NOTE: This OVERVIEW was extracted from the full "Attachment #1".
Click to access the primary research portion of the actual attachment.


This document, together with the research report entitled “Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any?
(copy attached) comprise Attachment #1 to the letter, dated May 10, 2004, from Robert L. Schulz to Treasury Secretary John Snow and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

This Attachment provides irrefutable evidence in support of the People’s proposition that the Executive has been deliberately and fraudulently taxing the People’s labor in a way that violates the fundamental law and Supreme Court rulings. The Executive is clearly prohibited from doing what it is doing – directly taxing the salaries, wages and compensation of the working men and women of this country and forcing the business entities that utilize the labor of ordinary American citizens to withhold and turn over to the IRS a part of the earnings of those workers.

Central to this discussion is the Constitutional, legal definition of the word “income,” determined by a thorough review and analysis of the intent of the framers and Supreme Court rulings.

At the end of POINT FIVE there are 38 questions regarding the constitutional meaning of “income,” questions the People demand be answered on July 19, 2004, in a recorded public forum at the National Press Club in Washington DC. 1 The questions are aimed at reconciling the difference between the Supreme Court’s explicit definition of “income” and that utilized by the Executive branch in its enforcement of the so-called “income tax”.

This Attachment is to be read together with Attachment #2. At the end of Attachment #2 are several other questions aimed at reconciling the significant differences between Congressional mandates regarding the taxing of “income” and the current law enforcement practices of the Department of Justice and the IRS.


Income” Cannot Mean “Wages”

Hard documentary evidence from U.S. Supreme Court rulings and well-known scholarly works conclusively establish that the word “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment does not, and cannot, include the “wages” or “salaries” of ordinary American workers.

In fact, this new research conclusively proves that the word “income,” when used in its Constitutional context, cannot possibly be utilized to impose ANY non-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans.

The precision and clarity of these historical documents, comprehensively researched here for the first time, leaves no room but to conclude that relative to taxing “incomes” our Government has known of the true Constitutional limitations of its taxing authority for decades but has continued to allow and facilitate the enforcement of income tax laws against American workers since 1916 without bona fide legal or Constitutional authority.

The Primary Points:

POINT 1:  The Constitution's taxing clauses prohibit a non-apportioned, direct tax on wages and salaries.

POINT 2:  The Government has NO documented evidence to support its assertion that the 16th Amendment gives it the authority to tax wages or salaries. The Government may be able to tax corporate profits or gains that are DERIVED from labor, but the Government cannot directly tax labor itself.

POINT 3:  The People cannot grant any Government an authority to forcibly seize the labor of another Citizen, because the People, individually or collectively, DO NOT possess that power themselves. The Right to the fruit of one's Labor is an unalienable Right that may not be taxed. To do so is slavery.

POINT 4:  Although difficult to comprehend, NOWHERE in U.S. tax law does it explicitly assert that the wages or salaries of ordinary Americans are directly taxable. Although this mistaken belief is widespread and taken as “gospel” by the public, the government CANNOT and HAS NEVER produced any statute so stating, because any such statute would be void, and unconstitutional on its face. This is why the government REFUSES TO ANSWER.

POINT 5:  Despite the Due Process Right of a criminal defendant to do so, and despite the fact that one's duties and obligations under the LAW ITSELF are the only issue at trials dealing with the internal revenue laws, federal judges routinely prohibit any discussion of the Constitution or U.S. tax law in criminal tax trials. As a result, the defendants are denied the ability to defend themselves and juries are being denied the ability to examine, as factual evidence, the law the defendant has allegedly violated.

As such, the questions concerning application of the law and prosecution of alleged violations of such laws are left entirely to those in power that directly benefit from those mysterious, phantom-like laws. In short, the tyranny of the judiciary has removed any “check and balance” in the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Thousands of innocent Americans are in prison because defendants and juries have been denied their Rights.

NOTE: This OVERVIEW was extracted from the actual "Attachment #1".

To continue, Click Here to access the detailed discussion of Hart's research from Attachment #1.

Click Here to obtain the full research report, "Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any?"

1 The 38 questions are derived from the list of 537 questions contained in our Petition for Redress regarding the operation and enforcement of the federal “income” tax system.