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.
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 |
| |
|
|
|
