HARD TIMES, Part 10
"If the foundations be destroyed, what will the righteous do? . . . The LORD tries the righteous but hates the wicked and the lover of violence. Upon the wicked, He shall rain snares, fire and brimstone and a horrible tempest. This shall be the portion in his cup." - Psalm 11:3, 5, 6
In this series of articles, we have been discussing certain events of an economic nature, some of which have transpired already and some still future, that are designed to eliminate the Ďmiddle classí in America through taxation, inflation and military conquest. In so doing, I hope to touch on the following issues and possible courses of action available to us.
INFLATION - THE COMING CURRENCY SHORTAGE - ELECTRONIC MONEY - NEW KINDS OF WEALTH - REASON FOR THE ASIAN BANKING CRISIS - THE REAL REASON FOR Y2K SCARE - CAPITAL FLIGHT & SEVERE PENALTIES
TAXATION - REASON FOR THE SAVINGS & LOAN SCANDAL - THE ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF ASSETS, HOMES, RIVERS & WILDERNESS AREAS - THE NEXT MASSIVE TAX LEVY - TAX HAVENS - OFF SHORE BANKING - TRUSTS - FOUNDATIONS - BEST PLACES TO HIDE ASSETS - FORMATION OF SMALL CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITIES - BARTER EXCHANGES - E-GOLD
INVASION OF PRIVACY - NATIONAL I. D. DRIVERS LICENSE - NEW DEFINITIONS OF ĎTERRORIST GROUPSí - NATIONAL DATA BASE FOR ALL WORKING AMERICANS - NATIONAL DATA BASE FOR MEDICAL RECORDS - DANGEROUS NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS - GUN CONFISCATION - COMING OF U. N. PEACE KEEPERS TO AMERICA - AND MUCH MORE.
To date, we have examined many of the above issues. At this point, we need to come back to the subject of Income Taxes, the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the mechanics of escaping the Infernal Revenuers.1.
BILL TO TERMINATE THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Friends, are you aware that a Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to end the income tax, and that it actually PASSED IN JULY 1998 ?105th CONGRESS
1st SessionH. R. 2490
To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 17, 1997
Mr. LARGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means A BILL
To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.
No tax shall be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001, and
(2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 2. STRUCTURE OF NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.
The Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should be a simple and fair system that--
(1) applies a low rate to all Americans,
(2) requires a supermajority of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes,
(3) provides tax relief for working Americans,
(4) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection abuses,
(5) eliminates the bias against savings and investment,
(6) promotes economic growth and job creation,
(7) does not penalize marriage or families, and
(8) protects the integrity of Social Security and Medicare.
A REMONSTRANCE DELIVERED TO THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ON APRIL 13, 2000
Moreover, did your T.V. News reporter advise you that a powerful remonstrance was delivered to the three branches of our government on April 13, 2000, by a group of citizen-delegates representing all 50 states. These grievances concern alleged illegal operations of the federal income tax system and the IRS? Itís three major points were as follows:
∑ MOST CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN
∑ THE 16TH ("INCOME TAX") AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS A FRAUD
∑ IF YOU FILE, YOU WAIVE YOUR 5th AMENDMENT RIGHTS The Remonstrance was signed by thousands of citizens, and was delivered as part of an event sponsored by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to research and education in matters of taxation & governance.THE MAIN PROPOSITIONS OF THE REMONSTRANCE ARE:
1) The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states.
The Courts have refused to hear this issue. "[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government...." U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 14382) Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary, because there is no statute or regulation that requires the vast majority of U.S. citizens to file and pay income taxes -- or to have taxes withheld from
the money they earn. Neither the IRS nor the Congress can cite an authorizing law or regulation.
3) Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against themselves. You can be criminally prosecuted for your "voluntary" return.Having seen the Bill that passed the House of Representatives and the Remonstrance that was delivered by our fellow citizens, we must ask ourselves why the Senate did not pass its version of the same legislation. Could it be that they have a vested interest in not passing such legislation? Where would they get the funds for their own retirement plans?
The following item comes from Chris Hansen, So that any who do not know, may know -
"Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security, and, of course, they don't collect from it. The reason is that they have a special retirement plan that they voted for themselves many years ago. For all practical purposes, it works like this:
"When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die, except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living adjustments. For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw $7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.
"This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman. This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money.
"While we who pay for it all, draw an average of $1000/month from Social Security. Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable that people would have extra deducted so that they could increase their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that Railroad employees, Postal workers, and others who aren't in it, would clamor to get in. "That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change
were made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us. Then watch how fast they fix it. If enough people have this page mailed to them, maybe one or some of them along the way, might be able to help. How many can YOU mail this page to?"
THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IN OUR FAVOR
Actually, the Court has already ruled that Government officials (and this includes Senators) must be bound by the same laws that affect the private citizens: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously".
"[...Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example...] Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the
end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. - [Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
When I was a young man, Gus Hall, head of the Communist Party in the U. S. is reported to have made the statement that he could not wait for the day to come, when he would see the last U. S. Senator strangled with the guts of the last Baptist preacher. Well, just a few more port barrel funds for Senators, whose salaries have far out paced the cost of living index and Mr Hall will see his dreams come true.
IS THE I. R. S. COLLECTING TAXES UNLAWFULLY?
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-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, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes." You may find a copy of this letter and comments on the WTPF Website.
How can there be a direct, unapportioned individual income tax in the United States if the original Constitution prohibits it? The government relies upon the validity of the 16th Amendment as its authority to impose the current, direct, unapportioned, individual income tax.
The IRS says the 16th Amendment gives it the authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. The IRS is on record as saying: "The 16th Amendment to the Constitution states that citizens are required to file tax returns and pay taxes." [See IRS Publication No. 1918 (July, 96), Cat. No. 22524B.]
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 or enumeration."
Friends, our fore-fathers were totally against any idea of a direct tax upon the people of the several States. When they drew up the U.S. Constitution, they specifically forbade Congress from levying such a tax, unless it was in proportion to the states (the most recent census). The Constitution reads: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." - Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared the income tax to be a direct tax: "A proper regard for [the 16th Amendmentís] 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 in-
come, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal" [Eisner v. Macomber, (1920), 252 U.S. 189, 206; 40 S.Ct. 189]. Note that the courts have held that wages and salaries are property [see Sims v. U.S., (1959), 359 U.S. 108].
Federal appeals courts also declared that the income tax is a direct tax. For example, the 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have declared: "The 16th Amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states. . . . The 16th Amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax" [Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984)].
The 7th Circuit held that an argument that the income tax was an excise (indirect) tax was frivolous on its face. The court declared: "The power
thus long predates the 16th Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement" [Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986)].
WAS THE 16TH AMENDMENT EVER RATIFIED?
Not withstanding the courts, a research report by William Benson documents that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the states and is a fraud. Bensonís 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.
The fact is many state legislatures violated their state constitutions in ratifying the amendment, and many other states ratified differently worded versions of the amendment, thereby voiding their amendment votes. In Kentucky, for example, the state legislature voted 22 to 9 against the amendment, yet Knox counted Kentucky as having passed it. In Oklahoma, the legislature approved an amendment with significantly different wording. And Ohio was not even a state. For a detailed state-by-state account, see Bensonís Website at www.16thamendment.com
For a discussion of Knox and his motives for fraudulently declaring the 16th Amendment ratified, see: "Who Was Philander Knox? Is It Credible That He Would Have Committed Fraud?" which can be found on the We the People Foundation (WTPF) Website (www.givemeliberty.org).
Congress and the courts have played "governmental Ping-Pong" with Bensonís constitutional challenge to the 16th Amendment. In 1985, Benson asked a federal court to declare the 16th Amendment null and void because it was fraudulently ratified. The court, instead, ruled it a political question for Congress to decide. It said, "[Defendant] Stahlís claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government" [U.S. v. Stahl (1986), 792 F2nd 1438].
Benson then personally delivered a copy of his voluminous research report to each member of Congress. In response, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) immediately issued a report which declared that it was not going to address the factual allegations of Bensonís report and that the question of the fraudulent adoption of the 16th Amendment was a question for the courts.
Benson has concluded that the 16th Amendment can be ignored and that Congressí power to lay a direct (income) tax on the people is, therefore, limited by the original Constitution. He also has concluded that because the income tax is not laid in proportion to the states, the IRS has no legal authority to collect an income tax from him ó i.e., it is well-settled in American jurisprudence that a law, such as the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), that is violative of the prohibitions of the Constitution is abrogated (null and void) and can be ignored. He has not filed an income-tax return or paid income tax on his earnings since 1986.
IS THE PAYMENT OF FEDERAL TAXES VOLUNTARY OR NOT?
There is a Supreme Court Ruling--a decision of the Highest Court in the land, that applies to both ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT as being VOLUNTARY! It states:"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."Chief Justice Earl Warren, Flora v. U.S., 362 US 145, at 176.
William E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol, Tobacco Division of IRS stated:"Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply."
Former Congressman, George Hansen, had this to say about the voluntary income tax:"The IRS tabby cat, created to collect taxes in a system of voluntary compliance, has grown into a full sized sabre-toothed tiger."
Did you know... that ALL the monies accompanying the FORM 1040 Returns are deposited into Trust Fund #62, in Puerto Rico? Did you know that this Trust Fund was, in fact, formed by 8 private world banksters who created the Federal Reserve System? Why does the money go to the Federal Reserve? On Jan. 15, 1984, the Grace Commission (a private sector, blue ribbon committee)
was impaneled by President Ronald Reagan to find ways to cut government spending. They found this to be the case....."100 percent of what is collected is absorbed SOLELY by interest on the Federal Debt.... all individual Income Tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the service taxpayers EXPECT FROM GOVERNMENT."
This money actually goes to pay interest on our DEBT to the Federal Reserve! In other words, the TRUE PURPOSE OF THE INCOME TAX is to maintain economic control. By siphoning off excess dollars from circulation, the inflation - perhaps even the hyperinflation - that would ordinarily result from issuing too much paper money can be masked........... THIS IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME TAX!
And did you know that the Federal Reserve formed the IRS to act as their collection agency? Did you know that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned FOR-PROFIT corporation? The Federal Reserve System is part of an international banking cartel, and that it is NOT in any way part of our Federal Government? It is no more "FEDERAL" than the SHIPPING COMPANY----FEDERAL EXPRESS!
God bless you and yours, Jeffrey Brackeen
_________________________________________________________Discover our other web site devoted to Spiritual and Social Issues. Go to__________________________________________________________
Post A Comment On This Article | Tell A Friend | Past Issues: www.theseventhtrumpet.com