Change the whole monetary odious and old system as wrong.
Given the People's concerns about the purchasing power of the US dollar, their interest in a secure local money system with an inflation proof local currency, and the States of New Hampshire ( ready to quit the private FED $ because they control a too private dollar, sic. ) and Nevada's recent monetary initiatives in addition to other concerned Americans actions, phone calls, mails..., the supporters of the a better economy invite you to stop now the FED, IRS and most of the banks destroying America ( millions of jobs destroyed without any dividend ).
We demand that:
1) No more bailouts to the people creating the problems. The United States Congress immediately stop the Federal Reserve System ( FED) bailouts to all US and foreign banks and restore all money creation without interest to Congress as mandated clearly in the U. S. Constitution. No more credit creation from any private banks out of nothing but costing us a lot too much in interest and crises.
Apply the spirit of the bill and the Kennedy's E.O. cited here below.
2) Stop the IRS as illegal and unconstitutional. http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
3) Give a dividend as big as possible to all americans to speed recovery of everybody.
Please, sign it now and forward the link to all your mailing lists.
The world is already better thanks to you and your friends.
USA are borrowing nearly all their own $ at huge revolving costs from the FED, a private company (sic) since 1913 creating the same $ out of nothing, with us and our belongings as collaterals...The curve is quite flat at the beginning, but then becomes steeper as time goes on. The debts of most countries follow the same pattern, and are increasing in the same way, exponential...an other form of voracious usury killing the weakest all over the world...
The young people want
The young people desire a new financial system; they wish to profit from the fruits of the rich heritage of the real wealth that was given to them by past generations. The heritage of indebtedness that the old financial system has loaded onto their backs does not interest them.
Louis-Marie Roy, 24 years old, is the son of Robert Roy, a sculptor and Pilgrim of St. Michael from St. Jean-Port-Joli, Que. At his employment, Louis-Marie took courses to obtain a college certificate in supervision. The professor asked his students to write an essay on automation. Louis-Marie wrote the following text, and received the mark of 5/5.
by Louis-Marie Roy
Nowadays, new technology is present more and more in industry. But too often, the replacement of man by the machine brings discontent among the persons who are replaced. The introduction of a machine means the loss of jobs. Those who are laid off say, “How will I get the products made by the machine, as I do not receive a wage?” But this reflection is due to looking at the problem from the wrong direction.
The replacement of man by the machine in production should be an enrichment, which delivers man from worries that are purely material, and would permit him to do other activities. Let us say, for example, that I spend about thirty minutes a day washing dishes after meals. If, one day, I decide to buy a dishwasher, I would not worry about what I would do with that extra thirty minutes. No, I know what I would do with my free time. If, on the contrary, the replacement of man by a machine is the cause of worries and privation, it is simply because we refuse to adapt our primitive financial system to this progress.
Why is the present financial system primitive and outdated? To explain it, I will make a simple comparison.
Imagine a primitive world without any technology, where the strength of each and every person is required to produce the goods necessary for the welfare of each person. In this world, a financial system like the present one, where the remuneration is directly related to employment, is justifiable because all the members of this society receive a wage for their work, and it permits them to procure the goods they produce.
On the other hand, imagine a world (fictitious, but possible just the same) where a person would not need to work to produce the necessary goods for the welfare of another, a world where the machine, and only the machine, is capable of furnishing goods. This world, even if it is fictitious, is very desirable. All men would be free and able to do the activity that they prefer without the worry of production. But in this world, the remuneration would be distributed in ways other than in the form of a salary, because man would not participate in production. The remuneration would be distributed in an equitable way in the form of a dividend. This dividend would be justifiable because technology is a common heritage.
No one can deny that technology is a human heritage that belongs to each and every person, because it is the past generations that brought us this technology, which should be at the service of man, and not man at its service. It is a heritage for us, in the same way as solar energy, the formidable power of the waterways that provide us with hydro-electronic dams, the power of the wind, the soil that furnishes us with an abundance of fruits and vegetables, et cetera, are.
Because we live in a world where technology and human effort unite forces in the production of goods, it is desirable that man be paid, in part, with a salary for his efforts in the process of production, and the other part with a dividend for the effort of technology and the machine.
Some will ask: “But who will pay for this dividend?” This dividend should be provided by our governments, and not by our taxes. The Government should take back its right to create the money necessary for the smooth running of the economy; to create money instead of borrowing it with interest from the private banks. Borrowing at interest only has the effect of creating an unpayable debt, because the Government must return more money than it borrowed from the banks.
The public debt in Canada has risen today to over five-hundred billion. Yet, today, Canada is without a doubt richer in goods than it was before the arrival of the first European settlers about four-hundred years ago. After these valiant people planted the cross in the soil, they began to develop Canada. And after them, their successors for three centuries improved the agriculture, made roads, bridges, and industries, All of this lineage of workers should certainly ot have left Canadians to live in the twentieth century with only a heritage of debts. . .
It is the primitive and dishonest financial system that we need to correct and adapt to technology. Then we could applaud the arrival of automation in our industry, instead of complaining about it.
Louis Marie Roy
This article was published in the January-February, 2004 issue of “Michael”.
Please, see and read if necessary to inform you.
If you need more informations...( pardon our language ).
Below is quote from Representative Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency for 12 years as quoted from the Congressional Record
The Federal Reserve Board, ..., has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt...Our people's money to the extend of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks...............
SUMMARY OF QUICK FACTS
1a. The Federal Reserve (FED) is a PRIVATELY OWNED, organization. Unbelievable? Check the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.
b. Below is the list of the owners of the 12 Central Banks:
- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Schs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
In all, there are about 300 VERY POWERFUL, partly foreign individuals that owns the FED.
2. Although the FED is required to give back most of its PROFITS back to the Treasury Dept., there is NO ORGANIZATION that has the power to AUDIT the FED (not even the Congress or the IRS). This creates a HUGE opportunity for "creative accounting" to hide the profit that ROBS the US Tax Payers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars annually.
3. Every year, a few Congressmen introduced a legislation to AUDIT the FED, and every year, the legislation is defeated. The owners of the FED is the most powerful, invisible lobbying power there is.
4. The owners of the FED own the controlling interests in ALL major media in the US. Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan bank, controls CBS and ABC and 28 other broadcasting firms. Each of the other owners of the FED also have controlling interest in the US media. This explain why the media have
been silent about the FED scam. The FED fraud is the biggest and longest cover-up in the US today.
5. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Congress has the power to print money (The Congress shall have the power...to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, ..). According to the Supreme Court, the Congress can not transfer its power to other organization like the FED.
HISTORY OF THE FED
After several attempts to push the Federal Reserve Banking Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. In 1913, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas, when most Congressmen were on vacation. Naturally, president Wilson passed the Act when he was elected as a pay back to the bankers.
HOW THE OWNERS OF THE FED PROFIT AT OUR EXPENSE
The US goverment runs a $400 billion deficit annually. To cover this, the US goverment issues bonds which are bought by the FED.
Since the FED has the POWER TO PRINT MONEY, it can buy any amount of the US. Government bonds at almost NO COST, save for the expense of printing money (~3 cents/$100).
At this point, the owners of the FED already profit $99.97 for every 3c they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them with the US Government Bonds.
Since the FED can NOT be AUDITTED by the IRS (or even by Congress), most of this profit can go anywhere the FED owners want to. BTW, did I mention that the profit is TAX-FREE?
After buying the bonds, the owner of the FED can either:
1. Keep the bonds, and collect the interest the US Government now OWES them.
2. Sell the bonds to the US Tax Payers or foreigners.
In either case, the FED owners have profitted $99.97 for every 3 cents it invested to print the money. Remember, the FED is a PRIVATELY OWNED corporation, just like the Federal Express. The profit of the FED goes to the FED owners.
The US Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember that the FED owners DO NOT EARN the bonds. They simply PRINT the money to buy the bonds. In other words, they created money out of thin air, and exchange it for the interest bearing bonds.
In order to pay for the bonds' interest, the US Government taxes the US population.
When a US Citizen holding US Government bonds receives his/her return of investment on the bonds, essentially the money he/she receives is the tax money he/she is paying to the Government.
When the OWNERS of the FED receives the interest on the BONDS they're holding, they are receiving that money for FREE (save the initial 3cent/$100 investment to print the money)! Not only that, the FED owners receive the money TAX FREE.
Under the LAW, the FED is REQUIRED to RETURN its PROFIT back to the US Treasury. However, NEITHER the Congress NOR the IRS have the POWER to AUDIT the FED. The FED has used this obvious loophole to profit via 'creative accounting'.
Consider this: every year, the FED profits by hundreds of billions of dollars by buying US Government Bonds. Yet it only returns ~$20 billion to the US Treasury. The rest of the profit has been spent as "Operational Expenses".
The FED expects us to believe that the FED operational expenses amounts to $100's billion dollars annually!!!
The truth is, those profits were spent as "DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS"!!!!
Year after year, the FED owners bleed the US Tax Payer dry by hundreds of billions of dollars. Keep this going, and the US will go bankrupt in a few more years. Small wonder why the National Debt is increasing at its current rate.
WHY THE FED SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
1. The US Congress has the option to buy back the FED at $450 millions (per Congressional Records).
When the Congress does this, it will own back the billions of US Government Bonds held by the FED.
The US Government will actually PROFIT by buying back the FED! Also, the US government no longer has to pay interests to the FED owners on those bonds.
2. Through their ownerships in the FED, FOREIGN POWERS CAN and WILL influence the US economy. By controlling our interest rates and money supply, they can actually create economic disaster in the US, should the US disagree with them.
3. Although the FED directors must be confirmed by the Senate, the awesome lobbying power of the FED owners makes this process meaningless. The owners of the FED can and will put whoever they wish in the position.
4. Abolishing the FED will lead to lower inflation. At this moment, the FED prints as much money as needed to buy the US Government Bonds. Since the FED prints this MONEY out of THIN AIR, this leads to an INCREASE of MONEY SUPPLY, WITHOUT increase in GOODS/SERVICES. This, as all of us know it, leads to INFLAFION.
If the general public buy those bonds with money that they EARNED by providing GOODS/SERVICES, the money supply level is contant in relation to the goods/services level. Thus, there is no inflationary pressure from selling these bonds.
5. Abolishing the FED will reduce the national debt level. By buying back the FED at $450 millions, the US Government will buy back the billions of dollars of bonds held by the FED. Thus, the net effect is a reduction in national debt. After buying back the FED, the US Government does not have to pay interest on those bonds it buys back, further reducing the national debt.
6. Abolishing the FED will lead to eventual balance budget. Today, even if the US Economy only grows by a meager 2%/yr, the US Government should be able to put 2% of US-GDP dollars into circulation WITHOUT INFLATION.
Consider, if the goods/services grow by 2% and the money supply grows by 2%, the ratio of goods/services vs. money supply remains constant. Thus, no inflation is created.
The government can use this extra money supply to fund its project without raising taxes.
As long as the government does not print money more than the goods and services available in the US, there will be no inflationary pressures.
This had in fact been done with Executive Order 11110 of President Kennedy. Kennedy ordered the Treasury Dept. to print a US GOVERNMENT NOTES (vs. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES). In effect, Kennedy bypassed the FED by making the Treasury Department printed REAL US MONEY, instead of selling bonds to the FED for almost free.
The sad fact is, the US Government does not do this anymore. Instead, the US Government sell bonds to the FED, which buys those bonds using money they don't earn. Thus, the US Government must now pay interest on those money that it "borrows" from the FED.
7. By point (6) above, the US Government can actually reduce taxes on everybody since it has more interest free money to spent in the amount equal to the growth of the US GDP. KEEP IN MIND,
THIS MONEY WILL NOT CAUSE INFLATION, since the money is printed along with the growth of the goods and services.
What you can do to save the United States of America
The FED should either be AUDITTED every year, or be abolished. I have done my part providing this information. It is up to you to decide the future of the US economy. Please do the followings:
1. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!!
If everything that I wrote here sounds too far fetched to be true, I challenge everyone of you to do your own research, and see for yourself.
- Encyclopaedia Britannica.
- Congressional Record
- "The Federal Reserve Bank" by H.S. Kenan
- "Repeal the Federal Reserve Bank" by Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut
- "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Mullins
when you are sure about the facts,
2. Call your Congressman and tell him to support the legislation to AUDIT the FED.
3. Call your representatives and ask them to support legislation introduced by Congressman Henry Gonzales to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
4. Push for your home states to introduce and pass a legislation to end the FED scam. The following states have already done so:
Arizona, Washington, Arkansas, Idaho, Oregon, Indiana, and Texas.
Even if you live in these states, contact your representatives and tell them to support the legislation. THEY WILL LISTEN if you care to TELL THEM!!!
5. Ask your STATE and COUNTY government to abolish the FED. Since the FED is CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL, it MUST be abolished. Ask your state/county governments for the proper paperworks.
If the US Congress refuses to abolish the FED, your STATE/COUNTY governments can do it.
6. Collect signature on petitions calling for the end of the FED.
7. Tell friends and family about this fraud, and ask them for supports. Secrecy is the FED's main strength. Since the media has been quiet, no one even notice this FRAUD that goes on for decades.
Now it is up to the tax payer to be informed. Inform everyone you know about this, and be organized!!!
8. Contact "America Betrayed",
Center for Action,
652 N. Glenview,
Nesa, AZ 85213
What to do immediately, asap, vix...
9. Contact "National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act",
P.O. Box 1205, Middleburg, IL60599
10. This article maybe reproduced and distributed freely WITHOUT changes.
Apply the Goldsborough bill of 1932
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that the average purchasing power of the dollar as ascertained by the Department of Labor in the wholesale commodity markets for the period covering the years xxxx and yyyy inclusive shall be restored and maintained by the control of the volume of credit and currency....Passage of this 97-word bill by the House of Representatives last week caused intense financial excitement abroad.
and the Executive Order 11110 given by J-F Kennedy still valid, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gives the President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an interest and debt-free money. He can still print United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve banks being privates ( who owns them now, who is behind all those heavy curtains ? ), they have to be nationalized, one for each state of America, belonging to the people, not to the individual member banks.
The power to create money has to be removed from private banks by abolishing fractional reserves – the mechanism through which the banking system creates money out of thin air through credit at cost of interest. So the plan called for 100% reserves on checking accounts which simply meant banks would be warehousing and transferring the money and charging fees for their services.
If really those $ 700 billions have to be created, then distribute them as dividends without the cost of interests, to all families, as a social credit, foster family welfare, education and health, not wars and terrorism.
This will give a real solution and an example to the whole world. Change the corrupt system, stop "creation of money out of nothing as credits with interests" given to the bankers. They have abused of it, give it back to the citizens, locally, through the families.
Goldsborough bill of 1932, was described by an author as a "Social Credit bill" and "the closest near-miss monetary reform for the establishment of a real sound money system in the United States":
"An overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress (289 to 60) favored it as early as 1932, and in one form or another it has persisted since. Only the futile hope that a confident new President (Roosevelt) could restore prosperity without abandoning the credit-money system America had inherited kept Social Credit from becoming the law of the land. By 1936, when the New Deal (Roosevelt's solution) had proved incapable of dealing effectively with the Depression, the proponents of Social Credit were back again in strength. The last significant effort to gain its adoption came in 1938." (W.E. Turner, Stable Money, p. 167.)
Even the dividend and the compensated discount, two essential parts of Social Credit, were mentioned in this bill, which was the "Goldsborough bill", after the Democratic Representative of Maryland, T. Allan Goldsborough, who presented it in the House for the first time on May 2, 1932.
Two persons who supported the bill especially hold our attention: Robert L. Owen, Senator of Oklahoma from 1907 to 1925 (a national bank director for 46 years), and Charles G. Binderup, Representative of Nebraska. Owen published an article, in March of 1936, in J. J. Harpell's publication, "The Instructor", of which Louis Even was the assistant editor. As for Binderup, he gave several speeches on radio in the USA during the Depression, explaining the damaging effects of the control of credit by private interests.
Robert Owen testified in the House, April 28, 1936: "...the bill which he (Goldsborough) then presented, with the approval of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House — and I believe it was practically a unanimous report. It was debated for two days in the House, a very simple bill, declaring it to be the policy of the United States to restore and maintain the value of money, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the officers of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Reserve banks to make effective that policy. That was all, but enough, and it passed, not by a partisan vote. There were 117 Republicans who voted for that bill (which was presented by a Democrat) and it passed by 289 to 60, and of the 60 who voted against it, only 12, by the will of the people, remain in the Congress.
"It was defeated by the Senate, because it was not really understood. There had not been sufficient discussion of it in public. There was not an organized public opinion in support of it."
The Goldsborough bill was titled: "A bill to restore to Congress its Constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof, to provide monetary income to the people of the United States at a fixed and equitable purchasing power of the dollar, ample at all times to enable the people to buy wanted goods and services at full capacity of the industries and commercial facilities of the United States... The present system of issuing money through private initiative for profit, resulting in recurrent disastrous inflations and deflations, shall cease."
The bill also made provision for a discount on prices to be compensated to the retailer, and for a national dividend to be issued, beginning at $5 a month (in 1932) to every citizen of the nation. Several groups testified in support of the bill, stressing the bill provided the means of controlling inflation.
This is feasible and good for everybody, to distribute goods and incomes made by more and more machines, computers and robots.
Under our current fractional reserve system, the banks have abused of their powers, by creating and lending out extra credit out of nothing ( out of thin air, ex nihilo ) and at high costs of interest, paying themselves too much high salaries and bonuses.
Thanks to such a "social credit" system, the extra dollars would be divided up and given to all citizens in equal portions as a "dividend". The rationale: that increases in productivity - resulting as they do from innovation and technological advancement over time - are a "cultural heritage" that belongs not to banks but to all members of society. This message is clear: the citizenry are prevented from benefitting from their own cultural heritage, and this leaves them increasingly indebted to banks, and unable to reduce, over time, the portion of their lives that they spend working and simply trying to survive. Under social credit, we foresee a decrease in work and an increase in leisure or, at least, the opportunity to work less if one so chooses
Every human being, since conception, has a right to receive a dividend, thanks to our country seen as a super company able to create money with the wealth of the whole society, this is social credit or social money to each of us, just because we, the people, are americans.
PS, more comments if necessary:
The truth is that credit makes deposits, and not the other way around. This means that for example, more than 90% of the money in circulation was created out of thin air. We can estimate now that the US dollar is created out of nothing. We call that Fiat Money, Ex Nihilo. The problem is that on the whole, they have been using the credit system to sustain the growth of the United States, to conserve the American economy at the cost of the poor of the whole world and even from american's poors and middle classes.
Recently the financiers even used the real estate market of the United States to uphold the credit industry. They have created massive amounts of credit (Ex Nihilo from thin air) as loans for real estate, and then sold the American mortgages to investors such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac at huge profits. They then used the massive import of funds and savings from all over the world to tell the American people that the value of the American industry is rising all the time. But now we have reached a limit in credibility and it (the American dollar) is starting a downslide. It has lost 60% of its value already since the beginning of the Iraq war. The entire system is a lie, and it is causing a massive lack of confidence, and of faith…
When credit is created just to sustain the virtual growth of the economy, there are various ways to get out of it. One of them would be to create a general war with millions of victims, or a bloody revolution, or even a credit crunch such as Japan experienced with its liquidity trap and massive depopulation, or then again, a general collapse of the economy such as in 1929.
The International bankers are planning new wars and revolutions. I think that the best solution would be to do as the poor people of the US did in 1929; establish local banks with 6,000 local currency systems. We can improve all those local systems and coordinate them, like a franchising chain of free and open local banks sharing the same values and open to all people of good will.
The real truth is that they want a massive reduction in the population; by the billions…
Julian Simon said in his book " the ultimate Resource 1" that he was paid by those people to prove that Earth was overpopulated, but he wrote books and articles proving exactly the opposite.
The Ultimate Resource (now The Ultimate Resource 2) and Population Matters discuss trends in the United States and the world with respect to resources, environment, and population and the interactions between them. Simon concludes that there is no reason why material life on earth should not continue to improve, and that increasing population contributes to that improvement in the long run. Those popularly-written books develop ideas positive and foresaw the falling natural resource prices, increased world oil supply, and decline in farmland prices. His view of population economics is unique and persuasive. Discussion covers resources, environment, population growth and his analytical methods.
As said on Amazon, Julian L. Simon is the world's greatest contrarian's. The Ultimate Resource 2--an update, not a sequel, despite the title--skewers the sacred cows of environmentalism, population control, and Paul Ehrlich. In the contest between resource scarcity and human ingenuity, Simon bets the farm on the ability of intelligent people to overcome their problems. Thankfully, he is not a theorist. This book lays out convincing empirical evidence for Simon's prediction of a prosperous future. The key to progress is not state-run conservation programs, he says, but economic and political freedom. Only then can talented minds properly apply themselves to our earthly dilemmas.
To read this book, see this link.
He wrote in his book "Population's matters" how he was ostracized by the "rulers" of the new world disorder.
Play list for all Julian L. Simon 's videos.
Please, sign it now and forward the link to all your mailing lists.
The world is already better thanks to you and your friends. Do it now, please.
31 Questions and Answers about
the Internal Revenue Service
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library
Internet URL of home page:
Internet URL of this file:
Common Law Copyright
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
1. Is the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated "31 U.S.C." The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration ("FAA"). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second "Secretary of the Treasury" as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of "Secretary" and "Secretary or his delegate" at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. ("RICO"). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.
3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration ("ACTA"), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining "IRS" as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
4. Can IRS legally show "Department of the Treasury" on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with "Department of the Treasury" in the return address, is one count of mail fraud. See also 31 U.S.C. 333.
Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an "agency" as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal "agency" by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above. As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so‑called "amendment" allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT's that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the "truth of the case." The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is properly understood to mean "subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress." (See Answer to Question 19 below.)
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.
7. Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?
Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of "Withholding agent" at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for "employment" taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker's paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 ("Treasury of the United States").
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.
Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.
"[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee." See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.
9. The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?
Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all "citizens of the United States" and all "residents of the United States". However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin). The Acker case cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority. (See Answer to Question 8 above.)
10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term "Citizen of the United States" is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE "C" in "Citizen".
The pertinent court cases have defined the term "United States" in these Clauses to mean "States United", and the full term means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United". See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term "citizen of the United States" is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case "c" in "citizen". The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a "tax" for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term "federal citizen", as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States" (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.
11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the "state" government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as "the federal zone." (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our "Right of Election" or "freedom of choice," namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber's attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.
The most interesting result of the Court's ruling was a Treasury Decision ("T.D.") that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court's opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a "nonresident alien" and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a "domestic corporation". This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.
13. What is a "Withholding agent"?
Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term "Withholding agent" is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a "withholding agent" is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker's paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate." In plain English, by signing a W‑4 workers designate themselves as "employees" and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.
If workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company's payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does not have "permission" or "power of attorney" to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or "allow" that withholding ‑‑ by signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Pay particular attention to the term "Employee" in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were "employees" of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.
14. What is a "Withholding Exemption Certificate"?
Answer: A "Withholding Exemption Certificate" is an alternative to Form W‑4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W‑4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS "Printed Products Catalog").
In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification is easy to justify.
Many public and private institutions have created their own form for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term "withholding exemption certificate" on the Internet. This term occurs several times in IRC section 3402.
15. What is "tax evasion" and who might be guilty of this crime?
Answer: "Tax evasion" is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated "as if" one is a federal government "employee." This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.
However, as discussed above, Form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not "employed" by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically "foreign" corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded "as if" they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only "domestic" corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer's essay entitled "A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions" clarifies this important distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" corporations in simple, straightforward language.
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States' rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.
For purposes of the IRC, the term "employer" refers only to federal government agencies, and an "employee" is a person who works for such an "employer".
Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one's signature.
This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the "United States" and (2) those executed inside the "United States". These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.
What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed "outside the United States". In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase "under the laws of the United States of America".
Clearly, the terms "United States" and "United States of America" are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term "United States of America", as such.
It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the "United States" (read "the federal zone") if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read "the State zone").
Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the "United States".
The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).
17. Does the term "United States" have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.  It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.  It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or  it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity].
This is the very same definition that is found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.
It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the definition of "United States" has now been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
18. Is the term "income" defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?
Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term "income" is not defined anywhere in the IRC: "The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).
Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of "income" because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced the term "income" into the U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).
In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined "income" to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.
Answer: Yes. The IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define "municipal" to mean "internal", and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.
A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book "The Federal Zone" to prove that the IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law.
One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of "State" at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
In other words, the term "State" in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.
20. What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?
The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.
If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.
Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.
The many different definitions of the term "State" that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.
If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term "United States" to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term "income" is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that "comes in," but nothing could be further from the truth. "Income" is decidedly NOT everything that "comes in."
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.
22. Has Title 26 of the United States Code ("U.S.C.") ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?
Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of "this title". Because the term "this title" is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.
Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term "this title" clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion that "this title", as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such.
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of "this title", they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court's test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. ("F" is for enForcement!) This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.
In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth; as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people with dentures!
23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?
This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to Question 22 above. Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving. Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in Wonderland?
On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of the United States ("DCUS") to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.
It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts ("USDC"). The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause.
This author's OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author's OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; begin reading at section "7(e)".
The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.
For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further details on this point are available in the Press Release entitled "Private Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code" and dated November 26, 2001 A.D.
24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay?
Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States –- the Article III constitutional courts –- are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.
The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two branches.
The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining "Party" to mean only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of "Party" that is found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856).
The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.
In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS. There you have it, from the horse's mouth!
In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the highest Court in the land.
Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as "employees" of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.
25. Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters?
Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been illegal in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions, in written and in spoken words.
Strictly speaking, the term "illegal" cannot modify the noun "protesters" because to do so would constitute a violation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.
Accordingly, for the term "illegal tax protester" to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the term "illegal" must modify the noun "tax". An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.
Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code; the phrases "under protest" and "without prejudice" are sufficient to reserve all of one's fundamental Rights at law. See U.C.C. 1-207 (UCCA 1207 in California).
26. Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this routinely done?
Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as lawful employees and "Special Agents" of the federal government, and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into positive law either.)
They tamper with grand juries by acting as if "income" is everything that "comes in", when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of fact also violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute competent waivers of their customers' fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment. The high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal offenses.
Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester. (See the Answer to Question 25 above.) These kick‑backs range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! They also violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.
As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
27. What is "The Kickback Racket," and where can I find evidence of its existence?
The evidence of this "kickback racket" was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") -- the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.
Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these "awards" because most of them were paid in cash!
When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.
Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.
Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks. They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for Legal Affairs.
28. Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?
Answer: No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.
A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.
Only after this process has run its proper or "due" course, can a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their "day in court."
Answer: No. The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). As such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They are technically not an "agency" of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of "agency" in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). (See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)
They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.
The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.
30. How can the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") help me to answer other key tax questions?
The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.
As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.
If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.
This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.
Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the answers to their questions, before asking them.)
It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an "agency" as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for "foreign" addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.
As James Madison once wrote, "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
There are many civic organizations throughout America who have dedicated their precious time and energy to acquire and disseminate widely these documented truths about the Internal Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code.
The Internet's World Wide Web ("www") is perhaps the best single source of information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and the major problems now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains of related policies, procedures, practices, customs, rules, regulations, forms and schedules.
Learn to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the knowledge you seek will be yours to keep and share -- with those you love and endeavor to free from this terrible plague that persists in America.
Good luck, and may God bless your earnest endeavors to ensure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.
To order additional certified and embossed copies of this document, please send $30.00 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money Order to:
501 W. Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
A "blank" U.S. Postal Money Order leaves the "PAY TO" line blank, permitting us to negotiate it freely. You may, of course, complete the other half; this allows you to obtain a photocopy of the cancelled money order from the U.S. Postal Service without the need for a court order.
Also, be sure to request information about our MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin IRS from depositing any tax collections into any account(s) other than the Treasury of the United States. These MOTIONS were filed in two appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, using FRAP Rule 8 and the special procedures available to a Private Attorney General under the RICO laws.
Finally, don't miss this opportunity to request more information about our historic APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific authority granted to the District Courts of the United States ("DCUS") at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). Refer to DCUS docket #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx), Santa Ana, California.
As the Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority.
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" (all editions),
and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library:
Avec mes meilleures salutations.
François de Siebenthal
14, ch. des Roches
CH 1010 Lausanne
Jean-Paul II a notamment comparé le rapport sexuel chaste entre les époux chrétiens à l'adoration eucharistique.
à faire circuler largement, merci, le monde est déjà meilleur grâce à ce simple geste de solidarité.
Krach ? Solutions...
Local Exchange Systems in 5 languages
00 41 21 652 54 83
021 652 55 03 FAX: 652 54 11
http://m-c-s.ch et www.pavie.ch
Please, subscribe to be kept informed.
Pour nous soutenir, mieux résister aux manipulations, rester unis et recevoir des nouvelles différentes et vraies, un abonnement nous encourage. Pour la Suisse, 5 numéros par année de 16 pages par parution: le prix modique de l'abonnement est de 16 Sfr.- par année (envois prioritaires)
Adressez vos chèques ou mieux vos virements directement au compte de chèque postal du Oui à la Vie
Vous avez reçu ce texte parce qu'une de vos relations a pensé que notre esprit pouvait vous intéresser et nous a suggéré de vous écrire ou vous a personnellement fait suivre ce message. Si vous ne désirez plus rien recevoir de notre part, nous vous remercions de répondre par courriel avec la simple mention « refusé ». Si cette adresse figure au fichier, nous l'en ôterons de suite. Avec nos excuses.