"Then I will draw
near to you for judgment
and I will be a swift witness against . . .
those who oppress the wage earner in his wages.
Show me the coin used for the poll-tax . . .
Show me a denaris, [Federal Reserve Note],
whose likeness and inscription is on it?
Then render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
and unto God that what is God's."
(Malachi 3:5 Luke 20:24-25)
When the Constitution was established,
it gave Congress
full and all embracing taxing powers.
Except for the prohibition against taxing exports.
The Constitution laid down two rules by which
the two classes of taxes were to be governed.
They were the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes,
and the rule of uniformity as to indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises).
However, when the MONEY-CHANGERS took over control of our Treasury in 1913,
they needed a way to collect the interest (tribute) from our nation.
Was it through fraud and deceit just like the serpent in the Garden of Eden?
Or, was it just a coincidence the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was also passed in 1913?
The IRS is nothing more than the collection agency
of the tribute the Federal Reserve charges us on their "worthless" paper money.
DON'T BELIEVE ME!
Look at the last check you sent to the IRS.
Its endorsed "PAY ANY F.R.B. [Federal Reserve Bank] BRANCH
OR GEN. DEPOSITORY FOR CREDIT U.S. TREASURY.
THIS IS IN PAYMENT OF U.S. OBLIGATIONS;
MUST BE PAID AT PAR N.P. DO NOT WIRE NON-PAYMENT"
For the IRS to deposit your income tax check
into Federal Reserve Banks
is in direct violation of Internal Revenue Code,
(a) Deposit of Collections, which states: ". . .
the gross amount of all taxes and revenue received
under the provisions of this title and collection
of whatever nature received or collected
by authority of any Internal Revenue law,
shall be deposited daily into the Treasury of the United States
under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections . . ."
Why aren't your tax dollars deposited into the U.S. Treasury?
Why, because while we were sleeping
somebody STOLE AMERICA! WAKE-UP!
We have been SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!
I am absolutely amazed how many people think their tax dollars
are used for running the government.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Former President Reagan, stated the following
in his 1984 Grace Commission Report on government waste:
"100% of what is collect is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt
and by federal government contributions to transfer payments."
In other words all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the government services.
These services are financed by the government
going further into debt to the MONEY-CHANGERS.
Now let's take a closer look at the laws
to see if we can find out the real truth about the IRS.
The PREFACE of the supplement to the United States Code reads:
"This third supplement to the 1988 edition to the United States Code
has been prepared and published pursuant to section 285b of Title 2 of the Code.
It contains the additions and changes in the general permanent laws
of the United States
enacted during the One Hundred First Congress
and the One Hundred Second Congress, First Session.
This supplement together with the 1988 edition
establishes prima facie those laws in effect on January 2, 1992,
except Titles 1,3,4,5,9,10,11,13,14,17,18,23,28,
31,32,35, 37,38,39, 44,46, and 49 have been revised,
codified and enacted into positive law
and the text thereof is legal evidence of the laws therein contained . . . "
Please note all the above Titles are positive law,
but Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code)
has not been enacted into positive law
and according to their own words is only prima facie law.
* Positive Law - Law actually and specifically enacted
or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.
* Prima Facie - At first sight;
on the first appearance;
on the face of it;
so far as can be judged from the first disclosure;
a fact presumed to be true
unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.
(In other words, it looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck
and walks like a duck,
but it ain't no duck.
It's a decoy!)
To prove Title 26, Internal Revenue Code is prima facie,
we only need to look at Section 7806,
"Construction of Title", of the Internal Revenue Code which reads:
"(a) Cross References -
The cross references in this title to other portions of the title,
or other provisions of law,
where the word 'see' is used,
are made only for convenience,
and shall be given no legal effect.
(b) Arrangement and Classification -
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction
shall be drawn or made by reason of the location
or grouping of any particular section
or provision or portion of this title,
nor shall any table of contents,
table of cross references, or similar outline,
analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents
of this title be given any legal effect . . ."
Is this their disclaimer?
Here is a simple question.
According to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code,
are California, New York, Florida, etc. States?
If you said yes, you have been deceived again!
Section 3121(e) defines State as:
"The term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa.
P.L. 86-624 Amended 1954 Code Sec. 3121(e)(1),
as it appears in the amendment note for P.L. 86-778,
by striking out `Hawaii', where it appeared following
`includes'. Effective 8-21-59 . . .
By striking out Alaska . . . Effective 1-3-59"
Why are Alaska and Hawaii no longer states
under the Internal Revenue Code?
Because they became States of the Union of States
called the United States of America.
They are not "federal" states of the United States
(Article 1, Section 8, Constitution of the United States of America).
Therefore, most Citizens of the Republic of States
of the United States of America
are not subject to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
To further prove this point, the case of U.S. vs. Virginia, 1805 declared,
"the District of Columbia is not a `state'
within the meaning of the constitution."
Therefore the states as defined in Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code
must be federal states and not States of the United States of America.
The I.R.S. is nothing more than an out of control bureaucracy
operating under the Color of Law.
They are forcing our people into bondage.
How many times have you heard or read
about the I.R.S. seizing someone's home,
bank account and wages etc.?
It happens illegally hundreds or thousands of times every-day.
Our Constitution requires "due process"
before anyone's property can be seized.
The I.R.S. does not know the meaning of due process.
None of their victims are given due process!
According to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code,
"Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes, Sec. 6331(a) - Levy and Distraint,
"AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY -
. . . Levy may be made upon the accrued salary, or wages of any
or "elected official",
of the United States,
the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality of the United States,
by serving a notice of levy on the employer
as defined in sec. 3401 (d) of such
officer, employee, or elected official . . ." PERIOD!
Section 3401(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
defines an employee as, ". . . an officer, employee, or elected official
of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof;
or the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality
of any one or more of the foregoing.
The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation." PERIOD!
In a letter from Congressman Hertel dated Dec. 30, 1985,
he states that Section 6331(a), of the Internal Revenue Code:
"does not provide authority to levy wages of private citizens in the private sector."
* Color Of Law -
The appearance or semblance, without the substance of legal right.
State vs. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599,202 N.W. 144.148
In a letter written by Congressman Ron Paul, dated August 27, 1979,
he tells it like it is:
"Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary
for the federal government to tax anyone directly;
it could simply print the money it needs.
However, that would be too bold a stroke,
for it would then be obvious to all
what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running.
The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin
to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on."
Most Americans have heard that income taxes are voluntary,
but are they voluntary or are they mandatory?
In an Internal Revenue Investigation
before a Subcommittee of the Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, 83rd Congress,
Mr. Dwight Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division,
Bureau of the Internal Revenue confirmed
income tax is VOLUNTARY,
when he made the following statement,
"Let me point this out now:
Your income tax is 100% voluntary tax,
and your liquor tax is 100% enforced tax.
Now, the situation is as different as night and day . . ."
"Our system is based on voluntary assessment and payment,
not on distraint." (362 US.S 145, 176, 80 S. Ct. 630, 647, 4 L ED 623)
* Voluntary - (1) done, made, or given freely and without compulsion
(2) not accidental
(3) of, relating, or regulated by the will
(4) having power of free choice
* Distrain - (1) to seize for debt;
to take a personal chattel from the possession of
a wrong-doer to satisfy a demand,
or compel the performance of a duty
* Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
So why are you continuing to volunteer your hard earned money
to a DEN of THIEVES?
If payment is voluntary it cannot be mandatory.
"Voluntary compliance places the responsibility . . .
on you to file a return . . .
you also may have to determine the amount of your tax liability."
(IRS Publication # 21)
Even former IRS officer Jack Warren Wade Jr. admitted
in his book "When You Owe The IRS" the following facts,
"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction . . .
The IRS has never really known why people pay income taxes . . .
The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through fear."
Former IRS Commissioner Mortimer Caplin said,
"Our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance."
"An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing
and his failure to act creates no liability,
but if he voluntarily attempts to and do the particular thing,
he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner
in which he does it." (Guardian vs. Fisher, 26 S. Ct. 186, 188)
"When one files a return [voluntarily] showing a tax due,
he has presumably assessed himself and is content
to become liable for the tax and to pay it."
(Lyddon Co. vs. U.S. 158 Fed Supp 951)
In 1979 Jerome Kuntz, Commissioner of the IRS said, ". . .
To put these figures in context, individuals voluntarily reported
nearly $1.1 trillion in income and paid $142 billion in [voluntary] income taxes."
(1979 IRS Annual Report)
"Because what appears to be a lawful command on the surface,
many citizens, because of respect for the law,
are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights,
due to ignorance."
(U.S. vs. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187)
And that is how the IRS gets the "taxpayers"
who voluntarily and signs a contract (the 1040)
under penalty of perjury that they had income.
As soon as they sign the 1040 and send it in,
they become liable for the taxes
that they voluntarily assessed themselves and agreed to pay.
As former Congressman Ron Paul pointed out in his news letter,
"The Government loves vague laws.
They are essential to tyranny and Executive discretion."
He should have also said, the government loves naive people.
They are essential for the PONZI SCHEME to continue.
Former IRS headquarters agent, Paul Strassel
had this to say about IRS audits:
"The real point of audits is to instill fear,
not to extract revenue;
the IRS aims at winning through intimidation
and getting maximum voluntary compliance."
Paul Desfosses, President, National Coalition of IRS Whistleblowers declared,
". . . I will not back down,
I will not be silent,
and I will not rest until our out-of-control tax agency is brought under control."
If more Americans would take this stand,
we could bring the IRS down to its knees.
Our fore-fathers went to revolution over a 3% tax on tea
and we're so spineless today,
that we allow a private corporation to plunder our Nation.
I cannot say that I am proud to be an American,
because it would put me in the same boat
as most of the spineless people
who call themselves Americans.
But I am proud to be part of those
whom the Spirit of Resistance dwells within.
I will proudly stand beside them
when the Second Shot is Heard Around the World.
In a letter, Congressman George Hansen wrote the following
to the Commissioner of the IRS:
"This is not the first time that the evidence indicates that IRS
works to create violence as an excuse to come to Congress
and defend its conduct on one hand
and to justify a budget increase to fund its private army."
William Phillips, Sub-Committee Director of the Committee on Government Operations (1972)
said, "Of all the agencies of government who have been most flagrant
in violating not only the spirit,
but the letter of the Act has been the Internal Revenue Service."
Senator Paul Laxalt maintains,
"The high-handed bureaucratic excesses of the IRS are a national disgrace
. . .
We appear to be witnessing an agency totally out of control,
running roughshod over the taxpayers
and making a joke out of our rule of laws." (Lynne Johnston,
"Who's Afraid of the IRS")
Congressman Hansen warns, "Our basic freedoms, our basic liberties
and our fundamental rights as free-thinking citizens
of this great country are being eroded, insidiously and relentlessly,
by this monstrous agency.
The IRS must be brought under control no matter what the cost . . .
If the IRS is not quickly brought under control,
we will find ourselves living Orwell's 1984
before anyone recognizes what the agency is doing . . .
The awesome powers of the IRS, not only to act under the law,
but to act above the law, must finally be curtailed
by a Congress made to realize that they have more to fear
from their unhappy constituents, than they do from
the self-serving intimidating ways of the IRS."
(Congressional Record, Nov. 21, 1981)
"Only the rare taxpayer would likely to know
that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents."
(U.S. vs. Dickerson, 413 f2d 1111, CA7, 1969)
"Person cannot be forced to submit records for inspection."
(U.S., and Fred Rosauer, Special Agent IRS vs. Johanna Van Poperin,
U.S. District Court, District of Minn., 4th Division, 4-71 Civil 635)
"We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction
in this particular between an individual and a corporation,
and that the latter has no right to refuse
to submit its books and papers for an examination.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors
to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation,
so far as it may tend to incriminate him.
He owes no such duty to the state,
since he receives nothing there from,
beyond the protection of his life and property.
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land
long antecedent to the organization of the State,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law,
and in accordance with the Constitution.
Among his rights are the refusal to incriminate himself,
and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure
except under a warrant of law.
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights
. . .
An individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions
unless protected by an immunity statute . . ." (Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43)
Justice William Douglas declared,
"The Fifth Amendment is an old friend and a good friend.
It is one of the greatest landmarks in man's struggle
to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized."
Justice Miller said, "To lay with one hand the power of government
on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it
on favored individuals . . . is none the less robbery
because it was under the forms of law and is called taxation."
(Loan Assc. vs. Topeka, 20 Wall (87U.S.) 664, 1874)
On February 21, 1977, Congressman Steve Symms said,
"The income tax is unconstitutional
and was not part of the original intent
of those who drafted our Constitution or government;
I am supporting a resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment."
T. Coleman Andrews, former Commissioner of the IRS said,
"Let's get rid of the income tax
. . . its legalized confiscation
. . . too complicated
. . . destroying the middle class . . ."
Now let us look at what the courts have said about "Income Tax":
"Whatever may constitute income,
therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient.
This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective,
it was true at the time of Eisner vs. Revenue Code of 1938,
and it is likewise true under sec. 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
If there is no gain there is no income
. . . Congress has taxed income, not compensation [wages]."
(Connor vs. U.S. 303 F. Supp. 1187)
"Income means only gain and profits, not wages."
(So Pacific vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330; Stratton vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 309)
"It is to be noted that by the language of the Act
it is not salaries wages or compensation for personal service
that are to be include in gross income." (Lucas vs. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 1930)
"Income excludes wages, salaries and tips." (Graves vs. People of N.Y., 59 S. Ct. 595)
"Tips are gifts and are therefore not taxable."
Judge Thomas W. Clary (Okl vs. U.S., February 18, 1975)
"There is a clear distinction between profit
and wages or compensation for labor.
Compensation [wages] for labor cannot be regarded as profit
within the meaning of the law."
(Oliver vs. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858)
". . . There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages'
or compensation for labor.
Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit
within the meaning of the law.
The word 'profit' as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon business or investment
- a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor."
(Commercial League Assc. Vs. The People, 90 Ill 166)
"Reasonable compensation [wages] for labor or services
rendered is not profit."
(Lauderdale Cemetery Assc. vs. Mathews 345 Pa. 239; 47 A.2d 277, 280)
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure;
perhaps it means that there shall be included actual receipts
(a) for services rendered in the year for which the return is made and
(b) for unpaid accounts, or charges for services rendered in former years,
and paid in the year for which the return is made.
But it matters little what it does mean;
the statute and the statute alone determines
what is income to be taxed.
It taxes only income 'derived' from many different specified sources:
one does not derive income by rendering services [labor]
and charging for them." (Edwards vs. Keith, 231 F110-112)
Once again the courts declared what "income" means in the case of
So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847
the court said, "Income as used in the statue should be given the meaning
so as not to include everything that comes in.
The true function of the words "gains" and "profits"
is to limit the meaning of the word income."
"Income means only gain and profit, not earnings." (Staples vs. U.S. 21 F Sup. 737)
Why do you think it is called an "Income Tax" and not a "Labor Tax"?
"Freedom in the making of Contracts of Personal employment,
by which labor and services are exchanged for money
or other forms of property is an elementary part
of the rights of personal liberty and private property,
not to be struck down directly or arbitrarily with
. . ." (Prudential vs. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530)
"Chief among contracts is that of personal employment,
by which labor and other services are exchanged for money
or other forms of property." (Coppage vs. Kansas, 35Sct243, 1915)
The key word is exchanged.
If you gave me $10 worth of apples and I gave you $10 worth of oranges
would you have a profit or gain (income)?
What the court is saying, is if I gave you 1 hour of my labor
in exchange for $10, my labor is worth $10 per hour,
per contract/employment agreement and there is no profit or gain (income).
"Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege
and tax it by means other than an income tax,
but legislature cannot name something to be taxable privilege.
Constitution Article II, Section 28
. . . realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed."
(Jack Cole Co. vs. Alfred McFarland, Sup. Ct. Tenn. 337 S.W. 2d 453)
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference
is a constitutional as well as a common law right.
Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
(48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2)
"The property which every man has in his labor,
is the original foundation of all other property,
so it is the most sacred and inviolable."
(Butcher's Union Co. vs. Crescent City Co., 45 Ct 661)
"Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor,
as generally admitted;
and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits,
and appropriate them at his will." (The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120)
In Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled:
"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Federal Constitution."
Isn't working and earning a living a God given right
protected by the Constitution?
In Redfield vs. Fisher the Supreme Court held:
"The individual, unlike the corporation cannot be taxed
for the mere privilege of existing.
The corporation is an artificial entity
which owes its existence and charter powers to the state;
but the individual rights to live and own property
are natural rights for the enjoyment
of which an excise tax cannot be imposed."
"The terms `excise' and `privilege' tax are synonymous."
(American Airways vs. Wallace, 57 F 2d 877, 800)
"Congress may not, under the taxing power,
assert a power not delegated to it by the constitution."
(Regal Drug Co. vs. Wardell, 260 U.S. 386; 67 L ED 318; 43 S. Ct. 152)
"The Secretary of the Treasury cannot by his regulation alter or amend a Revenue Law."
(Morrill vs. Jones 106 U.S. 407)
In Evans vs. Gore (1920) the court ruled: "The sixteenth
does not justify the taxation of persons or things (their property)
. . . it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens
. . . it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states.
It does not authorize a tax on a salary."
"The tax is, of course an excise tax, as are all taxes on income
. . ." (White Packing Co. vs. Robertson, 89 F 2d 775, 779 the 4th Circuit Court)
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an excise tax . . ." (Congressional Record, March 27, 1943)
In 1916, the Supreme Court verified the income tax is not a "Direct Tax."
In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific the court declared:
"The contention that the Amendment (16th) treats a tax
as a direct tax (which must be apportioned) is wholly without foundation
. . . The Amendment was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution."
"The tax imposed . . . being a direct tax is unconstitutional
because [it was] not apportioned
. . . constituting one entire scheme
. . . The Constitution divided federal taxation into two great classes
- the class of direct taxes, and that of [indirect taxes]
duties, imposts and excises
- and the prescribed two rules which qualified the grant of power
as to each class." (Pollock vs. Farmers Loan and Trust, 158 U.S. 601)
In 1930, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Brushaber and Pollock cases in Tyler vs. U.S.:
"A tax laid upon the happening of an event,
as distinguished from its tangible fruits (of our labor), is an indirect tax."
"Income means 1909's excise tax." (Merchants vs. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509)
"Income means 1909's excise and privilege tax." (Bowers vs. Kerbaugh, 271 U.S. 170)
In a report titled
"Some Constitutional Questions regarding Federal Income Tax Law"
prepared by Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division,
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress # 84188A 784-275, states,
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White
noted that the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax,
did not repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution.
Direct taxes are still subject to the rule of apportionment
and indirect taxes are still subject to the rule of uniformity."
"The citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language." (Spreckels Sugar Fer. Co. vs. Mclain, 24Sct 382, 1904)
In a letter from Mark Forman, Legislative Correspondent for Senator Daniel Inouye
dated June 26, 1989,
he states, "Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service,
there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally
requires an individual to pay income taxes."
"The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code
[Title 26]." (U.S. vs. Ballard, 400F2d404, 1976)
Where is the clear and equivocal language if income is not defined,
or there are no provision that unequivocally
requires an individual to pay income taxes?
In Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 36 S. Ct. 281, 1916,
the court ruled: ". . . the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."
Simply put, the so-called income tax is another
that has been perpetrated on the unsuspecting sleeping tax-payers
by the MONEY-CHANGERS!
While the judges who are paid by the wolves are aiding and abetting the crime.
Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union said,
"The politicians don't just want your money.
They want your soul.
They want you to be worn down by taxes
until you are dependent and hopeless."
Congressman Hansen declared,
"The IRS's violations of individual rights and freedoms
are a mounting threat to the very existence of this country."
("To Harass Our People") Congressman Hansen eventually became a political prisoner too.
The Honorable Samuel Hooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said,
"I regard the income tax as most obnoxious genius of our people ..
I am so satisfied that the evils more than counterbalance
the benefits derived from its retention
that I recommend its unconditional repeal."
(The Internal Revenue Record Vol. XIII)
And most recently in U.S. vs. Long (No. CR-193-91)
an informed jury found Mr. Long NOT GUILTY of willful failure to file a tax return.
Mr. Long proved to the jury the so-called income tax is an excise tax.
The I.R.S. is going to have a hard time covering up this land mark decision.
It is amazing what powers a jury has when they exercise their supreme authority.
Oh, by the way, for those of you who still say
we must pay our income taxes.
In Don E. Williams vs. Commissioner of the Internal Revenues Service,
the Supreme Court "
. . . a note even when payable on demand and fully secured,
is still only a promise to pay
. . ." Since Federal Reserve Notes are not secured
and payable on demand, according to the law,
they are only a promise to pay and not payment.
(429 US 569, L Ed 2d 48, 97 S Ct 850)
"A debt is not paid by the giving of a note."
(Nolan Co. vs. Maryland Causality, 38 F. Supp. 479)
"A note is only a promise to pay and not payment."
(Fidelity Savings Bank vs. Grimes, 131 P 2d 894)
"A check payable in notes is an altered instrument and void."
(M.R.S. 1954 C. 188, Section 124 and 125)
"A check is not money."
(School Dist, vs. U.S. National Bank 211 p2d 723)
Well, there you have it, the courts have ruled an excise tax
cannot be imposed on citizens.
And wages are not income within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.
Congress has declared the "income tax" to be an excise tax,
and the Constitution only allows for two kinds of taxes.
Direct taxes which must be apportioned amongst the states
and indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excise taxes)
which do not have to been apportioned.
Indirect taxes (income taxes) cannot be imposed directly on the citizens.
Paying your debt (taxes) with
Federal Reserve "Notes"
is not payment of the debt.
The evidence doesn't stop there!
In their book "The Law That Never Was",
Bill Benson and "Red" Beckman proved beyond a shadow of a doubt,
with over 17,000 State certified documents
that "the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified".
For example, according to the government,
the State of Kentucky passed the 16th Amendment.
However, the state certified documents of Kentucky,
shows an actual vote of 9 yeas and 22 nays against the passage of the 16th Amendment.
Once again the wool was pulled over our eyes by the wolf and we were fleeced again.
In a letter dated February 19, 1985 to Bill Benson, Attorney Andrew Spiegel wrote,
"I have reviewed the documents you have obtained
on the 'ratification' of the 16th Amendment.
I put `ratification' in quotation marks because it is apparent, from those documents,
that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
and therefore has never been part of our Constitution.
The documents you have obtained establish that a fraud of massive proportions
was perpetrated on the people of this country in 1913
by Secretary of State Philander Knox and his staff.
The documents establish that Knox and the Solicitor
- his lawyer
- knew the states HAD NOT ratified the amendment,
as proposed by Congress.
The enormity of the problem this situation presents
to the federal government is obvious.
The courts will have difficulty accepting these facts
. . . The courts, which are suppose to be the staunch guardians
of our Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the government
will be hard-pressed to live up to that role.
This is especially true in the event that individual judges and prosecutors
persist in enforcing a law that was never really a law
. . . To the extent such individuals persist,
they may well become co-conspirators in the fraud
which was perpetrated on the American people in 1913.
You deserve a lot of credit for the task you have undertaken.
I want to thank you for being so dedicated to liberty."
Mr. Benson has tried to have these State certified documents
admitted as evidence in various court cases.
However, the courts have continually denied them as evidence.
Unfortunately, Mr. Benson in his quest to prove the fraud to the American people,
finally became another political prisoner
in the Land of the FREE and the Home of the Brave.
Despite the over-whelming evidence, the paid traitors (judges)
still try to maintain that the 16th Amendment was ratified
and it removed the rule of apportionment
and income taxes are a direct tax.
However, the traitors miss two crucial points,
the rule of apportionment was not repealed.
Even if the 16th Amendment was ratified
it does not give Congress the power to enforce the amendment
by appropriate legislation.
As it did with the other Constitutional amendments.
Do you think this could be the reason Title 26 was never enacted into positive law?
What about State and local taxes?
Section 411 of 12 USCS reads as follows:
"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board
for purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks
. . . The said notes shall be obligations of the United States . . ."
According to 31 USC 742, "All stocks, bonds, Treasury notes,
and other obligations of the United States [Federal Reserve Notes
are debt obligations of the United States]
shall be exempt from taxation by or under
the State or municipal or local authority.
This exemption extends to every form of taxation
that would require that either the obligation
or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly,
in the computation of the tax
. . ." In other words, since Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States
under Section 411 of 12 USCS, they are exempt
under 31 USC 742 from State, municipal and local taxes.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas made the following ruling on Jan. 19, 1925:
"Levying a gross income tax on all incomes,
including those derived from professions, businesses, and occupations
of all kinds provides an occupation tax, and not a privilege tax
and is invalid,
under Constitution Article 16, Section 5:
the state having no authority to tax for revenue occupations which are of common right . . .
Licenses - State cannot tax occupation for state revenue purposes.
A constitutional provision defining and limiting
the state's taxing power necessarily excludes
what is not enumerated, and while the Legislature . . .
it cannot tax such occupations for state revenue purposes
in view of Article 16, Section 5 of the Constitution . . .
Taxation - Gross income held unconstitutional.
Acts 1923, No. 345, commonly designated as Riggs Income Tax Law,
imposing gross income tax on all persons and corporations,
as violating Article 16, Section 5 of the Constitution,
relating to imposition of taxes . .
Taxation - Income tax held `excise tax,' not prohibited by Constitution.
An income tax is neither a property tax,
nor a tax on occupations of common right,
but is an excise tax and is not inhibited by Article 16, Section 5.
Legislature has no power to declare a privilege and tax for revenue purposes
on occupations that are of common right." (Sims, State Comptroller vs. Ahrens)
"A right common to every citizen
such as the right to own property
or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation
cannot, however, be taxed as a special franchise
by first prohibiting its exercise
and then permitting its enjoyment upon payment of a certain sum of money."
( 26 R.C.L.; Stevens vs. State, 2 Ark. 291;35 Am. Dec. 72)
I will briefly touch on the Social Security Tax that is being confiscated from your paycheck.
We keep hearing the Social Security fund is broke
and the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland
puts it succinctly: "The United States Government has borrowed
every penny of the Social Security Reserve and spent it.
The worker's cash was replaced by government bonds,
which are merely the government IOU's.
Like the gold in Fort Knox, their money is gone with the wind."
(Gary Allen, "Tax Target: Washington")
It has been said,
"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Our Constitution gave us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Isn't working and being compensated for it
a GOD given right
protected by your Constitution?
Didn't our Fore-Fathers protect us from taxation without representation?
Isn't that what the BOSTON TEA PARTY was all about?
Maybe it's time we started boiling the water for another TEA PARTY.
"All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are,
in our law and must be in nature of things, consider void
. . . We are in conscience bound to disobey."
(Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, Va., 1772)
Since the Federal Reserve Notes are in violation of the Constitution,
the debt created is unconstitutional.
Therefore, any law that collects taxes of any kind
to repay something that is illegal and unconstitutional is null and void.
If you are paying taxes, you are aiding and abetting the crime.
The chart on the following page illustrates just how much the working class is being fleeced
and why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
1971 TAX BURDEN
NET PROFITS BEFORE TAXES
% OF INCOME PAID
STANDARD OIL CA.
(Washington Post, Rape of the Taxpayer)
These eight corporations had a combined net profit before taxes of $4,341,173,000 ($4.34 billion).
If, they had paid taxes at the same rate that Ralph Senters paid,
they would have paid $694,587,680 ($694.58 million).
Instead, they paid a combined tax of $95,060,758 ($95.06 million).
Nearly $600 million less than if they had paid the same rate as a working man.
This is enough reason in my book to have another Boston Tea Party.
Imagine how much the top 500 corporations are getting by without paying.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer
because the common everyday sucker (worker)
is volunteering to pay "income taxes".
Maybe Americans think it is their Patriotic Duty to support
the COUNTERFEITING PONZI SCHEME OF THE MONEY-CHANGERS.
Now that the reader should have a good understanding of our bogus money and tax system,
here is a test question:
The following statement refers to the Central Bank of what country?
"The free resources consists of all that is left over
from what the people are permitted by the state to consume."
If you said America, you are absolutely incorrect!
It refers to the Central bank of Russia.
(Bank Structure of the U.S.S.R.,
from the Information Bureau of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R.,
published by American Affairs, Jan. 1945)
To illustrate just how far the deception has reached the minds
of the American people we only need to ask this simple question:
Are you a United States citizen? If you said YES,
the chances are you a victim of the deception,
unless you are an immigrant or was born in
Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, America Samoa, a federal territory or federal state,
or in a military hospital etc.,
you probably are not a United States citizen.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes a clear distinction
between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen of the United States.
A natural born Citizen is a member of the FREE SOVEREIGN,
whereas citizens of the United States are not members of the SOVEREIGN
but are federal citizens and subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
There is a clear distinction between "the United States:
and "the United States of America".
The United States is the federal government
and its federal states and territories.
The United States of America is
the Union of the Republic of States
called the United States of America.
The distinction of the two classes of citizenship is found in the following:
Section 1785 of 20 Corpus Juris Secondum states,
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State."
Title I of U.S.C., Section 242,
Noncitizens as: "Persons in the State not its citizens are either:
(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens" [EDITOR'S NOTE: citizens of
the foreign corporation known as the United States government are aliens.]
Section 1983, 853 of 42 USCS states,
"Rights under USCS Section 1983 are for citizens of the United States
and not of States." (Wadleigh vs. Newhall, 136 F 941)
Another clear distinction is made in 18 USC Criminal Code, Section 241,
"is for Citizens of the 50 States."
"A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
for purpose of acquiring citizenship at birth,
if this occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign."
(3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens)
"The States are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government."
(Health vs. Ala. 474 U.S. 187)
Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242
its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated
the bill protected all "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States."
He noted that the bill "simply extends to foreigners, not citizens."
"People of the States are entitled to all rights
which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative."
(Lansing vs. Smith, 21 D. 89)
"Under the democratic form of government now prevailing
the People are King so the Attorney General's duties are
to that Sovereign rather than to the machinery of government."
(Hancock vs. Terry Elkhorn Mining Co, 530 S.W. 2d 710 Ky.)
Again the Courts declared We the People are Sovereign Kings,
"Under our system [in America] the people,
who are there [in England] called subjects,
are here called sovereign." (United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196)
To illustrate that our rights
which formerly belonged to the king
have been usurped by the federal government
we need only to look at how we now own title to our land
verse how our fore-fathers held title.
They held Allodial Title which is defined as:
* ALLODIAL - "Free; not holden to any lord or superior
without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal."
* ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one's own right,
and not of any lord or superior;
land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
An estate held by absolute ownership,
without recognizing any superior
to whom any duty is due on account thereof."
* FEUDAL - "Pertaining to feuds or fees;
relating to or growing out of the feudal system or feudal law;
having the quality of a feud, as distinguished from allodial."
* FEUD - "An estate in land held by a superior on condition of rendering him services
to the lord [government] or proprietor [MONEY-CHANGER],
who himself retains the property in the lands [Allodial title]."
To further prove that we have become mere "feuds",
we only need to look at how the land we own is titled,
"Joint Tenancy," and "Tenants in Common".
We are nothing more than TENANTS
and pay an annual fee called property taxes
for the right to be TENANTS on the land.
When we stop paying the TENANT fees
we are evicted from the land by the Sovereign King (government).
* SOVEREIGN PEOPLE - "The political body,
consisting of the entire member of citizens and qualified electors
who in their collective capacity,
possess the powers of sovereignty
and exercise them through their chosen representatives."
"United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of States Citizenship . . .
Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges
and immunities of citizen of State,
since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other."
(K. Tass et al. vs. Jordan, Secretary of State, et al., S.F. 12346)
A NATURAL BORN FREE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN has all the rights to hold allodial title to his land,
thereby removing his land from property taxes (fees) etc.
Do you think the King of England paid taxes on his allodial owned land?
However, a federal citizen cannot own land by allodial title
and is subject to property taxes etc.
A federal citizen is nothing more than a feud to the federal government
and the MONEY-CHANGERS.
What has happened to allodial titles in America?
By deception we all became federal (feudal) citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Every government form we fill out asks if we are U.S. Citizens
and not citizens of the United States of America.
By ignorance and deception we claim to be feuds
of the federal government and the agents,
Our feud (federal) citizenship was created
and forced upon the nation by the fraudulent 14th Amendment.
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution,
it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States
in order to be a citizen of his State."
(United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 23 L.Ed. 588)
"Purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment -
The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons
domiciled within the limits of the United States
who could not be brought within the naturalization laws
because native born, and whose birth, though native,
had at the time left them without status of citizenship."
(Valkenburg vs. Brown, District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano, Jan. 1872)
For a natural born free sovereign citizen
to claim constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,
is absolutely insane.
But the story of the Fourteenth Amendment does not end here.
Just like the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, neither was the Fourteenth,
as we shall see from the following Congressional Record,
100 years after the so-called passage of the 14th Amendment:
"THE 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION
Congressman Rarick - Arrogantly ignoring the clearcut expressions
in the Constitution of the United States,
the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding,
our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions
of the Constitution of the United States
by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th amendment
to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims.
Through the cooperation of intellectual educators,
we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use
and meanings of words and phrases.
We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts.
We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words
to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals.
Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a sham -
serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach
for over-throw of the tender balances
and protections of limitation found in the Constitution . . .
As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds
down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government
by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th amendment,
their actions and verbiage brand them
and their teams as secessionists -
rebels with pens instead of guns - seeking to divide our union.
They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused.
The Union must and shall be preserved . . .
House Congressional Resolution 208
Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution
was never lawfully adopted in accordance
with the requirements of the United States Constitution
because eleven states of the Union
were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V,
when eleven states were excluded from deliberation and decision
in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment;
said Resolution was not presented to the President of the United States
in order that the same should take effect, as required by Article 1, Section 7;
the proposed amendment was not ratified by three-fourths of the states,
but to the contrary fifteen states of the then thirty-seven states of the Union
rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission to the states
by the Secretary of the State on June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868,
thereby nullifying said Resolution
and making it impossible for ratification
by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such states;
said southern states which were denied their equal suffrage
in the Senate had been recognized
by proclamations of the President of the United States
to have dully constituted governments with all the powers
which belong to free states of the Union,
and the Legislatures of seven of said southern states
had ratified the 13th Amendment
which would have failed of ratification
but for the ratification of seven southern states; and
The deception of everyone being a "federal" citizen of the United States
started after the so-called passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment which freed the slaves,
a very big problem arose, namely one of "citizenship".
The newly freed slaves did not qualify for citizenship
as a Natural Born Free Sovereign
and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment
was "supposedly" passed which gave the "federal" citizenship.
Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress
unlawfully overthrew their existing constituted legislatures by military force
and replaced them with rump legislatures
which carried out military orders
and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and
Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State
in his first proclamation on July 20, 1868,
expressed doubt as to whether three-fourths of the required states
had ratified the 14th Amendment
and directed the Secretary of State to so claim,
said Joint Resolution of Congress
and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State
included the purported ratifications of the military enforced
rump of ten southern states
whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the 14th Amendment,
and also included purported ratifications
by the legislatures of the states of Ohio and New Jersey
although they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications
several months previously.
All of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment
was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements
set forth in Article V of the Constitution
and therefore the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.
THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is
and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void
and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States
then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union.
Article V." (Congressional Record June 13, 1967)
If after you are done reading this entire book and you still participate in this fraud, give me a call,
I have stock in a macaroni farm for sale.
Edmund Burke told us how all this is possible when he said,
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The Attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894,
Joseph H. Coate, told the Supreme Court,
"The act of Congress which we are impugning before you
is Communist in its purpose and functions . . .
If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress,
where is the course of usurpation to end?
The current assault upon capital is but the beginning.
It will be but the stepping stone to others,
larger and more sweeping,
until our political contest will become a war
of the poor against the rich;
a war growing intensity and bitterness."
If you want to stop the crime, put your ear to the ground
and find a group of modern day patriots.
There are millions of patriots out there.
You just have to seek, and you will find them.
If not, don't call yourself an American,
because a true American will stand-up and fight
until his death
against these heinous acts being perpetrated against their Nation.