Copy ---
Karen Kline
Santa Fe, NM 87505
7/8/96
Lawrence H. Tribe
Constitutional Scholar
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass. 02138-1636
Dear Mr. Tribe,
I saw you on Charlie Rose discussing Victim's Rights. I am,
therefore, writing to you because you are a Constitutional Scholar
and because you are involved in victim's rights.
As a Constitutional Scholar, what is your view of the rise in militias,
all of which seem to see the trampling of Americans' constitutional
rights by the government as the reason for their existence? And,
what is your view of the IRS as it is presently allowed to trample
the rights of Americans? If I were to say to you that Americans
don't really have any rights, anymore, once those rights are tested
against the IRS, how would you respond to me?
When I was attacked by IRS in 1994, I called -- I still had a phone
then -- everyone who I thought could help me, or I wrote to them. I
searched the internet for names of people and organizations to
whom I could write. I ran across, in doing this, an 800 number for
victims to call in order to receive a first step kind of help. I called
the number, saying that all of my money had been taken by IRS,
leaving me none, and that IRS was not even using correct numbers.
I was told that I wasn't a victim since I was talking about IRS.
Now, I don't know whether I should be writing to a Constitutional
Scholar or to a Linguistics Scholar, but the fact is that when all of
someone's money is taken, and the taking is not right, that is, the
taking is in error, that person is a victim.
At this point I no longer think there is any justification, ever, for
taking all of someone's money: the very fact of taking all of
someone's money is wrong.
But, strange as it may seem, I seem to be alone in thinking this.
Alone, once I mention IRS.
Let me tell you, I do not understand this. Why does the media not
cover this story when the basis of this story is the basis from which
the militias are growing?
I am enclosing for you a copy of my recent long letters, with their
enclosures, to IRS. These letters needed to be as long as they are
because the problem is not just IRS but the fact that legislators no
longer seem to represent the people from the areas from which the
legislators come.
It is my belief that if my legislators didn't listen to me about the
problems that exist with IRS, problems I know of because I am
experiencing them, then few legislators are listening to anyone
about these problems.
It may be that the problems with IRS are so complex and unfun
that legislators don't like to deal with them, I can certainly
understand that. But, by failing to handle IRS problems, by denying
these problems, legislators give the impression, it seems to me, that
there is a conspiracy. Call it a conspiracy towards a New World
Order, call it whatever you want, I can understand how people
come to think that such a thing exists.
Let me give you an example: as a result of IRS taking all of my
money in 1994 I no longer have a phone; I am without the
self-employed business that I worked hard to establish; my small
provisions for my old age, two rentals, are about to be foreclosed,
and one is vacant because I can't rent it without a phone -- it is
amazing to me how many people require a phone to be used before
they will agree to do business, to include providing dental care; my
driving is limited because my license was revoked as a result of a
change in municipal judges: the former judge called everyone who
hadn't paid their tickets in at Thanksgiving, where they were
sentenced to pay so much money and so many turkeys for the
poor, the new judge, who wants tickets to be more meaningful in
the punishment sense of the word, is cracking down, revoking
licenses. Now, as soon as I was notified that my license was
revoked, I wrote to the court, explaining that I had no phone and
that I didn't know for what I was supposed to have appeared in
court: a parking ticket from the library? a warning I was given when
my plates were expired? Weeks passed with no response. I wrote a
more forceful letter. No response. I wrote a more forceful letter still
and a response came that was dated as if the response had been
written prior to the receipt of my third and quite angry letter. The
postmark, however, showed that the letter went out after my third
letter had to have been received, even if the postal carrier had
walked the letter there. For the first week I didn't drive. I felt I
shouldn't. The second week I drove once, perhaps twice when I
had things come up which demanded attention. I did not, however,
feel that driving to a pay phone to call the court was appropriate.
After all, I did not have a license. Interestingly, when the court
finally wrote, they sent me their phone number, but no explanation
of what it was for which I was supposed to have appeared in court.
They also said how much I needed to pay them, again without
saying what it was for which I "owed" them this money. Yes,
failing to appear in court, but for what? So that I continue to live in
a sort of house arrest, seldom driving anywhere, because I don't
feel right about it and because I wonder if my insurance would
cover an accident if I were to have one. I find this is taking a toll on
my spirits. I need seeds for my garden, which is a primary source
of my food, yet I don't feel right about driving to the nursery to get
them. Perhaps if my maternal grandfather had not had a store he
called the Square Grocery, because he was fair and square, I
wouldn't feel this way. But, I do feel this way. Which brings me to
my point, I can see how someone in my position might think that
the municipal court was in a conspiracy with IRS to make life so
hard for that person that she or he is forced to give in to the system:
giving the system what a is asking: half of all the money she or he
has, just for a little peace of mind.
While I am certain that IRS did not call the municipal court and ask
them to harass me, I also am certain that once things become
difficult for someone due to stresses beyond the ordinary, that the
chances of there being a "catastrophe" increase. I find the loss of
my license to be a catastrophe of sorts. Without my license, for
instance, I cannot complete certain bits of research, via interviews,
for a story, of almost four hundred pages, that I am writing.
Years ago, having read about Chris Zeeman's Catastrophe Theory,
which says something to the effect that when x number of things go
wrong, a strain is put on things that causes the structure of those
things to collapse and/or shift so severely that the change can be
called a "catastrophe." Chris Zeeman was a prominent
mathematician in England when I lived in London, and was working
on the mathematics of waves breaking on a shore, which as I
understand it, was an area of study that preceded Gell-Mann's
chaos theory. (While I used to get in the ninety-eighth percentile,
nationally, on SAT type exams testing language skills and
comprehension, when it came to maths, I got on the twenty-second
percentile. Which may or may not explain the series of
mathematicians with whom I went, if opposites attract.)
Here's my point, if there is any truth in Catastrophe Theory, and I
believe there is, then when IRS takes all of someone's money, IRS
is putting that person in a situation where many more things will go
wrong, or be done to them in a similar kind of action: first comes an
IRS levy, then comes insufficient money to carry out some bit of
business that turns out to have been essential, but which wasn't
recognized as such in time to make it a priority at the cost of
something else, then comes bankruptcy, then comes foreclosure.
The link among these things is not there by conspiracy, but it is
there.
Whereas conspiracy implies a knowing, the link, as I see it, is a
result of ignorance: legislators failing to recognize the complexity of
the needs of the people they are supposed to be representing; failing
to understand that crime results from inequity as much as it is an
inequity, results from injustice as much as it is an injustice; failing
to understand that when deregulation takes place and Savings and
Loans fail, at a substantial cost to taxpayers, and that when a CEO
commands a hundred million dollars in pay, at a cost of tens of
thousands of jobs, and that when Wall Street shudders at good
news for workers, the average person doesn't see the complexities
involved, or the CEO, but does see immigrants.
When one considers that a federal building has been blown up and
that a group has just been accused of planning to blow up other
federal buildings, then I would say we have a catastrophe on our
hands: our system is failing to stand up to the strains that are being
put on it.
In terms of my experience, IRS has taken more than I can afford to
give, and the structure of my life has collapsed as a result of that
taking.
My belief is that many people are experiencing just the kind of
catastrophe that I am experiencing, but, failing to understand
catastrophe theory, even as little as I understand it, they think the
problem is every money-oriented operation being in league to send
their money somewhere else, be it Sweden or wherever I have ever
heard mentioned, but somewhere other than their own community
where they can see it progress from person to person, business to
business, circulating economic well being.
Here's my question, Mr. Tribe, (as an aside, do you know Joe
Traub? I was listing agent on a home he purchased in Santa Fe), are
there, at bottom, any constitutional rights to actually protect
Americans who are finding themselves in untenable positions as a
result of IRS actions, or do militia members only imagine these
constitutional rights to have existed? If there are constitutional
rights, then how do these constitutional rights become activated so
that they protect people who are being harmed in contradiction of
them?
It seems to me that if our constitution is what it is supposed to be,
that then this problem with IRS can be handled without resorting to
revolution.
It also seems to me that the media's failure to cover the facts of
what IRS is doing to people, is a factor in the belief, among those
who hold the belief, that there is a conspiracy against them.
There was a time when I ascribed the media's failure to their own
fear of IRS. At this point, I think that if fear is driving the media's
silence, they need to get their courage together, because their failure
is contributing to deaths of innocent people, to include children,
deaths they cover in droves, failing to say that in their subtle way
they have helped create the tragedies of Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma
City, and almost Phoenix.
Sincerely,
Karen Kline
Karen Kline
Copies: Charlie Rose -- if the library ever sends his address, NBC,
ABC, CBS, Joe Traub, the library, and, if my stamps hold out,
others.
Pages 34-36 (Preceding), Page 40 (Following)
Karen Kline
Santa Fe, NM 87505
7/8/96
Lawrence H. Tribe
Constitutional Scholar
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass. 02138-1636
Dear Mr. Tribe,
I saw you on Charlie Rose discussing Victim's Rights. I am,
therefore, writing to you because you are a Constitutional Scholar
and because you are involved in victim's rights.
As a Constitutional Scholar, what is your view of the rise in militias,
all of which seem to see the trampling of Americans' constitutional
rights by the government as the reason for their existence? And,
what is your view of the IRS as it is presently allowed to trample
the rights of Americans? If I were to say to you that Americans
don't really have any rights, anymore, once those rights are tested
against the IRS, how would you respond to me?
When I was attacked by IRS in 1994, I called -- I still had a phone
then -- everyone who I thought could help me, or I wrote to them. I
searched the internet for names of people and organizations to
whom I could write. I ran across, in doing this, an 800 number for
victims to call in order to receive a first step kind of help. I called
the number, saying that all of my money had been taken by IRS,
leaving me none, and that IRS was not even using correct numbers.
I was told that I wasn't a victim since I was talking about IRS.
Now, I don't know whether I should be writing to a Constitutional
Scholar or to a Linguistics Scholar, but the fact is that when all of
someone's money is taken, and the taking is not right, that is, the
taking is in error, that person is a victim.
At this point I no longer think there is any justification, ever, for
taking all of someone's money: the very fact of taking all of
someone's money is wrong.
But, strange as it may seem, I seem to be alone in thinking this.
Alone, once I mention IRS.
Let me tell you, I do not understand this. Why does the media not
cover this story when the basis of this story is the basis from which
the militias are growing?
I am enclosing for you a copy of my recent long letters, with their
enclosures, to IRS. These letters needed to be as long as they are
because the problem is not just IRS but the fact that legislators no
longer seem to represent the people from the areas from which the
legislators come.
It is my belief that if my legislators didn't listen to me about the
problems that exist with IRS, problems I know of because I am
experiencing them, then few legislators are listening to anyone
about these problems.
It may be that the problems with IRS are so complex and unfun
that legislators don't like to deal with them, I can certainly
understand that. But, by failing to handle IRS problems, by denying
these problems, legislators give the impression, it seems to me, that
there is a conspiracy. Call it a conspiracy towards a New World
Order, call it whatever you want, I can understand how people
come to think that such a thing exists.
Let me give you an example: as a result of IRS taking all of my
money in 1994 I no longer have a phone; I am without the
self-employed business that I worked hard to establish; my small
provisions for my old age, two rentals, are about to be foreclosed,
and one is vacant because I can't rent it without a phone -- it is
amazing to me how many people require a phone to be used before
they will agree to do business, to include providing dental care; my
driving is limited because my license was revoked as a result of a
change in municipal judges: the former judge called everyone who
hadn't paid their tickets in at Thanksgiving, where they were
sentenced to pay so much money and so many turkeys for the
poor, the new judge, who wants tickets to be more meaningful in
the punishment sense of the word, is cracking down, revoking
licenses. Now, as soon as I was notified that my license was
revoked, I wrote to the court, explaining that I had no phone and
that I didn't know for what I was supposed to have appeared in
court: a parking ticket from the library? a warning I was given when
my plates were expired? Weeks passed with no response. I wrote a
more forceful letter. No response. I wrote a more forceful letter still
and a response came that was dated as if the response had been
written prior to the receipt of my third and quite angry letter. The
postmark, however, showed that the letter went out after my third
letter had to have been received, even if the postal carrier had
walked the letter there. For the first week I didn't drive. I felt I
shouldn't. The second week I drove once, perhaps twice when I
had things come up which demanded attention. I did not, however,
feel that driving to a pay phone to call the court was appropriate.
After all, I did not have a license. Interestingly, when the court
finally wrote, they sent me their phone number, but no explanation
of what it was for which I was supposed to have appeared in court.
They also said how much I needed to pay them, again without
saying what it was for which I "owed" them this money. Yes,
failing to appear in court, but for what? So that I continue to live in
a sort of house arrest, seldom driving anywhere, because I don't
feel right about it and because I wonder if my insurance would
cover an accident if I were to have one. I find this is taking a toll on
my spirits. I need seeds for my garden, which is a primary source
of my food, yet I don't feel right about driving to the nursery to get
them. Perhaps if my maternal grandfather had not had a store he
called the Square Grocery, because he was fair and square, I
wouldn't feel this way. But, I do feel this way. Which brings me to
my point, I can see how someone in my position might think that
the municipal court was in a conspiracy with IRS to make life so
hard for that person that she or he is forced to give in to the system:
giving the system what a is asking: half of all the money she or he
has, just for a little peace of mind.
While I am certain that IRS did not call the municipal court and ask
them to harass me, I also am certain that once things become
difficult for someone due to stresses beyond the ordinary, that the
chances of there being a "catastrophe" increase. I find the loss of
my license to be a catastrophe of sorts. Without my license, for
instance, I cannot complete certain bits of research, via interviews,
for a story, of almost four hundred pages, that I am writing.
Years ago, having read about Chris Zeeman's Catastrophe Theory,
which says something to the effect that when x number of things go
wrong, a strain is put on things that causes the structure of those
things to collapse and/or shift so severely that the change can be
called a "catastrophe." Chris Zeeman was a prominent
mathematician in England when I lived in London, and was working
on the mathematics of waves breaking on a shore, which as I
understand it, was an area of study that preceded Gell-Mann's
chaos theory. (While I used to get in the ninety-eighth percentile,
nationally, on SAT type exams testing language skills and
comprehension, when it came to maths, I got on the twenty-second
percentile. Which may or may not explain the series of
mathematicians with whom I went, if opposites attract.)
Here's my point, if there is any truth in Catastrophe Theory, and I
believe there is, then when IRS takes all of someone's money, IRS
is putting that person in a situation where many more things will go
wrong, or be done to them in a similar kind of action: first comes an
IRS levy, then comes insufficient money to carry out some bit of
business that turns out to have been essential, but which wasn't
recognized as such in time to make it a priority at the cost of
something else, then comes bankruptcy, then comes foreclosure.
The link among these things is not there by conspiracy, but it is
there.
Whereas conspiracy implies a knowing, the link, as I see it, is a
result of ignorance: legislators failing to recognize the complexity of
the needs of the people they are supposed to be representing; failing
to understand that crime results from inequity as much as it is an
inequity, results from injustice as much as it is an injustice; failing
to understand that when deregulation takes place and Savings and
Loans fail, at a substantial cost to taxpayers, and that when a CEO
commands a hundred million dollars in pay, at a cost of tens of
thousands of jobs, and that when Wall Street shudders at good
news for workers, the average person doesn't see the complexities
involved, or the CEO, but does see immigrants.
When one considers that a federal building has been blown up and
that a group has just been accused of planning to blow up other
federal buildings, then I would say we have a catastrophe on our
hands: our system is failing to stand up to the strains that are being
put on it.
In terms of my experience, IRS has taken more than I can afford to
give, and the structure of my life has collapsed as a result of that
taking.
My belief is that many people are experiencing just the kind of
catastrophe that I am experiencing, but, failing to understand
catastrophe theory, even as little as I understand it, they think the
problem is every money-oriented operation being in league to send
their money somewhere else, be it Sweden or wherever I have ever
heard mentioned, but somewhere other than their own community
where they can see it progress from person to person, business to
business, circulating economic well being.
Here's my question, Mr. Tribe, (as an aside, do you know Joe
Traub? I was listing agent on a home he purchased in Santa Fe), are
there, at bottom, any constitutional rights to actually protect
Americans who are finding themselves in untenable positions as a
result of IRS actions, or do militia members only imagine these
constitutional rights to have existed? If there are constitutional
rights, then how do these constitutional rights become activated so
that they protect people who are being harmed in contradiction of
them?
It seems to me that if our constitution is what it is supposed to be,
that then this problem with IRS can be handled without resorting to
revolution.
It also seems to me that the media's failure to cover the facts of
what IRS is doing to people, is a factor in the belief, among those
who hold the belief, that there is a conspiracy against them.
There was a time when I ascribed the media's failure to their own
fear of IRS. At this point, I think that if fear is driving the media's
silence, they need to get their courage together, because their failure
is contributing to deaths of innocent people, to include children,
deaths they cover in droves, failing to say that in their subtle way
they have helped create the tragedies of Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma
City, and almost Phoenix.
Sincerely,
Karen Kline
Karen Kline
Copies: Charlie Rose -- if the library ever sends his address, NBC,
ABC, CBS, Joe Traub, the library, and, if my stamps hold out,
others.
Pages 34-36 (Preceding), Page 40 (Following)
| . |
 |  |  |  |  |
Health Boundaries Bite
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com
Learn some warning signs --
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Way back in 1996 I could see a need for the #OccupyWallStreet that we have today. |