- New Release
-
- We The People Foundation For
- Constitutional Education, Inc.
- 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
- Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
- acta@capital.net www.givemeliberty.org
- Contact Bob Schulz 518 656-3578
-
-
- Full Page Ad in USA Today on March 23, 2001 Presents
More Evidence That the IRS is Collecting Taxes Without Legal Authority
-
- Please note 2 very important news items covered in the
ad:
-
- 1) On Monday, April 9th at 10 a.m., WTP is conducting
a public "walk-around" of the IRS Headquarters complex in Washington,
D.C. to 2) At least 1040 Citizens are needed to encircle the IRS headquarters
wearing blue colored windbreakers embossed with "TRT" and "Tyranny
Response Team". Please see <www.givemeliberty.org for more details.
-
-
- Listen to Tax Truth Day on <www.LibertyWorksRadio.com
-
- All Day Friday, March 23, 2001 . 6 AM - 6 PM Eastern
Time One listen will change your life. Twelve hours of the facts... Twelve
hours of the truth about the income tax.
-
- Bob Schulz of We The People and John Kotmair of Save-A-Patriot
Fellowship as well as Ex-IRS agents, business owners and every-day Americans
share why April fifteenth is likely meaningless to you.
-
- Call toll-free (888) 999-1787 to have your questions
answered.
-
- Below is the text version of the full-page USA Today
Weekend Edition ad appearing on Friday, March 23, 2001:
-
-
- Dear We The People
-
- Q: Do You Have To File A Federal Tax Return 0r Pay An
Income Tax? A: THESE EXPERTS SAY "NO"!
-
- Photos here: Bill Benson; Larken Rose and John Kotmair
-
- 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 census).
-
- * 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 the New York Times) say our income tax,
although DIRECT and UNAPPORTIONED, 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 is fraud a political question?).
-
- * The Congressional Research Service immediately declared
Benson's charge of FRAUD to be a question for the courts.
-
- * 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: 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 the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code
because it is well settled in American Jurisprudence that any law which
is 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.
-
-
- THE STATUTORY ARGUMENT
-
- Unrefuted research by Larkin Rose and John Kotmair say,
in effect, that EVEN IF the Constitution authorized an income tax, the
current income tax laws do NOT APPLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE most U.S. citizens
to pay any taxes on their 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 ?
-
- 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 Has 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 an
apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real
and personal." See Eisner v. Macomber, (1920), 252 U.S. 189, 206,
40 S.Ct. 189. Editor's note: Wages & 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 income 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 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. Commissioner, 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 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 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 require each state to tax their citizens
to collect the money the federal government says it needs, over and above
what it collects under the taxing authority granted to it under Article
I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution (indirect taxes: excise, tariffs,
duties and imposts)
-
- Q: HOW CAN THERE BE A DIRECT, UNAPPORTIONED 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,
UNAPPORTIONED, 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 or 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 No. 1918 (July, 96), Cat. No. 22524B.
-
- No less an authority than the New York Times says the
16th Amendment is the government's authority to impose the income 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,
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
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 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 v. 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 Would Have Committed Fraud?"
which can be found on our web site.
-
- 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 on February
25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office. He counted 38 states as
having approved it.
-
- Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature REJECTED the amendment
22-9, 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 insure 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 18. These state constitutional
violations make their approval of the amendment null and void.
-
- Texas and Louisiana: 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 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 down 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, go 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. It said, "[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...."
See U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2nd 1438.
-
- Mr. Benson then personally 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. For a copy of the CRS report, which was
written by a CRS attorney (Ripy), go to our 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, therefore, 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 Commissioner
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, not the IRS.
-
- 9. 9. Social Security officials have 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
that 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 Inouye, 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 can see a copy of this letter and comments on our website.
-
- 13. The definition of "gross income," found
in IRC 61 and 26 CFR 1.61. CFR 1.61-1(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 orized 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 the 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.
-
- It can be safely 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
they will fund the education of the children of their states, without also
funding the huge bureaucracies in DC.
-
- APRIL 9TH: IRS WALK-AROUND. BE THERE
-
- What must a free people do when faced with a government
that has stepped outside the Law and the Constitution? At 10 a.m. on Monday,
April 9th, we will hold a peaceful "walk-around" of the IRS building
in Washington, D.C. Your participation is required to send the message
that the People will no longer tolerate the illegal operations of the IRS.
Please see our website at www.givemeliberty.org for more information on
times, agenda, hotel, etc.
-
- Freedom is NOT a spectator sport.
-
- These ads cost 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 are tax deductible.
-
- ADDRESS: 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
WEBSITE: www.givemeliberty.org WIRE TRANSFER: We The People Account # 324220020998,
ABA route No. 021300077 BUY REPRINTS OF THIS AD: $50 for 500. Full-size,
in color. PHONE: (518) 656-3578
-
- Tax Truth Day on www.LibertyWorksRadio.com Friday, March
23, 2001 . 6 AM - 6 PM Eastern Time One listen will change your life. Twelve
hours of the facts...twelve hours of the truth about the income tax.
-
- Bob Schulz of We The People and John Kotmair of Save-A-Patriot
Fellowship as well as Ex-IRS agents, business owners and every-day Americans
share why April fifteenth is likely meaningless to you.
-
- Listen to "http://www.LibertyWorksRadio.com/"
or call toll-free (888) 999-1787 to have your question[s] answered. You
won't believe what you will hear.
-
-
- 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 have liberty. When the people fear the government,
you have tyranny." Sponsored by We The People Foundation For Constitutional
Education, Inc., 2458 Ridge Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804, www.givemeliberty.org
-
- Comment
-
-
- We the People
From Linn Ciesla
3-26-1
-
- Hi Jeff -
-
- Toward the end of the Illegal Income Tax article posted
on your site today:
-
- "DONATIONS are: Confidential, protected by a bonded
CPA firm, and are tax deductible."
-
- Isn't it a little ironic that they exhort us not to pay
taxes, and then remind us that our contributions to their cause will be
tax deductible?
-
- I wish these guys would spend a lot less space (and money)
justifying WHY the income tax is illegal (I think most of us realize that
on some level), and focus more on HOW we can do something concrete about
it. Other than sending them our tax- deductible contributions!
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|