PJ#016, YOU CAN SLAY THE DRAGON

[wave]

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.

[wave]

PJ 16

CHAPTER 5

REC #3 HATONN

MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990 5:20 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 306

REPEAL?

7. Did the 16th Amendment repeal any part of the original Constitution?

You have to consider another example of a situation in which an Amendment was repealed in order to have any relative comparison. We shall consider the 18th Amendment and its later repeal.

The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, im­portation and exportation of intoxicating liquors, and was ratified January 16, 1919. Because it was a daring thing to do at the time, suite likely more people started drinking alcoholic beverages than would have if the 18th Amendment had never existed as that is the nature of human behavior. At any rate, it cre­ated many problems and was not a popular amendment in the aftermath. The point is, again, that people think they will solve problems with absolutely no notion of that which they are doing. Therefore, those who have a driving desire to have a thing happen make sure it happens while the rest, the unin­terested parties, wait and dream on. So, on December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Now this is extremely important so please pay close attention for you are to get some valid truth regarding the nonsense around the 16th Amendment.

Here is the wording of Section 1 of the 21st Amendment:

"The eighteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States IS HEREBY REPEALED".

In all the amendments to your Constitution do you see anything similar re­garding the 16th Amendment? Of course not--in fact, you can clearly see, there is NO such wording in the 16th Amendment to indicate anything is re­pealed, nor in any Amendment following. The 16th Amendment clearly and succinctly states: "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".

Neither did the 16th Amendment repeal any portion of the U.S. Constitution, but rather it is a restatement and clarification of the general and permanent taxing laws of the United States in regard to "income tax".

Therefore, this brings us to your sixth, and perhaps most important, question.

6. What was the purpose of the 16th Amendment?

Here again, the U.S. Supreme Court answers. Notice carefully the words and phrases used by the court, such as forbids, prohibited, maintaining the limita­tions, harmonizing their operations, prevented, prevention, making clear, and simplifying the situation.

The court's use of these words supports the statement that the 16th Amend­ment is a restatement and clarification of the general and permanent laws of the United States in regard to "income taxes".

Having demonstrated what the disastrous results would be to the U.S. Consti­tution, IF Mr. Brushaber's erroneous propositions and contentions were ac­ceded to, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations 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".

After having paraphrased some more of Mr. Brushaber's erroneous con­tentions, the U.S. Supreme Court continued:

"Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Consti­tution and harmonizing their operation".

Then in the Stanton Case, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"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 U.S. Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment must have obviously been intended to simplify the situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing power. The court also said that the 16th Amendment was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operations. The court further stated that the 16th Amendment 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.

Was an amendment to the Constitution really necessary just to make clear and maintain the limitations of the taxing power given the federal government in the original Constitution? What was the problem? Who was being pre­vented from taking the power of income taxation that Congress always had from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it in­herently belonged? Had somebody done that before? If so, why?

Since it is a FACT that an income tax inherently belongs in the class of an in­direct tax which is a tax imposed upon revenue taxable events or activities, how could it have been taken out of its proper class? After all, indirect taxes are the only class of taxes that can be laid without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Perhaps there is another reason for the 16th Amendment.

Let us investigate other statements made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brushaber Case in regard to the Pollock Case. These will not explain, but will tend to reveal, what is undoubtedly the main purpose for which the 16th Amendment was adopted; that is, being "drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided", and to forbid "the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case".

"The Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided". and,

"The command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case..." and yet, the Brushaber Court said:

"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership...".

Let us consider just what was the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided. What rule was applied in the Pollock Case? What did the court mean when it said the ruling in the Pollock Case was that the word "direct" had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on per­sonal property because of its ownership? Let us dig a little bit.

Today many people wrongly believe that the Pollock Court held that an "income tax" is unconstitutional. Others wrongly believe that the Pollock Court held "income taxes" to be direct taxes, and that the 16th Amendment removed the need for apportionment, but the Brushaber Court clearly shows that this was not the holding in the Pollock Case when it clearly states:

"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 unless and until it was con­cluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty (meaning the duty of the court) would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which oth­erwise as an excise would not apply to it".

It becomes more obvious that you are going to need some additional back­ground information if you are to really understand the reasoning behind the Brushaber opinion. Therefore, let us regress somewhat so that you can gain some information on the man who delivered the Brushaber opinion and also information on some of the prior cases which he cites. Wouldn't this have been easier and a lot less messy if you had learned this all in school?

Chief Justice Edward Douglas White delivered the opinions in both the Brushaber Case AND in the Stanton Case. He had been involved with this "income tax" issue for a long, long time. He was even on the Supreme Court in 1895 and had delivered a somewhat fervent dissenting opinion in the Pol­lock Case. Yet, he had no argument with the FACT that the power of income taxation belongs in the category of indirect taxation, and was in total agree­ment on this point. His dissenting opinion in the rehearing of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan Assn., 158 U.S. 601 can be found within the last few pages of the documented case at 706-715. Edward Douglas White was appointed Chief Justice by President Taft in 1910 following Chief Justice Fuller's death. He was commissioned to the Supreme Court in 1894.

The reason White dissented in Pollock was the fact that the majority opinion of the court was going to disturb what he considered to be a settled point in case law. It had always been assumed by courts, from the time of 1796 in a case referred to as the Hylton Case down through 1880 with the Springer Case, that a tax imposed upon personal property was not actually on the property by reason of ownership, but rather upon its use (activity) or the con­sumption of a commodity (activity). It had also been assumed by the courts that if a tax was neither a capitation tax nor a tax on real estate, which were direct taxes, it must therefore fall into the class of an indirect tax. White also expressed concern that if a tax on the income from property was considered a direct tax requiring apportionment, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reach through taxation the large amounts of invested capital. As always, when there is a will there is certainly conjured up a way--so, don't be concerned, for a way was found, and that way was with the special, and clever, use of words in the later taxing statutes and the 16th Amendment.

Let us read his dissenting opinion in the Pollock Case,. White refers many times to the Hylton Case, which established what he then believed to be the "judicial construction" for almost 100 years.

The Hylton Case, 1796

"This was a writ of Error directed to the Circuit Court for the Dis­trict of Virginia; and upon the return of the record, the following pro­ceedings appeared. An action of debt had been instituted to May Term, 1795, by the attorney of the district, in the name of the United States, against Daniel Hylton, to recover the penalty imposed by the act of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, for not entering, and paying the duty on, a number of carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which he kept for his own use. The defendant pleaded nil debet, whereupon issue was joined. But the parties, waiving the right of trial by jury, mutually submitted the controversy to the court on a case, which stated 'That the Defendant, on the 5th of June, 1794, and there­from to the last day of September following, owned, possessed, and kept, 125 chariots for the conveyance of persons, and no more: that the chariots were kept exclusively for the Defendant's own private use, and not to let out to hire, or for the conveyance of persons for hire: and that the Defendant had notice according to the act of Congress, enti­tled "An act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of per­sons", but that he omitted and refused to make an entry of the said chariots, and to pay the duties thereupon, as in and by the said recited law is required, alleging that the said law was unconstitutional and void. If the court adjudged the Defendant to be liable to pay the tax and fine for not doing so, and for not entering the carriages, then judgment shall be entered for the Plaintiff for 2000 dollars, to be dis­charged by the payment of 16 dollars, the amount of the duty and penalty; otherwise that judgment be entered for the Defendant'. After argument, the court delivered their opinions; but being equally divided, the Defendant, by agreement of the parties, confessed judgment, as a foundation for the present writ of error; which was brought merely to try the constitutionality of the tax". (As was the first proceeding).

"The court delivered their opinions seriatim in the following terms. Chase, Justice. By the case stated, only one question is submitted to the opinion of this court; whether the law of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled, 'An act to lay duties upon carriages, for the conveyance of persons', is unconstitutional and void"?

Let us now consider the opinions and whether or not they rendered a judicial opinion on the constitutional meaning of the word "direct".

Chase, Justice: "I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land. I doubt whether a tax, by a gen­eral assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax".

Patterson, Justice: "I never entertained a doubt, that the principle, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation and a tax on land".

Iredell, Justice: "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned". and, "Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil: Something capable of apportionment under all such circumstances".

Now, you come into some interesting facets: Three other justices were on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Wilson had ruled on the case in the Circuit Court of West Virginia and continued to uphold his sentiments in favor of the constitutionality of the tax. Thus, he was able to vote twice on the issue. His vote in the U.S. Supreme Court made it a unanimous decision regardless of the actions of the next two justices. Conveniently left out of the records are the names of both judges before whom the case was argued in the Circuit Court. Funny how records and files still disappear from court records at ever increasing rates.

There were two other judges but Justice Cushing had been indisposed, and having not attended the arguments, also declined taking part and Justice Ellsworth had just been sworn into office on that very morning and declined taking part in this decision.

The only issue before the court was whether the act itself, as written, was un­constitutional. The justices really didn't have to give an opinion on the consti­tutional meaning of the word "direct", and actually, they didn't. They each concluded that a duty on carriages came into the class of duties or excises and therefore did not require apportionment. Good show! Each, however, came to his conclusion by different reasoning. Do you see how vulnerable you really are? By the way--the New Constitution is incredibly more ambiguous than is the original document. You won't have a chance of any type with all the bribery of today's fountains of wisdom and truth that you send to Washington and your state legislatures.

At any rate, the language, and not a ruling, in this case, being that the only di­rect taxes contemplated by the Constitution were capitation taxes and taxes on real estate, was carried down through the years in the arguments in the various tax cases. It was merely assumed that if the tax was not a capitation tax or a tax on real estate, it would therefore be considered an indirect tax. Just like "they" assume you won't notice your imprisonment until after the fact.

Then there was the Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586. This was much like the Hylton Case; both cases claiming a 'duty' was a direct tax and void because it was not apportioned among the states in accordance with the Constitution. No question was presented to the court in either case as to whether or not the tax actually applied to the individual involved.

I think you get the picture without further prattling about individual cases at this point. They are all out there for your viewing if you ever need to cite them.

DIRECT TAXES ON REAL ESTATE

Compared to other forms of taxation, the assessment and collection process involved with a direct tax on real estate requires far fewer records, and also a smaller number of administrative personnel; especially if the evaluations which are already established in the state records are used. All of this results in lower tax collection costs for the entire nation. Also, a direct tax on real estate is more "up front", as compared to the many indirect taxes which are "hidden" in the price of the various articles of consumption, thereby allowing the citizen to be more aware of government spending.

As stated earlier, Congress has not imposed a direct tax since the days of the Civil War. Today, many people erroneously believe that the "Victory Tax" of 1942 was a direct tax on wages, but it was only an additional amount added to that indirect excise tax called the "income tax", which is only properly applied to revenue taxable events or activities. On the surface it seemed quite lawful and will be attempted again, my friends, if the need arises--and "they" will see to it the need arises if you allow of it.

Had Congress used its power of direct taxation to pay the bills as you have gone along, there would be no federal debt today. Also, Congress might well have spent more wisely and created fewer bills each year, or the people may have elected some new congressmen. This is truly the essence of no taxation without representation, and the reason for which the rule of apportionment required for all direct taxes was adopted. YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU WANT TO!

If direct taxes were imposed on real estate by the federal government, the property holders, of course, would then want answers from their congressmen as to where all the tax money was to be spent. The congressmen, in turn, would be forced to have some pretty good answers. To the extent the cost of direct taxes on real estate is passed on to tenants, even the tenants would have an interest in the spending habits of their congressmen. Under this type of tax collection, the individuals are able to exert better control over the spending habits of their congressmen and thusly surfaces the reasons it is NOT being done in this manner.

Also, under this type of tax collection, the property holder does not waive his Fourth Amendment right to privacy of papers, or his Fifth Amendment right not to witness against himself under penalty of perjury as happens when a "taxpayer" completes a 1040 form for the so-called "income tax".

Dharma it has been a long day of work so we will sign off and take up the subject of State Income Taxes when we sit in the morrow. Thank you, chela, and good-day.

Hatonn to stand-by, please.

PJ 16

CHAPTER 6

REC #2 HATONN

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1990 11:13 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 307

STATE INCOME TAXES

People believe that state "income taxes" are in the class of "direct" taxes upon the money received as income. Let us dispense with this erroneous assump­tion immediately.

State income taxes are modeled part and parcel after federal income taxes. They are copied in both form and substance, and are therefore indirect taxes also, which apply to revenue taxable activities. Does this sound repetitious? Good--it shows you were paying attention before now. However, these indi­rect taxes are also being applied and enforced AS IF most individuals are en­gaged in revenue taxable activities or events, just as does the federal govern­ment, when in fact most people are merely exercising their God-given and constitutionally secured right to exist, which is an activity that is not taxable for revenue purposes. Ho Hum-m-m. Please tell me that thought forms are tak­ing shape!

The state public school systems teach the students how to fill out tax forms AS IF they are ALL going to be engaged in activities or events that cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. The students are forced to gradu­ate in ignorance and perpetuate the lie--many go on to become lawyers, doc­tors, merchants and chiefs as well as butchers, bakers and candle stick makers and all simply go forth and practice the lie as fed to them as outlaid by the conspiracy to destroy the Constitution.

Students go forth without having the slightest idea that there is a difference between a revenue taxable activity as opposed to the free exercise of the con­stitutionally secure right to sustain one's self and to acquire property (income or other compensation).

Why don't some of you daring teachers and parents give a copy of these Journals on the Constitution and the 16 Amendment to your young people and see if they don't light up like light bulbs. You undersell your children--they know the facade of society for that which it is--a lie. Why don't you really give your children a legacy of hope and freedom and allow them to learn truth and they will stop the vulgar, obscene attentions to drug and Satanic groups and bring you back into freedom. The youth only awaits its purpose; they refuse to longer be gun fodder. Show them the way and allow them truth and they will act in honor, respect and unity and you won't have to worry about flag burners, my dear friends.

They are given no input as to the fact that they can lawfully contract their tal­ents and labors in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation without penalties and robbery from the criminals you have sent to your houses of government. It isn't your fault for you, too, were in ignorance--BUT NO MORE! NO LONGER ARE YOU IN IGNORANCE IF YOU HAVE READ THIS FAR IN THIS JOURNAL
--YOU NO LONGER HAVE HONEST COP-OUT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE IN THE LIE--FACE IT; IT IS YOUR CHOICE AND SIMPLY TELL YOUR CHIL­DREN YOU WERE AFRAID TO PURSUE TRUTH. DOES THAT PROSPECT APPEAL TO YOU AS PARENTS CLAIMING TO WANT THE BEST FOR YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS? YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS AT THIS POINT ARE SELLING DRUGS TO BURY THEIR FUTURE FOR THEY INNATELY KNOW HOW BAD IT REALLY HAS BECOME.

There are several ways to demonstrate that state income taxes are not being applied as if they are direct taxes on the money received as income. Compare the property tax on real estate, which is a direct tax, to the state income tax. Property taxes are measured on the basis of the value of the property which an Individual holds at any one period of time. Few people have all of the money on hand at any one period of time which they earn during the year. Yet, income taxes are measured by the amount of income derived during a year regardless of how much of this income is on hand at any one period of time. This demonstrates loudly and clearly that the income tax is not on the money that one holds, but is on the revenue taxable activity and is merely measured by the amount of income derived from that activity during a year--therefore, the tax itself is constitutionally UNLAWFUL.

Additionally, consider that property taxes on a particular home, for instance, are the same amount regardless if the home owner is single, married, has no dependents or has 20 dependents. If the amount of tax on like dwellings were higher for the single person with no dependents than for a married person with 20 dependants, it would amount to unequal protection under the law! The law can allow much more latitude in regard to the application of taxes on revenue taxable activities, because the nature of a revenue taxable activity is such that it cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. There is simply no way to construe income taxes to be LAWFUL under the Constitution no matter how we might twist and fidget with the writings. Therefore it boils down to man tampering with the Law within the Constitution just as he has tampered with God's laws within the Holy Books--to suit his own power and greed hungry status.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TAXES

Yes, incidentally, the so-called "state unemployment taxes" and the so-called "state disability insurance taxes" ARE ALSO INDIRECT TAXES AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. The only persons who are subject to these taxes, therefore, are those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities and we will enlarge on this when we get to the dissection and smashing of Social Security. Does it begin to seep into your minds that you have been acting against the very laws of the Constitution for some time now? Well, what are you going to do about it? Complain, moan and groan about Hatonn's doom and gloom revelations? That is en­tirely up to you. The very ones who are in the criminal element of actions are benefiting from your gifting of hunks of your rightful, constitutional property--using a weapon to boot, to take it from you!

By the way--they plan to get all your weapons from you and have a built in police force, all armed and written into the "New" Constitution to insure you have no protection whatsoever. A mentally deranged man (who listens con­stantly to Satanic mental brain-manipulations) goes forth and shoots sonic people and you ones line up to DEMAND that the government take your guns. ARE YOU PLANNING TO SHOOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE? I THOUGHT NOT! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE WEAPONS AWAY FROM THE CRIMINALS--ALL YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS DISARM THE VERY ONES WHO MIGHT IMPACT YOUR SECURITY. SO BE IT, THAT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT WHICH I SHALL MOST SURELY COVER IN ANOTHER JOURNAL. IT IS A CONSTITU­TIONAL RIGHT AND YOU HAD BETTER BE LOOKING MOST CAREFULLY AT YOUR CONSTITUTION FOR YOU ARE ABOUT TO "VOTE" IT GONE!

With a reasonable amount of knowledge and sound reasoning, one can see that the so-called income taxes are correctly operating as indirect taxes. However, one can also see that they are being misapplied to individuals who are not involved in any revenue taxable activity and are therefore not subject to these so-called income taxes or other revenue taxes, and are not within the purview of such tax laws.

The main point of this little chapter is to enforce the truth of the situation which flows from state to federal and back to state and never even bothers to become lawful in the process.

The main message is that the "income tax" has been judicially determined long ago to be an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and is actually imposed upon revenue taxable events, occasions, incidents, or activities which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right, and the individual who is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to lawfully acquire property (income or other compensation) by lawfully contracting his own la­bor to engage in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation is not subject to such a tax. The receipt of income, in and of itself, DOES NOT DETERMINE TAX LIABILITY. It is the nature of the activity that determines liability, and the income derived from the activity is used only to mea­sure the amount of the tax imposed upon the revenue taxable event, occasion, incident or activity. The so-called "income tax" CANNOT BE LEGALLY ENFORCED AS IF IT WERE A DIRECT TAX ON THE MONEY RE­CEIVED, NOR CAN IT BE LEGALLY APPLIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REVENUE TAXABLE EVENTS, OC­CASIONS, INCIDENTS, OR ACTIVITIES.

WAIT A MINUTE, PLEASE

Now, lots of you are fully up in arms at this point and you are thinking of "doing" something even if it's wrong. Just hold on another few hours and then do something
--but do it RIGHT! I am going to give you some sources of in­formation to insure you handle things properly. They won't, however, have the most useful information to keep you leaders out of the courts in the first place.

Unless you are eager to get into the system and be shot at, "legalized" to poverty, etc., you take upfront measures to begin properly. First, if you have assets tucked here and there and assets that show all over the place--THINK CAREFULLY! You have half a year before they will come with the guns and you can do unimagined wonder in six short months. See if it is applicable to set up a corporation or two and shift your assets
--you have nothing to lose ex­cept attention and the IRS police force.

Again, I tell you to go through Nevada--even if you spend extra to allow busi­ness to be done in your home state in almost all instances. It is the ONLY state in your Union which has no state income tax and no reciprocity with the Federal Government and/or IRS. Avoid open confrontation in the courts un­til you know what you are doing--if you "show" no worthwhile assets, there is not point in harassing you to any great extent as long as the law of the Consti­tution is on your side. I tell you now, that millions of your brothers and neigh­bors pay no income taxes and nobody bothers them about it. The big show of power is to terrorize you into submission and cause you to ASSUME that that which they tell you and do unto you is legal. What worthwhile activity or property could you acquire if you were able to keep your property and money for your own use or guide your contribution to the governmental system to suit truth and your needs?
I hope you think very carefully upon these things. It is urgent indeed. The door is open wide to change it all before your blinking eyes and then it will be too late for action.

IF YOU ALLOW THIS THING TO COME UPON YOU--DO NOT BLAME GOD! GOD HAS NOW SENT THESE ONES TO BRING TRUTH UNTO YOU, SO KEEP RESPONSIBILITY FOR INACTION TO SOURCE. THERE IS A LIBRARY FILLED WITH PROOF OF THIS TRUTH. IT IS UP TO YOU TO BRING IT INTO THE OPEN LIGHT OF INFORMATION FOR THE MASSES.

THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS (OF WHICH THERE ARE MORE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE) WILL AT FIRST BE AGAINST YOU. THEY SEEM TO FEEL THE WELL SHALL NEVER BE DRY. IT WILL RUN DRY AS SOON AS THE CONTROL IS SHIFTED IN TOTAL TO THE DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE NEW CONSTI­TUTION. WELFARE, AS YOU LOVELY RECIPIENTS NOW RECOG­NIZE IT, WILL BE ENDED AND THE OPPRESSION WILL BE BE­YOND YOUR DREAMS. THE WELFARE SYSTEM AS UTILIZED AT PRESENT IS STRUCTURED TO ENSURE YOUR ENSLAVEMENT WITHIN IT AND IT REQUIRES THAT A PERSON IN NEED OF HELP BECOME ENSLAVED.

All your governmental systems are based upon foundationless assumptions which have no bases in fact. They are conjured systems for your entrapment and to render you helpless. It will only come to be if you sit and allow of it to happen to you. Take back control of the government by the people, for the people and of the people--you have simply forgotten the truth of the path laid forth for your journey.

Allow us to have a bit of respite and we will cover the W-4 Form for I am del­uged with projections of queries. If we might, please, let us give extra time to this Journal and see if we can get it to the public quickly. People can follow up with their own research as they come into attention of the possibilities. We must also cover the full ramifications of the gun control lobby as to your pro­tection and Constitutional rights and time grows so short for action through knowledge. If man fails to act after we have brought forth truth; 'tis his re­sponsibility--we will have carried forth our mission, chelas. We have many other things to do and build, but this is our mission first and foremost--to bring truth unto a floundering, transitioning world in service unto Creator/Creation. May we ever press forward that we not regret in having tarried too long in our work. We must be most careful to keep priorities in proper sequence.

Make sure that Charles and John are given the information sent from Patrick Gage for you will need all that information regarding shelters, etc.

Something to ponder in point regarding shelters. Is it not strange that the very ones in your government who insist upon the security and lack of need for shelters--continue to update yearly all facets of shelters and survival? COULD IT BE THAT YOU THE PUBLIC ARE THE EXPENDABLES AFTER ALL? IT REQUIRES NO SPACE CADET TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON ABOUT YOU. THE TRUTH IS KEPT FROM YOU AND IT IS TIME YOU STOP ALLOWING OF IT FOR THERE ARE PLACES TO GLEAN TRUTH IN SPITE OF THE CONTROLLERS. YOU SEE, THERE ARE ONLY A VERY SELECTED FEW WHO ARE REALLY AND ACTUALLY A PART OF THE PLANNED SURVIVORS IN THE NEW ORDER
--THE ONES WHO ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE TOOLS AND BELIEVE THEY ARE GETTING THEIR PLACE IN SAFETY HAD BETTER WAKE AND SMELL THE COFFEE. THEY WILL BE THE FIRST SEVERED AND LEFT TO CONTINUE THE LIE. REMEMBER, THE ONES WHO START AND DECLARE WAR ARE NOT THE BODIES WHO STAND WITH THE GUNS ON THE BATTLEFIELD! PONDER IT.

Hatonn to clear.