PJ 16
CHAPTER 3
REC #1 HATONN
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990 8:20 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 306
DON'T MISS YOUR CONFIRMATIONS OF TRUTH OF THE JOURNALS
Please, dear ones, do not overlook attention to those things which give you confirmation of truth. Let me give you a few items to check into that will allow you to know we have been telling you naught but truth.
PANAMA
Note that you will find in this current volume of NEWSWEEK magazine there will be reference to death and injuries to your U.S.A. soldiers in Panama. You will find that a large percentage of the killed soldiers were killed at the errors of your own troops; further, over 60 percent of the injuries were sustained by "friendly gunfire"--meaning: your own soldiers shot each other. Please get an issue for this office for backup.
FLAG BURNING
The flag burning amendment is moving into full scale gear. The Senate is pushing hard--then they will throw in the argument that since you "need" a balanced budget amendment, "Let's just have that good old convention". Stay alert, brothers, for as we move on with our Journals you will see that you MUST not carry either the amendments or the constitutional convention. There are flag non-desecration instructions within the Constitution as well as the way to balance the budget. If you fall for the malarky--expect to lose dearly! It will neither balance the budget nor stop flag burning--there are many more effective ways in which to mutilate your national emblem than through burning. IT IS A SHAM GAME AND YOU ARE THE VICTIMS INTENDED TO BE LOSERS.
KISSINGER/ROCKEFELLER/GORBACHEV
These ones met in secret summit wherein Rockefeller laid forth the format for the Soviet Banking System and Gorbachev accepted it without comment; indicating, of course, that it is well laid, planned and orchestrated.
GRAIN DEAL
The trip of "touring" through Minnesota was in fact a trip to consummate agreements with the Grain Cartel for grain in incredible amounts while it will leave America very short of grain. Remember, your silos are already emptied and the grain sold to foreign interests. You have no reserve of powdered milk, cheese, butter or other dairy products--they, too, have been sold or given away to better position the Cartel for control. It is getting to be serious time, chelas.
PENSION PLANS
A measure has been granted to give the controlling faction increased input over Pension Plans and allowance made for "studying" situations whereby ones have been deprived of their plans, etc. I suggest that if you are having problems with your pensions--get with pounding upon the ones now wielding more power. However, expect to find the mess is far deeper and incredible than you can imagine, for just as with the S&Ls--the funds have been squandered and this is only a facade to keep you ones thinking "they" are doing something about it.
MEXICO FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT
Disaster! Industry and jobs will flow like wine into Mexico. If you would extract the information I wrote on the Mexican situation, Oberli, and place it in format for an Express item I will greatly appreciate it for I do not wish to cover it herein. However, these are the things you ones must start pulling forth for continuing information input in the Expresses.
OTHER WRITINGS/RECEIVINGS
At this point in the work, there may be some additions into the Journals from Sananda and/or Dee's writings. Please do not undo what we have accomplished with the Journals in moving them into believable human experience. Spiritual input too early in the Journals and Express will cause the newly accepting from human standpoint to
re-classify you as extremists and new age projectors. It will all be worked in at proper sequence. As funds begin to flow in a bit of abundance a Journal of spiritual totality can be offered unto the readers. There is, however, need for immediate information for "actions" which must be gotten out timely. If people do not "act" on this input then you can expect a horrendous breakdown in "timing". In other words, dear ones, do not push of the river. The other writings are to give you support and input in truth while you organize your labors. You must always "think" from the "‘masses' point of view" and we will not err in bringing forth things which the masses cannot believe or have been taught not to believe under any circumstances.
Therefore, you beloved ones who are writing in addition to Dharma, allow patience and remove pressure from selves. You are getting a garden going and moving accomplished; do not bear a burden which is unintended. We are overfilled with joy as we see you coming into focus and sharing of the load--do not bear that which is overload for there is still the "timing" of sequence and you are doing well. For instance, if the garden is not planted now, there will be no time for growth and harvest will be small. Flow--do not "push" for we are pushing quite hard enough. Leave time for your regular "jobs" in the marketplace so that subsistence and livelihood are not jeopardized thereby bringing further problems instead of solving them. Allow always, the one step at a time and blessings of great, great appreciation are given unto you.
TIMING
You continually are distracted by that which is delayed in occurrence; "Where is the depression, etc."? You are in it--the house of cards is being falsely supported in order to bring you under total control and is based upon nothing at all. There is no economic foundation remaining--it is shored up by total control measures with money which is nonexistent. You are being carefully set up so that the optimum control will be obtained at the collapse--by the banks and cartel. I warn you again and again, THEY HAVE PLANNED WELL AND FOR A LONG, LONG TIME AND THE ZIONISTS ARE VYING FOR THE ULTIMATE CONTROL SO IT BUYS YOU JUST A TAD MORE 'TIME". HOWEVER, I NOTE HEREIN THAT THERE IS CONFIRMATION THAT THE ZIONIST MOSSAD IS TRAINING TERRORISTS AND EFFECTING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES WITHIN EVERY CONTINENT ON YOUR GLOBE AND I SHALL DO A LENGTHY PROJECTION ON THAT SUBJECT AT ANOTHER SITTING. SO BE IT--TAKE ACTION IN THE SEQUENCE WE LAY FORTH AND YOU WILL COVER IT ALL IN DUE SEQUENCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
Now to return to the subject at hand in this Journal--The Unlawful Income Tax.
*****
THE EVANGEL OF LIBERTY
Evangel simply means the bringing of good news! Therefore when we refer to the evangel of liberty we speak of good news about the "law" that already IS! It is not new; it is simply "good news" -- and one of those laws is 'Thou shall not steal".
By definition, an inalienable right cannot be legally or justly transferred to another. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a distinction between the "granting of rights" and the "securing of rights", but made it clear that these inalienable rights cannot legally be taken away even by 225 million people with the help of their representatives in Congress--although Congress is on the edge of doing that very thing as you allow of it to take place. You see, Congress and the Cartel fully plan to make what is actual "stealing" a part of the lawful extortion of your property. They already enforce laws ‘AS IF'! They legally convict you AS IF the laws were already constitutionally "lawful"! and by the assumption and enforcement--YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE LAWFUL!
IN SPITE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK, THE 16TH AMENDMENT DID NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS OF PROPERTY NOR DID IT, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN RATIFIED PROPERLY, GIVE CAUSE FOR "LAWFUL" EXTORTION.
Isn't this good news? All you millions of people cannot vote away your God-given rights. You cannot "vote away" a God-given right no matter how many people "vote" for or against it. NOW, DON'T YOU THINK IT IS TIME YOU SPREAD THIS GOOD NEWS AROUND?
Let us further investigate what the U.S. Supreme Court continues by saying:
"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.
"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.
"It has been well said that, 'The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property."' Butchers, supra, at 757.
While labor is property, it is also activity; and to claim it as a right, the activity must be lawful, innocent and harmless.
GOOD OLD CALIFORNIA
The California Constitution expounds even further on inalienable rights, which include the right to acquire property. They also are the worst offenders at breaking the law and extorting from the citizens. Be that as it may, in the Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Sec. 1:
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Try the U.S. Supreme Court in another case; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915): "Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property
--partaking of the nature of each--is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are EXCHANGED for money or other forms of PROPERTY".
Reminder: An "income tax" is an indirect tax, and an indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits. An indirect tax is never upon property, but upon an activity or event. A state may not impose a charge (tax) on the activity or event of "the enjoyment of a right" endowed by YOUR CREATOR, and secured BY THE CONSTITUTION! THIS IS THE LAW THAT IS!! This is the constitutional law, civil rights law, common-law, the law of nature, God's law, the law of the cosmos/universe. If people in other countries are being deprived of part of what they earn in lawful, innocent and harmless activities, then such deprivation is as unlawful there as it is in the good old U.S.A. but they have no recourse with which to press their case against the slave-masters. YOU DO! IF--YOU DO NOT GIVE IT AWAY!. Always remember that ALL men...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...!
NOT TAXABLE
This you can lay all bets on: The free exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right to lawfully acquire property by contracting one's own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation IS NOT A REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY!
The right to sustain one's self is God-given, and nobody can justify imposing a charge on the exercise of that God-given right. Nor can anyone justify the taking away of any part of the fruits derived from exercising that God-given right. It is important to understand that the income tax laws do not violate any individual's God-given rights. IT IS THE UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARBITRARY MISAPPLICATION OF THOSE LAWS BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT CAUSE THE VIOLATION OF THESE RIGHTS!
Once it is understood that, for income tax purposes, the term "taxpayer" applies only to the person who has engaged in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes, you will immediately see how frivolous some of the past arguments have actually been.
FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS
"I don't owe the tax because I did not receive any 'lawful' money". This is indeed an illogical argument. If a person has engaged in revenue taxable activity, he is now subject to make restitution. It matters not if his gain or profit from that activity was in the form of "lawful" money, fiat money, legal tender, Federal Reserve Notes, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, wheat, peanuts or maize popcorn, potatoes or horse manure, he still made himself liable because of his revenue taxable activity, whatever it was.
However, once it has been determined that a person has made himself liable for an income tax by engaging in an activity which is taxable for revenue purposes in some odious or outrageous manner, and is therefore subject to the revenue laws, it may then be well and proper for him to ask what the state or federal government can legally demand from him in payment of his liability incurred by such heinous activity.
The "money issue" is outside the scope of this writing; but, since it is most important and interesting in subject matter, and because the Founding Fathers gave a great deal of thought to the subject of the money of account of the United States, and absolute prohibitions placed upon the states regarding money--it will be passed by herein, briefly:
The U.S. Constitution does indeed state, my friends: "No State shall...coin money; emit bills of credit; make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts..." U.S. Constitution, Article 1 sec. 10, cl. 1 (1787).
No, don't repeat even one more time--"That is OLD"! Until a thing has been abolished lawfully, it is valid within the law!
There are three prohibitions regarding money:
1. No State shall coin money.
2. No State shall emit bills of credit.
3. No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE THIRD PROHIBITION LISTED HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, AS WELL AS INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED, BY YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS!
DON'T RAISE THE QUESTION OF "MONEY"
The money issue, however, is not a proper issue to be raised when an individual is trying to establish that you are not liable for nor subject to an income tax. Why should a NONTAXPAYER, ONE WHO IS NOT LIABLE, present any such issue? One makes himself liable only when he engages in a revenue taxable activity of which most of you do not. It is the nature of the activity that decides the issue. It is the activity, the doing of the deed, that creates the liability.
Another frivolous argument is, "I don't owe the tax because I have not received an assessment". If you engaged in a taxable activity, you have created the liability at the time you engaged in the activity. When a person engages in an activity that does not warrant constitutional protection, he has made himself liable and is subject to the income tax laws. Any person who has made himself liable shall keep records and shall make a return or statement. [Sec 26 U.S.C. 6001, 6011 and the exception provided in 6012 (a)(A) & (C).] The one liable can either voluntarily pay now, or pay later plus all of the penalties. This might be called "The culprit's choice". It must be pointed out that it is absolutely ridiculous for a NONTAXPAYER TO USE THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE SO AS TO ELIMINATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. The civil machinery will continue to grind and he will find himself suffering all the consequences of civil penalties for late filing, failure to furnish information, liens, levies, etc., all AS IF he were subject to the tax. IF YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX, THE ONLY ISSUE IS SIMPLY THAT: YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX.
IF YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX, YOU ARE *NOT* REQUIRED TO FILE ANYTHING!*!*! So, don't blow your opportunity for a clean acceptance of your rights. Don't file the blame forms unless you want to lose the game.
Still another frivolous argument for a nontaxpayer is, "I filled out 'exempt' on my W-4 form and my employer did not honor it". THE W-4 APPLIES ONLY TO "TAXPAYERS" AS DEFINED. DO NOT USE EITHER OF THESE TERMS: "EXEMPT' AND/OR "IMMUNE". These terms are simply not quite good enough.
For example, you are subject to AIDS. You get an AIDS shot so that you can become immune or exempt. YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO "Willow Bark" disease, so you do not need to acquire an immunity or exemption to it. A NONTAXPAYER IS SIMPLY AND CLEARLY NOT SUBJECT TO A REVENUE TAX, AND DOES NOT NEED TO ACQUIRE AN IMMUNITY OR EXEMPTION. THE W-4 FORM SIMPLY DOES NOT APPLY TO ONE WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX.
NOT SUBJECT TO
THE CORRECT PHRASE IN SUCH A CASE IS "NOT SUBJECT TO" AND THE ISSUE SHOULD BE PURSUED ON THIS BASIS.
Surely, the individuals who have furnished W-4 exempt forms were intending to use the form as a vehicle to advise the employer that they were not subject to the tax, but the forms were unnecessary and the employer is expected to know that the forms apply only to those who are employed to engage in revenue taxable activities. Before the employer decides to send a W-4 form to the taxing agencies, and before he decides to withhold money AS IF IT WERE FOR TAXES, he should be absolutely certain that the employee is engaged in a revenue taxable activity and because of such activity is subject to any revenue tax. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE EMPLOYER and we shall check this out in more detail later.
EXERCISING GOD-GIVEN RIGHT
If you are merely exercising your God-given right to exist by contracting your labor for lawful compensation by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities, you have not created any liability to anyone. You are simply not subject to make any restitution to society, or anyone else, in the form of a tax of any kind whatsoever.
The patriot community seems to be replete with frivolous arguments. It is certainly that they do not clearly understand that which they are attempting to accomplish. Four of the foremost and glaring frivolous arguments are these listed above. There are several other arguments which we will address later, but we can by no means list them all, and further, YOU DO NOT EVEN NEED TO CLUTTER YOUR MINDS WITH INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTIONS.
Remember that label on the front door of the Internal Revenue Code? "TAXPAYER"! If you do not qualify as a "taxpayer" as defined, it seems utterly foolish to argue with anyone about what the code says you can or cannot do. The code simply does not apply to you. Have you argued with your boss or payroll office as to what the Internal Revenue Code says you can or cannot do, when you have only been engaged in lawful, innocent and harmless labor? So be it.
Have you seen fit to present arguments in court as to what the Internal Revenue Code says you can or cannot do? Have you presented yourself AS IF you were a "taxpayer" as defined by law? Sic, sic--if you do not qualify as a 'taxpayer", then the entire Internal Revenue Code and all of the multitude of rules and regulations issued pursuant to the code apply to some other persons, but they do not apply to you, my friends. Therefore, why would you treat them as if they do?
If an individual has lawfully contracted his labor, and by such contract has lawfully engaged in innocent and harmless activities, he has not created any obligation whatsoever for which he would be required to make any form of restitution.
Therefore, exemptions do not apply, W-4 forms do not apply, 1040 forms do not apply, and all the other voluminous statutes, rules and regulations of the internal revenue laws, including penalties, DO NOT apply to an individual who has not engaged in any revenue taxable event or activity! He is "without the scope" of the revenue laws! HE IS A NONTAXPAYER!
Dharma, I believe that prior to further discussion regarding W-4 forms and what to do about them, it is probably the better part of intelligence to better understand
"Direct" v. "Indirect" taxes and the 16th Amendment. We shall effort to structure this in logical format to better enhance understanding of the subject in logical sequence. There are only one or two persons who have pursued this subject in clarity of understanding of the whole. If you get caught in the entrapment of utilizing "arguments" based on "taxpayer" v. "nontaxpayer" you have lost half your strength. You must henceforth pursue your goal as your proper status indicates
--NONTAXPAYER--and allow no lip-service to "taxpayer" unless you truly have committed corrupt, unlawful, guilty and harmful activities. For the remainder of this Journal the assumption will be that you are actually a NONTAXPAYER.
Allow us a respite please and we shall continue with the aforementioned subject of taxes upon our return. Let us try to do an additional chapter or so this day. It will be so advantageous to have this Journal ready for press, in the least, by the meeting in July. Thank you.
Hatonn to stand by.
PJ 16
CHAPTER 4
REC #2 HATONN
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990 12:15 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 306
INDIRECT TAXES vs. DIRECT TAXES/16th AMENDMENT
The so-called ''income tax" is one of the biggest issues facing America this day. Yet most Americans do not have even an elementary understanding of the constitutional principles of taxation and wonder about doing the unlawful things instructed to them by the ones perpetuating unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, requirements upon them. Most are unable to define either a direct or an indirect tax, and they do not understand the importance of making a distinction between the two classes. It is mandatory to the preservation of your liberties, and indeed, it is vital for the very survival of your nation of "free" individuals.
In the public school's failure to teach facts, they have aided in the keeping of the hard working Americans in total ignorance as to the basic constitutional principles of taxation and of civil rights. You can now see why! As this news gets into the minds of the masses of citizens, you will insist on collecting revenue in a lawful manner, balancing of the budget through lawful means and causing your representatives to be answerable for their heinous behavior in Congress. You can also see that only through "truth" can you act to set yourself "free".
Most Americans voted for the presidential candidate that promised to "lower the
so-called income tax" rates. Remember that you read his lips and they said "no more new taxes", etc. ad nauseam? Well, you were slower than the hand and eye--he is just going to sock it to you with old taxes which have already been unlawful since inception.
You can also figure it out--if you stop this unlawful behavior--they already have follow-on "emergency" control. Declaration of emergency will be next and then, of course, a war wherein all sorts of "emergency" mandates can be handed down upon your heads---IF YOU ALLOW OF IT! IF YOU AS A PEOPLE, REQUIRE THE LAWS OF YOUR CONSTITUTION TO BE FOLLOWED AS IS WRTITEN, IT WILL ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE PRESIDENT STOP HIS DICTATOR ORIENTED AND OUTLINED ACTIONS. ALL THOSE DICTATORIAL POWERS BEING "ASSUMED" PRESENTLY ARE WRITTEN INTO THAT "NEW" CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY ARE "ASSUMING" UPON YOU ALREADY. IT IS TRULY UP TO YOU THE PEOPLE WHICH IT WILL BE.
It is safe to assume that people are tired of having a large chunk of their wages taken, even under what they assume to be lawful taxation.
This information may shock people--I sincerely hope so--to the max, as the youth would put it. At least now you will know that what has been withheld from the wages they earned from lawful, innocent and harmless labor was not a tax; but rather, their hard earned money(property) has been extorted under the sham, guise, pretext and subterfuge of ''withholding taxes". They will also find that understanding the difference between direct and indirect taxes is not really complicated, and we will herein attempt to present the issue in understandable format. If you already "have it", be patient for ALL do not yet understand it sufficiently and you can have gracious patience with your fellow student. If you already knew all of this material, you would not have gotten this far in this Journal, at any rate. Further, if you "assume" you know it all and blunder forth causing errors, please do not write threats and contradictions unto this scribe. You the people would not be in the mess you are in if you had simply taken the time to know that which you do.
Capitation taxes and taxes imposed upon property are direct taxes; taxes imposed upon revenue taxable activities or events are indirect. These indirect taxes include duties, imposts and excises. As you carefully examine tax cases and taxing statutes, you are going to find that indirect taxes are always imposed upon an activity which is taxable for revenue purposes.
Even in such cases of the excise taxes regarding tobacco and alcohol products, there is always an activity or event involved. These taxes are imposed upon products manufactured, imported or distilled. As you can see, some activity or event is always involved in regard to indirect taxes. Further note that the terms 'activity', 'event', ‘occasion' and 'incident' are used interchangeably in regard to indirect taxation. This will help you and save time as these terms pop up from time to time.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held an "income tax" to be an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and also has held that a tax imposed upon the happening of an event (activity) is an indirect tax. It must be pointed out that one will never really understand the court decisions or taxing statutes until you understand that direct taxes are capitation taxes and taxes imposed upon property, and that indirect taxes are always upon activities or events which are taxable for revenue purposes. INDIRECT TAXES ARE NEVER UPON PROPERTY.
Therefore, this is simplicity itself in action. Why then, is there such confusion regarding "income taxes"? At least a portion of this confusion stems from a lack of knowledge of basic constitutional principles of taxation and of civil rights, as well as a misinterpretation (erroneous statutory construction) of the 16th Amendment. Therefore, this problem will be approached in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the proper construction of the 16th Amendment.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, at 205 (1920): "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted". Therefore, look first at the taxing clauses of the original Constitution. Article I, sec. 2, cl. 3:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons".
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Article I, sec. 8, cl. 1.
"NO CAPITATION, OR OTHER DIRECT, TAX SHALL BE LAID, UNLESS IN PROPORTION TO THE CENSUS OR ENUMERATION HEREINBEFORE DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN". Article I, sec. 9, cl. 4.
In accordance with the original Constitution, all direct taxes must be apportioned and all indirect taxes, which include duties, imposts and excises, must be uniform.
Then, in 1913, along came the 16th Amendment which reads:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration".
So, what could this mean? You are going to be presented with some of the same questions regarding the 16th Amendment that were before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1915 and 1916--still valid.
1. Does the 16th Amendment cause one part of the Constitution to come into irreconcilable conflict with other parts?
2. Does the 16th Amendment treat a tax on income as a direct tax?
3. Does the 16th Amendment authorize a new kind of tax?
4. Does the 16th Amendment give Congress any new taxing power?
5. Does the 16th Amendment challenge or repudiate the ruling in the Pollock Case of 1895? and,
6. What was the purpose of the 16th Amendment?
7. Now, here is the doozy! Does the 16th Amendment repeal any part of the original Constitution? This was not before the court but we will most surely address it.
These, except for number 7, were some of the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court in the year of 1916. No, it didn't take long for these things to become controversial but through media blitz and false information you have simply been buried into oblivion from facts.
Two landmark cases; namely Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103. It is most interesting to note that both of these cases were argued on October 14, 15, 1915 but not decided until into 1916. It is further important to note that the Brushaber Case is the case most relied upon by the IRS to show that the "income tax" and the 16th Amendment are constitutional. It seems only fair to utilize the same case to prove that it is not constitutional.
Well, actually, they are quite correct because "income taxes" were imposed long before the 16th Amendment (and yes, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers were already into the swing of One World Order). Moreover, even had the 16th Amendment been properly ratified into law, it did not change the basic "law that is", nor did it change the nature of an "income tax" which is that of an excise tax. As we will show you, the 16th Amendment is merely a restatement of the general and permanent taxing law of the United States in regard to "income taxes". In deciding its constitutionality, the court carefully reviewed the wording of this new amendment.
REVIEW OF THE ABOVE ISSUES
Let us consider the above issues. The answers will come from the U.S. Supreme Court.
1. Did the 16th Amendment cause one part of the Constitution to come into irreconcilable conflict with other parts?
This issue is especially fun to review because it gives us a chance to present a rather interesting quiz. Having now read the taxing clauses of the original Constitution, you learn that all direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states according to population, and all indirect taxes (which include duties, imposts and excises) are to be uniform throughout the United States. You also know that the 16th Amendment reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration".
Looking back now, and observing the admonitions of the Eisner Court that "the Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted", you are now ready to respond to the quiz.
What class of tax (direct or indirect) can be laid "on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census or enumeration", and still without coming into irreconcilable conflict with the other parts of the Constitution?
If it were a direct tax on the incomes (money or other forms of property) it would certainly come into irreconcilable conflict with Article I, section 2, clause 3, and also Article I, section 9, clause 4, which require all direct taxes to be apportioned among the states according to census or enumeration.
However, if it were an indirect tax, there would be no such conflict with any other taxing clause of the Constitution. In other words, friends, providing one understands the taxing clauses of the original Constitution, it now goes without saying that the only class of tax that can be imposed without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration is an indirect tax. It is the "without apportionment" language that confines the 16th Amendment to the class of indirect taxes.
As we have already discussed, an indirect tax is "a tax laid upon the happening of an event (activity), as distinguished from its tangible fruits". Therefore, any tax under the 16th Amendment is not a direct tax on income (as property) but rather a tax upon any revenue taxable activity and the amount of income is merely used to measure the amount of tax upon the revenue taxable activity.
It can therefore be assumed, as a matter of law, that the individuals who are involved in the collection of taxes (those within the taxing agencies as well as the employers) thoroughly understand the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The IRS does fully understand that all "income taxes" must be uniform throughout the United States. It can also be assumed they know that the so-called "income taxes" are indirect taxes which are imposed upon the happening of taxable events or activities.
Let us look again at how the U.S. Supreme Court handled the issue back there in 1916 (still valid). Frank Brushaber, in the Brushaber Case, almost presented more erroneous contentions than the U.S. Supreme Court could handle. It must be pointed out that it will be much easier to read and study this Brushaber Case once you understand that the court spends considerable time paraphrasing Mr. Brushaber's many erroneous contentions, assumptions, conclusion, etc. At any rate, here is what the court said:
"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of the opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax, which although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the farreaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside the Amendment and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned". Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 10-11.
The court proceeds to address these erroneous assumptions, propositions and contentions by continuing:
"But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States than was levied in another State or States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion". at 11-12.
"Therefore, in other wording, the court has said that IF the tax authorized by the 16th Amendment were considered a direct tax, as Mr. Brushaber had erroneously assumed, it would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; bringing one part of the Constitution into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Obviously, this could not be allowed. IF the 16th Amendment was in irreconcilable conflict with other parts of the Constitution, it would have been held to be unconstitutional".
So--the answer to question number one is NO.
While the court shows that the intent of the 16th Amendment obviously must have been to simplify the situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing powers, and not to create radical and destructive changes in your constitutional system nor to multiply confusion, the misrepresentation and unconstitutional application of the revenue laws by those who are, as a matter of law, expected to know better are certainly creating much confusion and violating the rights of individuals.
Now for question number two and you will further see that the answer to it also supports the first question.
2. Does the 16th Amendment treat a tax on income as a direct tax?
Let us look again at Brushaber, supra, at 18:
"The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation....". Further,
"The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the CONTRARY recognized the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an EXCISE entitled to be enforced as such. . ." Brushaber, supra, at 16-17.
Then move right along with us regarding this second question in the Stanton Case; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916):
"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....".
The answer to question number two must therefore, also be NO! Then we just move on to the next question, with it also answering more substantially, number two, and will also be answered in the negative.
3. Does the 16th Amendment authorize a new kind of tax?
No. Congress possessed complete and plenary power of income taxation from the beginning of your U.S. Constitution, September, 17, 1787.
4. Does the 16th Amendment give Congress any new taxing power?
No. As is clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Stanton Case.
5. Does the 16th Amendment challenge or repudiate the ruling in the pollock Case of 1895?
No. The Pollock Case of 1895 will be discussed in detail later. However, for now, it must be pointed out that today many people erroneously believe that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Pollock Case of 1895, considered "income taxes" to be in the class of direct taxes which had to be apportioned according to the Constitution. Their confusion is multiplied when they not only erroneously conclude that the 16th Amendment challenged and repudiated the ruling in the Pollock Case, but they also erroneously conclude that the 16th Amendment removed the need of apportionment for a particular kind of direct tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Brushaber Case, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case...". Brushaber, supra, at 19.
To show that the Pollock Court (1895) recognized that "income taxes" were in fact indirect taxes, the Brushaber Court (1916) said: "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the CONTRARY recognized the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an EXCISE entitled to be enforced as such....".
Now I shall take the quiz out of order and respond to question number seven prior to number six for the order will be more reasonable in understanding.
May we have a break please and then we will continue with No. 7 at our next writing.