5-10-04
 

We Are Proven Right,
The Government Is Wrong


New Damning Tax Research Released
Appropriate Next Steps Announced


 

Our War Powers Petition for Redress

How right we were in the fall of 2002, when we formally served every member of Congress and the President with a Petition for Redress asking for answers to 23 questions regarding the War Powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution. Click here to view (and sign) the Petition for Redress of grievances.

If only the government had honored the Petition Clause by acting on our War Powers Petition: there would have been a Committee review of the Petition, leading to a full congressional debate on the President’s call for an invasion of Iraq, followed by an up or down vote on a declaration of war.

More than likely, there would NOT have been a decision to go to war against Iraq because the Executive would NOT have been able to prove its claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program and was linked to 9-11 and al ‘ Queda. More than likely, cooler heads in Congress would have prevailed, leaving it up to the people of Iraq, not America, to rid the world of one of its dictators.

For the reason that we are still engaged in hostilities in Iraq without a declaration of war, and the expectation that there will likely be future attempts to apply the armed forces of the United States in hostilities overseas without a declaration of war, we must continue the Petition process, including enforcement through “No Answers, No Taxes.”

 

Our Income Tax Petition for Redress

How right we were in April of 2002, and in November of 2002, when we formally served the President and every member of Congress with a Petition for Redress asking for answers to questions regarding the tax clauses of the Constitution and the federal “income” tax system. Click here to view (and sign) the Petition for Redress of Grievances.

The most damning documentary evidence to date has now been compiled in two new research reports that demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that the government has been acting ultra vires (i.e., without bona fide authority), in forcing ordinary Americans to file and pay an un-apportioned, direct tax on their salaries, wages and compensation, and that the government has known since 1916 that it lacks the legal authority to do so but has gone right on doing it anyway.

 

The Hart Report

The first of the two new research reports was completed by Phil Hart and is titled, “Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any?

According to Mr. Hart’s exhaustive research and arguments, not a bit, not a whit, of American history recorded at the time of the adoption of the taxing clauses of the Constitution, including the 16th Amendment, offers a scintilla of evidence in support of the Executive’s position that the government has the authority to force people to work for -- to be employed by -- the government. There is no evidence to support the Executive’s position that the government has the authority to force People who work for a living to turn over to the IRS an amount of their wages, much less the authority to force companies to withhold and turn over to the IRS any amount of a worker’s wage.

The Hart report demonstrates there is absolutely no foundation to the position of the Executive branch (the Treasury Department, the IRS and the Department of Justice) that wages and salaries EQUALS taxable “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, or that an individual’s wages, received in direct exchange for his labor, equals income and is, therefore, taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment.

On the other hand, the report proves beyond a shadow of doubt what “income” means within the meaning of the 16th Amendment -- that a corporation may derive “income” from labor, as that corporation utilizes labor in pursuit of profits, and that such corporate income is taxable. Likewise, a person or a corporation may derive “income” from investments in stocks and bonds or real estate, and that such (passive) income is taxable.


 

The CD-ROM Report

The second new research report, by a highly experienced and credentialed tax professional, who wishes to remain anonymous, is entitled, “Analysis of the Federal Income Tax Laws.”

The report is extraordinary in terms of the story told and the sheer volume of relevant, supporting evidence. The researcher has done a superb job of organizing the data and in structuring the report. The report is approximately 400 Megabytes in length. The full report, with supporting documents has been published on-line and is also available for a nominal donation through our on-line store on CD-ROM. Note: By request of the researcher, ALL donations for copies of this research are being donated to the Dick Simkanin Legal Defense Fund.

According to the report, in 1913, just months after the purported ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress attempted to stretch the meaning of the legal term “income” beyond the meaning and intent of the framers of the 16th Amendment, as recorded in EVERY official and professional document of the era: congressional record, congressional reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.

In the Income Tax Act of 1913, Congress surreptitiously, by stealth and without authority, included an un-apportioned, direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans and instituted withholding at the source.

However, in 1916, as Mr. Hart’s report demonstrates, the Supreme Court brought the devilish action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.

As the research documents, Congress was then forced to amend the Income Tax Act, to remove salaries, wages and compensation from the definition of taxable income, to outlaw the withholding of wages from the paychecks of citizens and to direct the Executive Department to refund all wages withheld. All this, of course was done to bring the law into compliance with Brushaber.

What the research by anonymous also shows, however, was the dark side of the government – the reluctance of Congress to give up the tax potential of an un-apportioned, direct tax on labor (and the power and control that tax-money brings), and Congress’ willingness to deliberately obfuscate the law in order to perpetuate a fraud on the American people.

Clearly, as Phil Hart’s research demonstrates so well, the Supreme Court's decision in Brushaber substantially affected the government’s interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the fundamental law, and “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply. The Brushaber Court specifically concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation, meaning direct taxes fell outside of the meaning of the 16th Amendment and still had to satisfy the fundamental criteria of apportionment.

As the anonymous research clearly proves, the Brushaber decision prompted Congress to revise the 1913 Act, and via Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917), Congress declared that the "income" subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. However, Congress did not go any further. What was the purpose of this change in the language, and by extension, its legal effect?

CONGRESS PURPOSELY AND DECEITFULLY DID NOT EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MEANT BY SECTION 25.

One theory of the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Act is based on LOCATION, that Section 25 removed the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans living and working at home, leaving the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of non-resident aliens and American citizens living and working abroad.

This, it is argued by anonymous, is the reason that not a single federal income tax act since 1916 has ever mentioned the imposition of an un-apportioned direct “income” tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of citizens "at home," although the same acts repeatedly mention citizens abroad and particularly those in the insular possessions.

Evidence of this solely external, “locational” application of the un-apportioned direct “income tax” on salaries, wages and compensation is demonstrated by the report in several ways. First, the research shows the IRS Commissioner has been delegated via Treasury Delegation Orders (TDO), published in the Federal Register, authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation only in the area external to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union. If the Commissioner has been delegated authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation in the area internal to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union, that authority has not been published in the Federal Register and is a secret, so it could not concern American citizens "at home," without violating their due process Rights.

Further, while federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers, the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency's field structure that affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home.

But perhaps the most compelling proof of the “locational” application of the federal income tax, according to the research report, is derived from analysis of the IRS' compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The federal “income” tax is purportedly imposed via Section 1 of the IRC. But the "information collection request" applicable to the Subtitle A income tax is NOT as one would expect -- Form 1040, but rather Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income." Further as shown by the OMB control number assigned to 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-3, the specific tax return required to be filed at service centers is Form 1040NR. And a "TIN" can only be obtained by a non-resident alien, according to Form W-7.

Another theory of the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Act is that Congress was forced by Brushaber to classify people, distinguishing between aliens and citizens, imposing no un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they live and work, but authorizing an un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation on resident aliens working here and on employees of the federal government who voluntarily agreed to labor for the government.

Countering the “location” theory and in support of this “classification” theory is the argument that the fundamental law prohibits the imposition of an un-apportioned tax directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they may be living and working, and there is no Supreme Court ruling that an un-apportioned tax can be imposed directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens living and working abroad.

If only the government had honored the Petition Clause and shown respect for the People by acting on our Income Tax Petition: there would by now have been a Committee review of the Petition, leading to a full congressional debate on the legality of the operation present income tax system.

More than likely there would have been a decision to abrogate the current, un-apportioned, direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation because of its repugnancy to the Constitution. More than likely there would have been a decision to direct the Treasury Department, the IRS and the DOJ to stop enforcing the direct tax on labor. More than likely, there would have been a decision to adopt federal tax and monetary policies and programs more consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. More than likely, the case against Dick Simkanin would have been dismissed.

 

Conduct Owed

Many times, before and after reaching the age of 18, we have pledged allegiance to the Republic. On more than one occasion, many of us have also taken an oath to defend the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic.

We are duty bound; those were not empty words.

We have a moral, if not a legal obligation to follow a certain line of conduct. We have a duty to perform -- conduct owed.

The power of a moral obligation is a binding power.

When faced with unconstitutional and illegal behavior by people in our government, our duty is not to hesitate, stammer, stutter or waver, throwing into doubt our pledge, our oath or our determination to protect the Constitution, for we are indebted to the Creator, and to others who came before us, for a service received.

Our Petitions are prayers and supplications for Rights, not favors.

 

The Appropriate Next Steps

What started out in May of 1999, as a simple, straightforward request of the government for answers to legitimate questions regarding the origin and operation of the “income” tax system, has developed into an epic struggle of historical and legendary proportions.

Throughout the struggle, the free People have been taking appropriate next steps following inappropriate responses from the government. Always before the People has been the question, “What must a free people do when they have evidence the government is operating outside the boundaries drawn around its power by the written Constitution and will not justify its behavior?”

Today, letters have been sent to President Bush, Senator Kerry, Treasury Secretary Snow, Attorney General Ashcroft and IRS Commissioner Everson. (ed note: Links to the attachments are below)

Each official is presented with the substance of the most damning evidence to date demonstrating that the government is acting ultra vires (without bona fide authority), in forcing ordinary Americans to file and pay an un-apportioned, direct tax on their salaries, wages and compensation, and forcing American companies to withhold and turn over to the IRS a percentage of the earnings of those American citizens.

Each is requested to send a representative to a WTP sponsored public forum at the National Press Club on July 19, 2004, to answer a limited number of questions aimed at finally settling the grievances of the People regarding the Executive branch’s operation and enforcement of the “income” tax.

Thirty-eight questions are aimed at reconciling the difference between the Supreme Court’s definition of taxable “income” and that of the Executive branch. Five questions are aimed at reconciling the differences between Congressional mandates regarding taxable “income” and the behavior of the Treasury Department and the IRS.

President Bush and Senator Kerry are also asked to have representatives answer our questions in the War Powers Petition for Redress.

To be sure, without an emphatic demand, the government will not respond, much less relinquish the powers that it has unconstitutionally seized from the People. Therefore, the letters includes a forcible, earnest demand.

Each of the five officials is advised that should the July 19 symposium be as fruitless as prior opportunities presented to the Executive and Legislative branches to properly respond to our Petitions for Redress, it will be necessary to immediately motion the Court for an order to expedite the Right To Petition lawsuit and to temporarily and preliminarily prohibit and enjoin the IRS and DOJ from taking any further enforcement actions against companies and individuals for failure to withhold or failure to file and pay the “income” tax, until the court determines these underlying questions.

To prevail against the motion, the government will have to show that a balancing of the equities argues against the injunctive relief and that the government will likely prevail on the merits of the underlying issues.

Each of the officials is advised that this is the most appropriate next step in the People’s on-going, non-violent process of Petitioning for Redress of Grievances.

 

Need to Persuade Opinion Leaders to Join With Us

Of course, it is necessary that this final installment of evidence and questions be officially presented to the government.  It is necessary that we create one last record demonstrating that the People know what the government has known for 88 years.  If the government chooses not to respond to this, we cannot imagine more damning evidence of outright tyranny -- to say nothing of just plain immoral, despicable human indifference and arrogance. 

The level of evidence, now presented in succinct and powerful form, should be used to persuade influential Americans to step forward publicly and join the defense of the Petition clause, and our demand for answers to very troubling questions about the tax and war making power of the government. 

This evidence should be used to stir those constitutional scholars in academia and think tanks who have been expressing concern that since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have been eliminating clause after clause that interfered with the exercise of government power. We need their support and their amicus briefs.

This evidence should also be used to persuade people from disparate activist movements all across the entire political spectrum to join with us and demand answers to the Petitions for Redress. The education of these groups and people with regard to the Petitioning process and underlying issues will take time and convincing -- we need to start now. 

With the latest research, we now have the income tax issue evidence in a neat, comprehensible package that focuses on the key legal questions of what is being taxed and by whose “authority” is it being enforced.

Although by unfortunate circumstances, we also seem to have already won our point regarding the abuse of the war powers clauses of the Constitution. Now we need to have President Bush and Senator Kerry answer our questions in order to help insure that a decision to apply the armed forces of the United States in hostilities overseas will never again rest with one man, but will be the result of a full and open debates on the floor of Congress and a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

We have to network with people who may not agree with or fully understand us, or our grand agenda for freedom. They will need to be shown and come to learn that the "Petition for Redress of Grievance" process is not only in their immediate selfish interest, but is fundamental in salvaging our waning Republic and insuring the continuity of our liberty.

We all need to spend the time between now and July 19 meeting with individuals and groups, including law professors, newspaper and magazine reporters and editors and other opinion leaders, to explain the nature and importance of our Petitions for Redress and the rationale for the events scheduled for this summer, and to persuade People to publicly declare that they join the demand for answers to the Petitions for Redress.

We are preparing a Power Point presentation to assist you in getting the message across to people. We are developing a schedule of speaking appearances by WTP leaders at every level and across the country. Everyone is encouraged to spread the message.

With divine Providence on our side the time to act is now upon us. Our cause is just, our conduct owed to a higher Purpose. With devotion and commitment to Duty, Honor and Country we will now prepare for the significant confrontation in July and the days that will follow.


Click here
for a copy of the letter to President Bush and Senator Kerry.

Click here for a copy of the letter to Treasury Secretary Snow and Attorney General Ashcroft.
 

Attachment #1 is a discussion of the compelling research report by Phil Hart, “Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any?” showing that ordinary wages and salaries cannot be considered “income” within its Constitutional meaning, thereby rebutting any claim by the IRS or DOJ that the 16th Amendment provides the legal authority to enforce the income tax laws upon everyday working Americans.  (Attachment #1 included a copy of the full research report.)

Click here for Attachment #1 to the letter to Snow and Ashcroft
Overview    Discussion of Findings   Research Report


Attachment #2 is the comprehensive research compendium, “Analysis of the Federal Income Tax Law.” This brilliant research report was compiled by a credentialed tax professional who wishes to remain anonymous, and proves the Treasury Department, the IRS and DOJ have been ignoring the Supreme Court and congressional mandates since the Brushaber decision in 1916, in order to perpetuate the “income” tax fraud initiated in 1913.

Click here for Attachment #2 to the letter to Snow and Ashcroft –
Overview    Research Report + On-line Evidence Compendium     FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
 


 
Click Here to obtain a copy of Hart's research report which was included as part of
Attachment #1 sent to government officials:

 www.constitutionalincome.com
  Click Here to obtain a copy of the extensive  Attachment #2 Research and Evidence
on CD-ROM
as it was sent to Government officials

Note: By request of the researcher, ALL donations for copies of this research are being donated to the Dick Simkanin Legal Defense Fund.


FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
   
 
Now Shipping!



Order Your Copy Now!
Give Me Liberty 2004

The Historic 3-Day WTP Conference
to Restore Constitutional Order
and Reclaim Freedom

The most impressive gathering of
Constitutionalist voices ever.

Attorneys, legal scholars, authors, columnists, commentators, activists & leaders all seeking one objective:
FREEDOM

26+ Hours of Compelling, Must-See Freedom Video. Insight. Action. Strategies. Truth. Law.

40 Nationally-Renowned Speakers

6 Panel Discussions on an array of Constitutional abuses and how to save the Constitution

Professionally produced, edited and packaged.
Full sets or segments available On (8) CD-ROMs or on VHS 
Shipping Immediately


Dr. Alan Keyes


Bay Buchanan


Hutton Gibson

                 
Joseph Sobran        Joseph Farah            Aaron Russo

All these Freedom Defenders --- PLUS 34 More!