENCES WITH THE UTAH CHRONOLOGICAL RESUME OF DR. THOMAS W. HOOPES STATE SUPREME COURTS. STATE DISTRICT AND COMMISSION February 16, 1972: Dr; Hoopes, after careful thought and study and believing that the usual tax statutes of the Internal Revenue Service and the Utah State Tax Commission conscience violated, his and caused the individual to waive his rights under the Federal and State Constitutions, filed his tax returns divulging what he considers to be private information protected by specific provisions of These the Bill of Rights. protections are set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which Dr. Hoopes firmly believes to be Divinely without UTAH INDEPENDENT 2459 Major Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Second Class Postage Paid at Salt Lake City, Utah and 14. May 23, 1972: The State Tax Commission sent a letter to. him indicating that his return could not be considered as valid, and if he did not capitulate within fifteen days proceed with they would assessment and. collection Ci u cc n os0) o f-- cm H .4 tr GO 1 & H r- - C cC Id cas b OH H W 0) Cvc jt 4 M or. u' w w rs inspired, in Articla I (Sects. 8, 10); Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, C3 procedures as provided by law. June 23, 1972: Another letter from' the Commission, over the signature of Paul M. Holt, was sent to Dr. Hoopes indicating that since they had not received their style of return Elbum W. Kenison had prepared a Recomputation of Income Tax in which they had used the gross income reported in 1970, added 10 (No explanation-apparentl- y everyone but Dr. Hoopes had a wonderful increase in their gross income during 1971), allowed only one deduction Presumably they felt the gross income figure was logical to use-an- d assuming the 10 increasebut they seemed to feel that Mrs. Hoopes and their eight children had vanished from the earth). They indicated that the Personal Exemptions . and Credit for Dependents was derived Per Info Submitted, yet they assumed the existence of income arid ignored the true number of dependents! This pattern in their procedure, since it tripled the highest figure he ever paid for state income tax, was designed to throw fear into the citizens who dare challenge the omnipotent Tax Commission. They were making an assessment, but ignoring the facts, proof, and evidence! September 15, 1972: Almost three months later he was sent a form letter (Assigned to j. Ray A Mills) notifying him that Warrant for delinquent income tax in the amount of 52,258.02 for the 1971 was docketed against you on September 15, 1972 with the Clerk of Salt Lake County. This Warrant has the force and effect of a claim against all ofyour personal property, and constitutes a lien upon your real property in the same manner as a judgment duly rendered by the District Court. The Sheriff of your County may proceed with the attachment of any or all of said property, or garnishment of income, unless within ten days from the above date your delinquent tax is paid in full. The above procedure is as and provided in Sections 59-14-- 59 59-14-- accuracy; it permits no day in court, challenge or refutation. It is simply a posture of tyranny! 5. The statutes permitting such outrageous procedures have the effect of depriving the citizens of property or liberty without a trial, and judgment (i.e. due process) and are purely bills of attainder again expressly prohibited in the Ninth Utah Code Annotated, 60, TAX 1953. This letter is ludicrous to any person who is knowledgeable in regard to constitutional principles and protections; several major violations are evident in the above quoted letter 1. Dean H. Jensen, the signatory of the warrant and head of the section of Article 1, and Excise Tax Collection Division, is Amendment U.S.1 V of the clearly usurping judicial authority Constitution. in view of the fact that the U.S. A check made with the County Constitution (4th Amendment) Clerk's Office showed that the of issuance expressly prohibits State Tax Commission had indeetf warrants by any authority other filed their illegal Warrant and it (NO was than a judicial officer. accepted illegally. but issue shall warrants upon November 6, 1972: Dr. Hoopes probable. cause, supported by Oath was then called into court with an or Affirmation, and particularly Order In Supplemental describing the place to be searched Proceedings by Judge Joseph G. and persons or things to be seized. Jeppsen, to answer concerning his 2. The Commissions judgment This order was property. has been declared by the Utah supplemental to nothing because . State Supreme Court to not be a there had been no hearing, trial or. judgment in the same sense as a judgment! The Tax Commission-haDistrict Court decision, it cannot falsely and arbitrarily be sued upon in another state; it is represented the case as legitimate in reality only an inchoate and, without evidence or proof of (imperfect) lien. It is simply a claim liability on Dr. Hoopes part. that can be taken to court to be Judge. Jeppson was either deceived perfected by establishing the into believing the necessary due validity with facts, evidence and process (court hearing, trial and proofwith an adversary hearing judgment) had been rendered, or and all due process afforded to the automatically signed the order-becausclaimant. of the fact that such orders 3. The Sheriff cannot, proceed, in are very common, or acted in view of the fact that the complicity. violations unconstitutional November 15, 1972: This court invalidate the statutes. appearance turned out to be' 4. The statement your delinquent nothing but Star Chamber tax and demand that it be paid in proceedings, a kangaroo tribunal,-Continuefull presumes guilt, liability. on page 6 - d -- . e . d , |