|
Constitution Class - Happy 4th of July (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| iTranscendence |
Federal Reserve, unconstitutional, period.
Article 1 section 8:
| quote: |
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; |
The Congress: as in the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve is a private consortium of international bankers. Without even getting into the debate about article 1 section 10, and whether "states" applies to the District of Columbia for only coining money with value backing it...
1. The 16th amendment was never voted upon by enough legislators to go to a state by state ratification.
2. The 16th amendment was never ratified by a majority of states, therefore all laws and systems based on it are null and void and what was never overridden is still our system.
We already technically had a central bank before the fed, it was called the US treasury department. All that needed to be done was strengthen it to get banks to lend to each other again. Now, it's just a puppet shell department for the private federal reserve.
There's a reason why this was one thing they KNEW should never be left to private enterprise, because it was the roots of feudalism, and economic oppression and the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Sound like a familiar theme happening today?
Thomas Jefferson said:
| quote: | I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. |
Someone put a tin foil hat on that guys head, what a maroon!
tl;dr teh fed iz bad. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
The Constitutional Basis for Central Banking
First, the constitution grants the Congress the right to coin money and to regulate its value. It is not clear from the constitution or the Federalist Papers what the authors meant by the term 'value.' Traditionally, it has meant the weight and metallic content of the coin. No one challenges this interpretation. On the other hand, the only relevant meaning of 'value' in the context of money is its value in trade, also known as its purchasing power. This a government cannot regulate merely by an act of Congress. The government's only tool for regulating this latter value is altering the money supply.
Second, Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Banking and other financial services clearly involves interstate commerce as the courts have come to define it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). A law creating a Bureau of the Mint, for example, is necessary and proper for the Congress to exercise its right to coin money. A similar argument may justify a central bank. It facilitates the expansion and contraction of the money supply and it serves as means to regulate the banking industry.
Is this a reasonable use of the necessary and proper clause? I do not know, but a test of its meaning came early. The history of central banking in the United States does not begin with the Federal Reserve. The Bank of the United States received its charter in 1791 from the U.S. Congress and Washington signed it. Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton designed the Bank's charter by modeling it after the Bank of England, the British central bank. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson believed the Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers that were specifically enumerated in the constitution. The only possible source of authority to charter the Bank, Jefferson believed, was in the necessary and proper clause. However, he cautioned that if the clause could be interpreted so broadly in this case, then there was no real limit to what Congress could do.2
Hamilton conceded that the constitution was silent on banking. He asserted, however, that Congress clearly had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Would it be reasonable for Congress to charter a corporation to assist in carrying out these powers? He argued that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress implied powers -- the power to enact any law that is necessary to execute its specific powers. A “necessary” law in this context Hamilton did not take to mean one that was absolutely indispensable. Instead, he argued that it meant a law that was “needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to” the primary Congressional power which it supported. Then Hamilton offered a proposed rule of discretion:
“Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual?” (Dunne, 19). If not, then it probably is constitutionally proper on these grounds. Hamilton’s arguments carried the day and convinced Washington.
The Supreme Court had its say on the matter in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States as constitutional. The Court argued with the doctrine of implied powers, stating that to be ‘necessary and proper’ the Bank needed only to be useful in helping the government meet its responsibilities in maintaining the public credit and regulating the money supply. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is part of the supreme law of the land” (Hixson, 117). The Court affirmed this opinion in the 1824 case Osborn v. Bank of the United States (Ibid, 14).
Therefore, the historical legal precedent exists for Congress' power to create a central bank. It formed the Federal Reserve system in 1913 to perform many of the same functions as its predecessors. As before, the courts have agreed that a central bank, and the Federal Reserve in particular, is constitutional. |
http://www.famguardian1.org/Subject...spire/const.htm |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
The original Constitution required direct taxes to be apportioned among the states in accordance with population. An income tax is not so apportioned, so the amendment was needed to authorize such parts of the income tax as would constitute "direct" taxes.
Some tax protestors claim that this amendment is not really part of the Constitution -- it was never ratified! Therefore, they say, the income tax is unconstitutional. This argument was popularized by Bill Benson in a book called "The Law That Never Was."
Surprisingly enough, this argument has a little something to it. When the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by state legislatures in the early twentieth century, the versions that some states voted on contained minor textual errors. Some of them neglected to capitalize the word "States," one had "income" in place of "incomes," one said "remuneration" instead of "enumeration," one said "levy" instead of "lay," and so on.
If the states didn't all vote on the same, identical text for the Sixteenth Amendment, can the amendment really be considered ratified? When Congress makes a law, the House and the Senate must vote on the same text. Similarly, if the states didn't vote on the right text, one could argue that they didn't ratify the amendment. No Sixteenth Amendment, no income tax.
However, it seems that the amendment really was ratified. The alleged defects in the ratification process were considered at the time of ratification in 1913. The Solicitor of the Department of State convincingly explained why the minor textual variations in the versions the states voted on should be disregarded.
First, it seems that the state legislatures intended to ratify the amendment as proposed by Congress. They understood themselves to be voting to approve the proposed Sixteenth Amendment. The text set forth in their instruments of ratification was for recitation purposes only. The errors in the text were not proposals to change the text being ratified; they were just inadvertent errors that do not detract from the intention of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment as proposed.
Benson denies this. He claims that states deliberately altered the text of the proposed amendment. But the evidence just isn't there. In one of his court filings, Benson singles out Oklahoma as a particularly clear case. He says the facts "unequivocally show that Oklahoma intentionally amended what the United States Congress had proposed" (see page 2 of Benson's filing). But looking at Benson's own book (pp. 61-67), one can see that the Oklahoma legislature adopted what it called "A resolution ratifying an amendment proposed by the sixty-first Congress of the United States" (emphasis added). This resolution then begins its ratification by reciting that "Whereas . . . Congress . . . on Monday the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine, by joint resolution proposed an amendment to the constitution of the United States, in words and figures as follows:" Then, it's true, the resolution misstates the text of the amendment (and pretty badly too). But it sure looks as though the Oklahoma legislators thought they were ratifying the amendment that Congress had proposed on the specified date and just misstated it. So even in a case that Benson himself singles out, it seems quite clear that the state legislature thought it was ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment, not proposing to change it.
Indeed, the states, when voting on a constitutional amendment, have no power to make changes to the amendment's text. They can only vote yes or no on the text that Congress has proposed to them. The stituation is not comparable to the passage of a bill through Congress, where either house can make amendments. Therefore, as the Solicitor of State noted, it "seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to ratify the amendment proposed by Congress."
Moreover, as the Solicitor noted, similar textual problems had occurred in the state ratifications of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and those amendments had long been regarded as ratified. The applicable precedents, therefore, suggest that, where a state legislature votes to ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution, minor textual errors in the recitation of the amendment in the state's instrument of ratification are to be disregarded.
Thus, it seems that the amendment really was ratified.
In addition, there is a strong argument that the declaration of the effectiveness of the amendment, made by Secretary of State Phliander Knox in 1913, must be considered definitive. The Secretary of State was at that time the government official charged with determining whether an amendment to the Constitution has been ratified (today it's the Archivist of the United States). The courts, although regarding themselves as empowered to determine the meaning of the Constitution and the laws, generally regard themselves as not competent to say what the definitive text of the Constitution and the laws is. When the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate certify that Congress has enacted a certain bill text into law, the courts will not question whether that really happened: they will not inquire into whether the House and the Senate really voted on the proper text. This is known as the "enrolled bill rule." Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that when the Secretary of State certifies that an amendment to the Constitution has been ratified, no court is empowered to look behind that claim to determine whether it was really ratified. E.g., Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). So whatever might have been the problem with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Secretary of State considered it and decided that the amendment really was ratified, and that's it.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Sixteenth Amendment has been around for nearly 100 years now and has been considered and applied by courts, including the Supreme Court, in innumerable cases. As one court put it, "While this alone is not sufficient to bar judicial inquiry, it is very persuasive on the question of validity." It would take an extraordinarily strong argument to show that everyone has been wrong all this time, and the argument from minor textual problems in the ratification instruments just isn't strong enough.
For all these reasons, it seems clear that the Sixteenth Amendment really is part of the Constitution.
Certainly that has been the uniform holding of the courts in cases in which this argument has been raised. For some representative cases, see United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991) (rejecting these arguments in a criminal case brought against the author of the "Law that Never Was" book); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986); Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1986) (calling the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified "frivolous" and imposing sanctions of $1,500 on the party making it); United States v. House, 617 F.Supp. 237, 238-39 (W.D. Mich.1985).
So while this argument is not as utterly absurd as most tax protestor arguments, one can be confident that it would not succeed in any actual court proceeding. |
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsie.../taxes/16th.htm |
|
|
| iTranscendence |
May be you missed the part where I said there were not enough states present in congress on that fateful Christmas eve.
But thanks for trying! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.
The silliest of the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories is that the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913 passed illegally. The constitution stipulates that both the House and the Senate must have at least half their members present, a quorum, to vote on any bill. According to this myth, the Senate voted on the Federal Reserve Act (known as the Currency Bill at the time) deviously in a late night session when most of its members had gone home or had left town for the holiday. This was done to impose the will of a pro-banker minority on the objecting majority. Since no quorum was present, the Federal Reserve Act is not valid.
This idea is better described as folklore than a full-blown conspiracy theory because I've never been able to find it in print, only on occasion on Usenet or in e-mail from readers. Gary Kah, author of En Route to Global Occupation, came close when he wrote that the bill's supporters waited until its opponents were out of town and it was passed under "suspicious circumstances" (Kah, p. 13-14). Nevertheless, the myth has no basis in fact. The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913.3 The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm.4
What of the missing Senators? Since there were 48 states in 1913, forty eight votes plus the tie-breaking vote of vice-President Thomas Marshall would have been sufficient to approve the bill even if all absent votes had been cast against the bill. However, many of the missing Senators had their positions recorded in the Congressional Record.1 Of the 27 votes not cast, there were 11 'yeas' (in favor of the bill) and 12 'nays.'1 Even if the absentee Senators had been there, the Currency Bill would have passed easily.
President Wilson signed the Currency Bill into law in an "enthusiastic" public ceremony on Dec. 23, 1913.4
References:
1. Congressional Record, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, Dec. 23, 1913, pp. 1487-1488.
2. Kah, Gary (1991), En Route to Global Occupation, Layfayette, La.: Huntington Press.
3. "Money bill goes to Wilson today," New York Times, pp. 1-3, Dec. 23, 1913.
4. "Wilson signs currency bill," New York Times, pp. 1-2, Dec. 24, 1913. |
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/f.../flaherty2.html
| quote: |
Myth: The 16th amendment, which grants Congress the power to collect taxes on income, was never lawfully added to the U.S. Constitution.
The power to collect taxes is present in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. In 1913, the 16th amendment was ratified, granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income so long as it was on a geographically uniform basis, but some tax protestors have claimed that the bill was never properly confirmed because the requisite three-quarters of states didn’t ratify the amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it was — in 1916. But that hasn’t stopped people from trying. In the last two years, federal courts have barred two people from selling tax fraud schemes that included an argument against the 16th Amendment. |
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-...ing-your-taxes/
| quote: |
Myth : The Sixteenth Amendment, which empowers Congress to impose an income tax, was never properly ratified, and so is not law.
Fact : The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by more than three-quarters of States, which is sufficient for ratification. And even before it was ratified, Congress had the power to impose an income tax; the first Federal income tax was imposed in 1861, and was ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 16th Amendment's purpose was to override an 1894 Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that taxes on income derived from property were Direct taxes in need of apportionment. |
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Tax_Protestor |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
May be you missed the part where I said there were not enough states present in congress on that fateful Christmas eve.
But thanks for trying! |
| quote: | On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution.[24]
Shortly thereafter, the Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[25] 1. Alabama (August 10, 1909) 2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910) 3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910) 4. Illinois (March 1, 1910) 5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910) 6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910) 7. Maryland (April 8, 1910) 8. Georgia (August 3, 1910) 9. Texas (August 16, 1910) 10. Ohio (January 19, 1911) 11. Idaho (January 20, 1911) 12. Oregon (January 23, 1911) 13. Washington (January 26, 1911) 14. Montana (January 27, 1911) 15. Indiana (January 30, 1911) 16. California (January 31, 1911) 17. Nevada (January 31, 1911) 18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911) 19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911) 20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911) 21. Colorado (February 15, 1911) 22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911) 23. Michigan (February 23, 1911) 24. Iowa (February 24, 1911) 25. Kansas (March 2, 1911) 26. Missouri (March 16, 1911) 27. Maine (March 31, 1911) 28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911) 29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment 30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911) 31. New York (July 12, 1911) 32. Arizona (April 3, 1912) 33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912) 34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912) 35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913) 36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing: 37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it: 1. Connecticut 2. Rhode Island 3. Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment: 1. Pennsylvania 2. Virginia 3. Florida |
|
|
|
| iTranscendence |
| quote: | Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above). |
|
|
|
| iTranscendence |
| quote: | Document 100.0.8.0 # 20 of 38 ...The 16th Amendment
was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
Note: As goes our nation in the push by the Socialist Council on Foreign
Relations, so goes the rest of the "free" world. The CFR through its
enforcement arm, the Communist United Nations, will eventually eliminate all
freedom in this world. Only you and I can stop it. Removing the funding
provided directly by the US Taxpayer (all of our income taxes go out of the
country) will be a huge blow to the Elitists who seek to be the world
dictator thru the UN.
{Philander Knox, Sec of State, 1909-1913, the Taft Administration,
proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left
office in 1913 {sound familiar?}, to make way for the Wilson administration,
even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.
Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest
men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, the Vanderbilts,
the Mellons, and others. He had created for them the largest cartel in the
world, then was appointed, at their request, as the Attorney General in the
McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman
anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.
The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson
Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and
namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox
had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
Kentucky as having approved it.
Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit
any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
approving the amendment.}
The following is copied directly from the USA Today, 23 March 2001, Friday
Edition. Page 8A and The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, March
26-April 1. It is sponsored by: We The People Foundation For Constitutional
Education, Inc., http://givemeliberty.org, E-mail: [email protected][/email]; Ph:
518-656-3578 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 518-656-3578 end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Fax: 518-656-9724. This is an ongoing educational process
appearing in this "newspaper" and the Washington Times Weekly National
Edition. I will use the symbols { } to indicate notes, etc that I may
insert. The Symbols ( ) and [ ] are used in the original articles
and will be shown here.
QUOTE:
Q: Do you have to file a federal tax return or pay an income tax?
A: These Experts say "NO"! [There are then the pictures of Bill Benson,
Author: "The Law that Never Was"; Larken Rose, Author: "Taxable Income";
John Kotmair, Founder and Fiduciary, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship and Liberty
Works Radio Network]..
Read the Facts and Judge the truth for yourself.
>The original Constitution prohibits the Congress from laying a DIRECT
(income) tax on the People unless it is in PROPORTION to the states (the
last cnesus).
>Our income tax conflicts with the original constitution: it is a DIRECT
tax (the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have declared it so) and
it has not been laid in PROPORTION to the states.
>The IRS {and that liberal biased authority on all things} (and the New
York Times) say our income tax, although DIRECT and UN-APPORTIONED, is
constitutional because the 16th amendment did away with the original
requirement that all DIRECT taxes must be in PROPORTION to the states.
>However, Bill Benson's research shows, conclusively, that the 16th (income
tax) amendment is a FRAUD.-it was fraudulently ratified.
>When Mr Benson took his charge of FRAUD to federal court, the court
declared that it was a political question for Congress to decide, (Editor's
note: since when if fraud a political question?)
>Even if the original constitution, or the constitution as amended by the
16th Amendment, authorized Congress to lay a DIRECT tax on all U. S.
Citizens, without APPORTIONMENT, Congress has not done so-Congress has yet
to pass a law that requires most Americans to file a tax return or to pay
income tax.
>The Current income tax law does NOT apply to most Americans. (Read More
Detailed Evidence at Our Website): http://www.givemeliberty.org
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
Bill Benson's research report, "The Law That never Was" is based on
thousands of court-certified documents from state and federal archives. It
proves conclusively the 16th (income tax) amendment to the Constitution in
1913 was fraudulently ratified.
His report says, in effect, that every individual in America can legally
ignore requirements of the Internal Revenue Code because it is well settled
in American Jurisprudence that any law which is {in} conflict with the
Constitution is abrogated, i.e., it is VOID and can be IGNORED by the
people.
Mr Benson, a former Criminal Investigator for the Illinois Department of
Revenue, has NOT filed federal or state tax returns or paid any federal or
state tax on his income since 1986. {I know of two people in Crystal
River-one has not paid for over 5 years with no action by the IRS except for
the first year, where he refused to pay an illegal tax, and theother person
who took the IRS to Civil Court 14 years ago, and after spending $13,000,
representing himself in court, won against the IRS when they could not prove
that he had violated any law, and there was no law that required him to pay
a tax on income}.
THE STATUTORY ARGUMENT.
Un-refuted research by Larkin Rose and John Kotmair, say in effect, that
EVEN IF the Constitution authorized and income tax, the current income tax
laws do NOT APPLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE most U. S. Citizens to pay any taxes on
income.
Mr Rose has not filed federal or state income tax returns or paid income
taxes since 1996. Mr Kotmair has not filed federal or state income tax
returns or paid income taxes since 1973.
Q: Does the constitution prohibit a non-apportioned direct tax on the
People?
A: Yes! Here is what the original constitution says: "No capitation, or
other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or
enumeration herein before directed to be taken." See Article I, Section 9,
Clause 4.
Q: Is the individual income tax a direct tax? A: Yes. According to the
courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court as declared the tax to be a direct tax: "A proper
regard for its [the 16th Amendment's] genesis, as well as its very clear
language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose
construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those
provisions of the Constitution that require and apportionment according to
population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal." See
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/...ol=252&page=189
" Eisnery Macomber, (1920), 252 U.S. 189,206, 40 S.ct.189. Editor's
note: Wages and Salaries are property. See: Sims v U.S. (1959), 359 U.S.
108.
The Federal Appeals Courts have declared The Income Tax to Be a Direct Tax.
"The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct
tax be apportioned among the states...The sixteenth amendment was enacted
for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax." See Parker v.
Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 5th Cir. 1984).
The court held that an argument that the income tax was an excise tax was
frivolous on its face. The court declared: "The power thus long predates the
Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment
requirement". See Coleman v. Commission, 791 f.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986).
The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a
direct tax...", See United States v. Francisco, 614 f.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir.
1980).
"The sixteenth amendment remove any need to apportion income taxes among
the states that otherwise have been required by Article I, Section 9, Clause
4." See United States v. Lawson, 670 F,2d 923, 927 (10th Cir, 1982).
STATE COURTS HAVE DECLARED THE INCOME TAX TO BE A DIRECT TAX.
Editor's note: For a full discussion see: "Long after Brushaber vs. U. P.
Railroad and Stanton vs Baltic Mining, the courts have declared the income
tax to be a direct tax." This article can be found on our web site. Special
thanks to constitutional attorney Larry Becraft upon whose research our
article is based.
Q. Is the individual income tax imposed "in proportion to the census."
A. NO! It is not "in proportion to the census."
The individual income tax is not tied to the population, state-by-state.
Notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition found in Article I, Section
9, Clause 4, the income tax it is not apportioned among the states.
Congress does not reqire each state to tax their citizens to collect the
money the federal government says it needs, {that is so that they can keep
buying votes, spending money on bridges we don't need, donating 31 million
to The Washington Post for PR favors, and all the crap they waste money on}
over and above what it collects under the taxing authority granted to it
under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (indirect taxes, excise,
tariffs, duties and imposts).
Q. How can there be a direct, un-apportioned individual income tax in
America if the original constitution prohibits it?
A. The government relies upon the validity of the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution as its authority to impose the current, direct, un-apportioned
individual income tax.
The 16th Amendment reads: "The congress shall have power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among
the several states, and without regard to any census enumeration." The IRS
says it is the 16th Amendment that gives it the authority to impose the
income tax directly on the working people of America. The IRS is on record
as saying; "The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution states that citizens
are required to file tax returns and pay taxes." IRS Publication 1918 (July
96, Cat No 22524B. No less an authority than the New York Times {Ha, Ha,
Ha, yeah sure} says the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to
impose tax directly on the working people of America. The New York Times
says: "Congress's right to levy taxes on the income of individuals and
corporations was contested throughout the 19th century, but that authority
was written into the Constitution with the passage of the 16th Amendment in
1913." The New York Times Almanac; 2001, The World's Most Comprehensive and
Authoritative Almanac {snicker, snicker, yawn} page 161.
While refusing to address the question of its fraudulent adoption, the
federal courts have said the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to
impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. For
instance Judge Paul G Hatfield, (United States District Court For the
District of Montana) wrote: "The income tax laws of the United States of
America are constitutional, having been validly enacted under the authority
of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "See United
States of America vs Jerome David Pederson, (1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF. In
the United States v. Lawson the court declared: "The Sixteenth Amendment
removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise
would have been required by Article I, Section 9, Clause 4." See United
States vs Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 927 (10th Cir. 1982).
However, Bill Benson's research report documents that the 16th Amendment
was not ratified by the states and is a fraud. Bill Benson's findings,
published in "The Law That Never Was", make a compelling case that the 16th
Amendment (the income tax amendment) was not legally ratified and that
Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed
fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. For a discussion of
Philander Knox and his motives for fraudulently declaring the 16th Amendment
ratified, see: "Who was Philander Knox? Is it credible that he could have
committed fraud?" Which can be found on our web site. {He did commit fraud
because he did it to curry favor with the Morgans, Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, Mellons, {the cartel that he created} who subsequently hired
him}..
PROOF THAT STATES DID NOT RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT.
In 1909, Congress passed the proposed 16th Amendment. It was sent to the
states for ratification by the state legislatures. There were 48 states.
Three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order
for it to be ratified.
Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified onFebruary 25, 1913, just a few
days before leaving office. He counted 38 states as having approved it.
>Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature rejected the amendment 33-9, but Knox
counted it as having passed 22-9.
>Oklahoma: Oklahoma voted for the amendment but changed the wording to mean
the opposite of the proposed amendment-even though a memo from chief legal
counsel Reuben Clark warned that states were not allowed to change the
proposed amendment.
>Tennessee: Tennessee violated its own state constitution when they failed
to delay the amendment vote until a new state legislature was elected. The
obvious reason for this state constitutional clause was to ensure that the
People of Tennessee would have direct political input on the federal
constitutional amendment process. Tennessee also violated their own state
constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as
prescribed by Article II, Section 28.
THESE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS MAKE THEIR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT
NULL AND VOID.
>Texas and Louisiana: Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their
states constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the
federal government with any additional taxing authority.
NOW THE NUMBER IS DOWN TO 33.
Twelve other states violated provisions in their State Constitutions,
bringing the number down to 21. Further evidence in Mr Benson's research
report make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number to 21,
fifteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest for the
purposes of this article. For a more detailed state-by-state account, to:
"How some States Failed to Ratify The Sixteenth Amendment", which is located
on our web site. Special thanks to Bill Benson, upon whose research our
article is based.
THE CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE PLAYED "GOVERNMENTAL PING-PONG WITH MR
BENSON'S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE 16TH AMENDMENT.
In 1985, Mr Benson asked a federal court to declare the 16th amendment to
be null and void because it was fraudulently ratified. The court, instead
ruled the question to be a political question for the Congress to decide,
{well we know how our bloodsucking tax and spend congress looks at losing
any tax money to spend on those damned giveaways of our money and mine.
CLMsr} it said: "[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th
Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question becaue
we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without
expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of Government..."{my
question is how in hell can anyone respect our branches of government and
those leeches we have elected to office if they continue to allow this to go
one? CLMsr.} See U.S. v. Stahl (197\86), 792 F2nd 1438. Mr Benson then
pesonally delivered a copy of his voluminous research report to each and
every member of Congress. In response, the Congressional Research Service
immediately issued a report, which declared that the CRS was not going to
address the factual allegations of Mr Benson's report and that the question
of the fraudulent adoption of the 16th Amendment was a question for the
Courts. (Now we see the ping-pong buck passing exercise the government
agencies are so very adept at. CLMsr.) For a copy of the CRS report, which
was written by a CRS attorney (Ripy), go to or Web Site.
Mr Benson has concluded that the 16th Amendment can be ignored, that
Congress's power to lay a DIRECT (income) tax on the People is, limited by
the original Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4), and that because
the income tax has not been laid in proportion to the states he has a
fundamental right to ignore the income tax laws. He has not filed an income
tax return or paid income tax since 1986.
REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES OF THE CURRENT INCOME TAX LAW,
THE TAX LAW AS WRITTEN DOES NOT APPLY TO MOST AMERICANS LIVING AND WORKING
IN THE UNITED STATES. Some evidence:
1..Sections 1461 and 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC")
establish that the only person made liable to withhold and pay the income
tax is a withholding agent, who is any person required to withhold under
sections 1441-1443, which pertain only to nonresident aliens and foreign
entities.
2..Look in the IRC index under "income tax" to cross-reference with
"citizen" or "citizenship". There are only two entries: one for citizens
departing the U.S. and the other for citizens living abroad. But if one
cross-references "income tax" with "aliens", there are several PAGES of
entries, most of them under subcategory "nonresident alien" where we find
all the familiar terms, such as "deductions", "exemptions," "gross income",
and "withholding". Careless indexing? Ask your tax professional.
3..Form 1040 has never been authorized by the Office of Management and
Budget ("OMB") to be used under Section 1 of the IRC. The only form ever
approved for use under Section 1 is Form 2555, titled "Foreign Earned
Income."
4..A statement of citizenship, in duplicate, from a worker has always
served to relieve an employer of duty to withhold income taxes from ANY
worker's pay, under Section 1.1441-5, and Publication # 515 (wording was
altered in 1999 to disguise the provision).
5..The Internal Revenue Manual instructs the employees of the IRS that the
Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the International
Branch of the IRS and is only authorized to enforce criminal statutes
applicable to taxes for U. S. Citizens residing in foreign countries and
nonresident aliens required to file federal income tax.
6..IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil
enforcement under subtitle E (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms), not under
subtitle A (income taxes). Among assertions by former IRS agents is that
virtually everything a revenue officer does is outside the Law.
7..Code section 6020(b), invoked by the IRS when it assesses income tax on
individuals who have not filed a 1040, does not authorize them to assess
income tax on individuals. Delegation Orders from the Commission to IRS
employees authorizing them to execute returns for persons required to file,
but who didn't, do not include Forms 1040 or 2555 on the list of authorized
returns.
8..Regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
{another damned Gestapo agency. CLMsr.}. and not the IRS.
9..Social Security officials confirmed that there is no law that requires a
citizen to get a social security number, for an employer to get an employer
identification number, or for either of them to participate in social
security and pay employment taxes under subtitle C, unless they want to
participate in the Social Security program. No law requires an employer to
insist on getting a W-4 from a worker, nor for a worker to fill it out.
Without a social security number, a worker can have no taxable income,
according to the Social Security Administration. On 2/20/01, in an EEOC
case in the Norfolk area, a worker prevailed in a Title VII Civil Rights
action after being fired for not providing a social security number, when
the employer only needed to notify the IRS that it had requested one. You
can see a copy of the letter from the SSA on our web site.
10.IRC Section 3402 imposes withholding only upon "wages" as defined
exclusively at Sections 3401(a) and 3401(a)(8)(A), which reveals the
remuneration paid to U.S. Citizens living and working in the U.S. is
excepted from the definition of "wages" that are subject to withholding
under Section 3402. The only way it can be "wages" is under IRC Section 911,
i.e., remuneration in U. S. possessions.
11.IRC Section 3403 indemnifies and protects employers from liability for
the withheld remuneration only if it is "wages" under Section 3401(a).
12.Senator {Daniel K} Inoye {of Hawaii}, in a letter responding to an
inquiry to a constituent who was a tax consultant, stated, "Based on
research performed by the Congressional Research Service, {Remember Ms Karen
Thurman, Democrat Rep, 5th Dist, Florida, this is the same CRS that just
this year-2001, told you just the opposite which you relayed to me by
letter?}, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally
requires an individual to pay income taxes." {Ms Thurman,}You can see a copy
of this letter and comments on our website. {Now this is very interesting,
because when I queried my state representative, a Democrat, Ms Karen
Thurman, she sent back a response that said that the Congressional Research
Services says it is a valid tax and I sure had better pay it. It looks as if
the CRS gives the answer that is expected of them. CLMsr}
13.The definition of "gross income," found in IRC 61 and 26 CFR1.61-1(a)
defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived, unless
excluded by law." IRC 61 defines gross income as "all income from whatever
source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1)
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and
similar items: (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived
from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7)
Dividends; (8) Alimony;...(15) Income from an interest in an estate or
trust. Tax researchers have discovered that "items" of income in IRC 61 are
not the same as "sources" of income. CFR 1.861-1 says: "Section 861 et
seq...and the regulations thereunder, determine the sources of income for
purposes of the income." The specific sources listed in CFR 1.861-8(f)(1).
They are: (1) over-all limitation to foreign tax credit; (2) international
and foreign sales corporations; (3) non-resident alien individuals and
foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the U. S.;
(4)foreign base company income; and (5)a list of fifteen other operative
section-all foreign. All this lead to the conclusion that the term "gross
income" does not apply to the income of most citizens but to the incomes of
nonresident aliens and U.S. citizens earning money abroad, a conclusion no
longer very surprising after considering all the other evidence presented
above. Editor's note: This "861 Sources" argument is a very potent but
complex legal argument. For a FREE detailed discussion of this argument, see
our website article, "GROSS INCOME AND SECTIONS 861: TAX RESEARCHERS
PERSPECTIVE AND EXPLANATION IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS." Special thanks to Larken Rose and John Kotmair.
WHAT IF?
What if individuals were to stop filing and paying the income tax and
employers were to stop withholding the tax from the paychecks fo their
employees and there was not federal tax to take the place of the individual
income tax? Would we be able to "fix the bridges and maintain a strong
national defense?" Would we be able to avoid "chaos"? Would we be a
stronger nation? Is a mechanism in place that would allow a peaceful and
smooth transition from a society with an individual income tax to a society
without one? {most people don't know that all of the income taxes they pay
goes to the bankers that make up the FED, all members of the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. None of it goes to pay for
the "services" we get from the federal govt. CLMsr}
THE ANSWER TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS IS A RESOUNDING "YES".
Here we are in the year 2001, and the federal government is preparing to
adopt the federal budget for the next fiscal year. Let's assume that the
Congress will come to the conclusion that it wants two trillion dollars in
tax revenue next year. Let's also assume that Congress expects one trillion
dollars to come from the taxes already in place and authorized by Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution (excise taxes, tariffs, duties, and imposts),
and that those tax revenues were sufficient (as is the case today) to
maintain a strong defense and to pay for the other federal programs needed
and authorized by the enumerated powers found in Article I. That leaves one
trillion dollars to come from someplace else to pay for everything else
Congress wants to do. Assuming Congress decides not to increase the Article
I, Section 8 taxes, Congress would have to get the other trillion dollars by
taxing the People under the authority granted by Article I, Section 9 of the
Constitution-i.e., by laying a direct tax on the people, a tax that would
have to be PROPORTIONED AMONG THE STATES. This means Congress would have to
pass a bill and the President would have to sign the bill into law,
requiring the states to come up with the money Congress wanted. To be
constitutional, the bill would have to proportion the one trillion dollars
among the 50 states, based on the population figures of the last census.
This is the mechanism that has been in place since 1787, and which could
very easily work today.
Of course, with this approach to funding the federal government, there
would be a dramatic shift in power away from the federal
government to the States and to the People. {members of congress are so
entrenched, so self-serving, so dedicated to tax and spend, so destructive
of our Constitution, about the only way we could make this work would be to
eliminate about half of them. That way the other half would get the message
and return this nation to We The People...maybe..CLMsr}.
It can safely be assumed that if given the choice, the States will use
their power to influence the federal government not to adopt the law
requiring the states to come up with the trillion dollars, deciding,
instead, that they, the states don't need the middle man-i.e., that they
will fund the development of communities of their states, and that they will
fund the education of the children of their states, without also funding the
huge {bloated, conceited, leeches. CLMsr} bureaucracies in DC.
{snip of non-essential comments}.
Freedom is not a spectator sport. These ads costs tens of thousands of
dollars. If you want to see more of these PLEASE HELP. If every concerned
citizen could contribute just a few dollars we can reach millions and end
this tyranny. Donations are: Confidential, protected by a bonded CPA firm,
and {ironic isn't it.CLMsr}, are tax deductible {to the extent of the law.
CLMsr}. Address: 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York, 12804. WEBSITE:
www.givemeliberty.org. Wire transfers: We The People Account #324220020998,
ABA route # 021300077. Buy reprints of this ad in full size & color at:
$50.00 for 500. Ph: 518-656-3578 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 518-656-3578 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.
{snip of material related and dated to things that happened on 23 March 2001
deleted now as past tense. CLMsr}
This message is part of Project TOTO, a plan to educate millions of
citizens (along with accountants, tax attorneys, legislators, judges, IRS
employees, and prospective jurors) about the true nature of the income tax
laws, to expose operations of the IRS that are unauthorized by law, and to
put an end to their illegal collection of taxes from people who do not owe
them. Jefferson said it best: "When the government fears the people, you
will have liberty. When the people fear the government, you will have
tyranny." {Hey People, what do we gave NOW? CLMsr.} Sponsored by We The
People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., 2458 Ridge Road,
Queensbury, NY. 12804. www.givemeliberty.org E-mail: [email][email protected]
Fax: 518-656-9724. EndQuote.
{I certify that the afore quoted dialogue is an exact copy of the articles
that appeared in the newspapers identified at the onset of this discussion,
except that underlining was left out, and notes of mine indicated by { } are
included.}
Constitutional Limitations on Taxing Power.
In order to understand why paying income tax and filing tax forms are
voluntary actions for individuals, it is essential to understand the
limitations on federal taxation embodied in the United States Constitution.
The statesmen who wrote the Constitution were fully aware of the dangers to
liberty in allowing a central government to impose taxes directly upon
individuals or upon property.
The framers of the Constitution included not one, but two limitations in
the Constitution that forbid the federal government to impose any direct
taxes upon individuals or upon property. All direct taxes are required to be
"apportioned," which means that they must be laid upon the state governments
in proportion to each states population. Another words, if one person owes
$10, all persons owe $10 not $10,000 or $100,000.
The limitations forbidding direct taxation of individuals are found first
in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which states: "Representatives and direct
Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." and again in
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which states: "No Capitation, or other
direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration
here in before directed to be taken." These basic sections of the
Constitution have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still
forbids direct taxation of individuals and property.
In the past, America prospered and became the greatest and richest country
in the world when individuals paid no income tax and governments revenues
were raised by constitutionally authorized taxes on certain goods and
services and on corporations. But now, money is taken from the productive
sector of society by the income tax to support the non-productive sector,
foreign aid, give-aways and a bloated, needless bureaucracy. The income tax
paid by citizens sharply reduces their earnings, thus they buy less, causing
business to decline, leading to unemployment and depression which lowers the
standard of living for all Americans. The income tax has created havoc in
America's economy, in addition to the loss of liberty and the harassment of
our people by the IRS's oppressive collection tactics. The collection of
the income tax enforced by fear and intimidation, it is as un-American as
the origin of the income tax itself.
A graduated income tax is the second plank of Karl Marx Communist
Manifesto. Deceiving citizens into voluntarily subjecting themselves to a
tax they do not owe is FRAUD. And when individuals who do voluntarily
subject themselves to the income (excise) tax by filing returns, have
assessments of tax laid on them directly by the IRS, it is a blatant
violation of the constitutional limitation forbidding the direct taxation of
individuals. If the IRS then confiscates the individuals wages or property
by levy and seizure to settle the unconstitutionally laid tax claims, the
action is pure theft under color of law.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was written to
create a government of limited powers for the primary purpose of securing
citizens rights to life, liberty and property. The Declaration of
Independence states that it is the duty of citizens to oppose and resist
abuses of their rights. These violations of citizens rights can be stopped
if enough people become informed of these facts.
The Constitution is a precious document of our heritage of freedom. Its
guarantees of liberty are only as effective as the will of the people to
enforce them.
Your labor is your property. Knowledge will give you the power to protect
and enjoy all the fruits of your labors.
Make no mistake what the founding fathers would do today if they were
serving in Congress. Impeachment proceedings would begin this very day and
continue night and day. Those not impeached would be hanged for treason.
Wake Up America!!!!!!!!!!!! Today, the Congress and the President, and the
entire judicial system is a disgrace to our country. |
|
|
|
| EddieZilker |
Hate to interrupt your own self-induced, self-owning melt-down, but copying and pasting a bunch of no one is going to bother to sift through to determine that your arguments are correct is next to ******** in terms of uselessness.
At best it is compositional word salad. Just skimming it proves there's content only remotely pertinent to the discussion. Of course what it does prove is that you're at your wits end and over your head, in terms of being able to carry on even a rational dialog, let alone one replete with the utter petulance you've shown yourself remedially capable of since this abortion of a thread was born. It's the typical tactic I've seen, time and time, again; that when fringe wing-nuts are pressed on an issue they can't back up, they refer to walls of text, authored by someone else, they've only skimmed through enough to confirm their own biases without being able to even remotely understand the nature of what they're referring to.
Here's a little word game in which each arrangement of the syllables below into a contiguous sentence cannot possibly be wrong. It will be about the only thing you can't possibly up while providing you with a life affirming suggestion along with endless hours of entertainment:
Post
Ing
Your
Self
And
Stop
Go |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
ing hilarious. He’ll quote nonsense forever and ignore the Supreme Court’s decisions, as if anything else matters. The SC determine what’s constitutional, not some idiot author, ROFL.
Once again for those in the cheap seats! :haha:
| quote: |
In the last two years, federal courts have barred two people from selling tax fraud schemes that included an argument against the 16th Amendment. |
|
|
|
| iTranscendence |
Wall of text from Wiki receives wall of text about what a philanderer Philander was.
The amendment did not have constitutional due process, and other violations in enough states that were counted, to outstrip even the ones that had not yet been counted.
You fail, again, at proving anything ausfag.
I also have a word game for you Eddie.
See if you can figure it out what is says.
Suck
a
Lincoln
log
from
Amy
Winehouse's
ass |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
iTranscendence, could you explain why you put more stock in the views returned in random google searches than the decisions of the united states supreme court? im really curious why you insist on ignoring the fact that the court has repeatedly ruled that the 16th amendment is part of the constitution, and those that have attempted to argue such have been repeatedly fined or imprisoned for tax evasion?
why do you feel they (the US SC) repeatedly get it wrong?
with regards to your original point (re the Fed), how do you explain the congressional record which clearly shows
| quote: | | The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913.3 The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm. |
did someone doctor the records? |
|
|
|
|
