Tags, 상세검색
PJ 16CHAPTER 11REC #4 HATONNTHURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1990 6:07 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 309 FLAG
FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT (6/21/90)
You still have a few--very few--intelligent Senators. Is it possible that some are beginning to see that they, too, shall pay the consequences of a new constitution and Global One World Destruction? We will not press too far, but at least the proposed amendment to stop flag burning did not make it through the Senate this day. It is not dead as an issue; but extremely wounded.
There is additional hope, for the Zionists of Israel are overpressing their stance and are getting some very dark marks and demerits for their continued blatant lack of cooperation toward any semblance of peace.
And then, let us give prayers to the great numbers who have physically perished in Iran this day. It is only a forerunner of greater to come but we must have compassion as the old is changed and Mother turns and shakes in her toils. Beware the tremblings within your own state this day for yours is not long in the coming, either. California trembles in response for you cannot have such pain in one place without all being touched by the mighty shifting. Cling closely to the Father that you can be shown the way.
*****VICTORY TAX (1942)There are a couple of additional taxes which are often spoken of and we will refer to them briefly. Neither are as they appear and are good examples of double talk and enforcement of "assumed" laws.
On October 21, 1942, Congress passed the "Revenue Act of 1942", Chapter 619, 56 Stat.798. Part of this statute included the so-called "Victory Tax" which was nothing more than another indirect tax added to the "income taxes" which were already established at that time.
The "Victory Tax" seems to be as misunderstood as the 16th Amendment. It is amazing how many people erroneously believe the "Victory Tax" authorized a direct tax on the wages of the individual. We will go through this discussion for it will reinforce all that we have given you to date. IF THE "INCOME TAX" IS NOT FOR YOU AS NONTAXPAYER, THEN NEITHER CAN THE VICTORY TAX HAVE APPLIED TO YOU THEN--OR EVER.
This erroneous belief started, of course, during World War II when Americans were under the stress of war. The hard working men and women of America have always been patriotic, and they did not object to the withholding. It would have been considered un-American to object. After all, you did have a war to win and the war effort did need to be financed. At that time you had no way to know that the war was set up, staged and financed by powerful ones in your own elite "tower of power" structure, sanctioned by your top politicians.
The misconception in regard to the Victory Tax, combined with the misconceptions in regard to Social Security, provided the building blocks for the greatest extortion racket ever perpetrated on a nation of hard working people. The sad part is that Congress has sufficient lawful taxing power to provide all the money it requires, and there was no legitimate need, even during war, to extort money from people under the guise of collecting taxes. I shall repeat: evil will always choose the forceful and deceitful method even if truth and established laws would serve much better.
You see, by taking the forceful approach and having it pushed through without contradiction, the motion is flowing to press ever more upon you for you then assume a thing to be lawful and that it is necessary to comply within the law. The law then becomes fact without any contradiction--after all, who would knowingly do-in their own country and citizens?
While the Revenue Act of 1942 was "lawful" since it applied only to those who were subject to the tax, it was the unlawful misapplication of the law which started the problems you face today.
I suppose we should demonstrate that the Victory Tax was not a direct tax on wages, but simply more indirect tax added to the "income taxes" which were already established. We do this boring thing to allow you to cement within your minds that YOU ARE MOST LIKELY NOT A 'TAXPAYER" IN ANY CATEGORY THEY CAN CONJURE UP TO CLAIM UPON YOU. Let us consider a few of the provisions of the Revenue Tax Act of 1942:
Look to the lower portion of page 801, under Sec. 801, subsection (b), the Act provides that when an amendment refers to a chapter, subchapter, title, subtitle, etc., the reference is made to that particular part of the Internal Revenue Code. Just below subsection (b), subsection (c) states that the terms used in this Act shall have the same meaning as when used in the Internal Revenue Code. Any time the Act refers to a part of the code which is under the income tax, or uses a term in reference to income tax, it goes without stating that it applies only to those who are subject to this indirect tax because of their revenue taxable activities.
Unless a person understands the taxing provisions of the original Constitution and has knowledge of the proper interpretation of the 16th Amendment, he will never have a correct understanding of a taxing statute.
Page 884 of this Act reads, in part:
SEC. 172. TEMPORARY TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.
(a) The Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting at the end of Chapter 1 the following new subchapter:
SUBCHAPTER D--VICTORY TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Part I--Rate and Computation of Tax
SEC. 450. IMPOSITION OF TAX.
There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1942, a victory tax of 5 per centum upon the victory tax net income of every individual.....
To the person who is not knowledgeable of the constitutional principles of taxation, Section 450 would appear to apply to every individual whether the individual was involved in revenue taxable activities or not. However, because the term "victory tax net income" has its own definition, you will see that it all reverts right back to that old indirect tax called the "income tax" which applies only to those who are involved in revenue taxable events or activities. Section 451, at page 884, reads in part:
SEC. 451. VICTORY TAX NET INCOME.
(a) Definition. The term 'victory tax net income' in the case of any taxable year means.......the gross income for such year
At page 888, Section 466 reads in part:
SEC. 466. TAX COLLECTED AT THE SOURCE.
(a) Requirement of Withholding. There shall be withheld, collected, and paid upon all wages of every person, to the extent that such wages are includable in gross income, a tax equal to 5 per centum of the excess of each payment of such wages over the withholding deduction allowable under this part.
Since the term "gross income" is defined under Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and applies only to "taxpayer(s)" as defined in the code, it is the "to the extent that such wages are includible in gross income" language that restricts the application of the withholding provisions of the statute to only those persons who are subject to the so-called "income tax" because of their revenue taxable activities.
To further demonstrate that the Victory Tax was simply more indirect income tax, let us read from Section 456 at page 887 of the Act.
SEC. 456. LIMITATION ON TAX.
The tax imposed by section 450 (Victory Tax), computed without regard to the credits provided in sections 453, 454, and 466(e), shall not exceed the excess of 90 per centum of the net income of the taxpayer for the taxable year over the tax imposed by sections 11 (normal tax) and 12 (surtax), computed without regard to the credits provided in sections 31, 32, and 466(e).
All of the so-called "income taxes" apply only to those who are "taxpayer(s)" as defined because of their revenue taxable activities or events. Had the public school systems done a proper job in educating the students as to the constitutional principles of taxation and of civil rights, the hard working American men and women would have never been deceived into believing that the employer was "required" to withhold from the wages they earn by contracting their labor and talents to engage in lawful, innocent and harmless activities.
The Victory Tax was repealed, but was essentially replaced by the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", Chapter 120, 57 Stat. 126. The "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943" is still in effect today and provides the authority for the collection of "income tax" at the source on wages. This collection of "income taxes" can lawfully be applied , however, only to those who are subject to the tax because of their revenue taxable activities.
It is easy to understand why people did not object to the withholding at time of war. America is a great and wondrous country. Five percent of a pay check is not much to "donate" when others are giving their lives to protect the freedoms which are secured by the U.S. Constitution. But how this sham, this extortion racket, could have been perpetrated on Americans by their fellow Americans for over 40 years since WW II, is simply beyond any comprehension.
Let us clear up another misconception before moving on to another subject. Many people, including people in the patriot groups, wrongly believe that Congress can impose a direct tax without apportionment at time of war. NO, THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DO SUCH A THING! Part of the misconception, however, stems from a misinterpretation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the U.S. Constitution which provides:
"The Congress shall have power.....To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer term than two years". U.S. Constitution, Art 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12.
This provision of the Constitution does not change the rule that all direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED. It only authorizes Congress to appropriate money from the general treasury to raise and support armies, but not for a period longer than two years! This appropriation provision is the same in war as in peace, and the power of Congress to tax is the same in war as in peace. While some articles have been written claiming Congress can impose a direct tax without apportionment during time of war, there simply is no foundation in law for this conclusion.
While the unlawful and arbitrary application of the revenue laws have been applied by many employers for many years against individuals whose employment does not occasion any event or activity that is taxable for revenue purposes, this unlawful withholding of funds under the guise of collecting taxes on real estate as was done during the Civil War. The fact that it has been going on for a half century or so does NOT make it any more lawful.
"No person shall be.....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment (in part)
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said:
" a practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience". U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338.
Don't you think it is time to stop the unlawful practices and acts of those employers who are withholding wages under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of collecting taxes?
It is great wisdom to realize you can fool too many of the people too much of the time to keep truth in perception. One deceit needs many others, and so the whole house is built in the air and must soon come to the ground--and so it is, my friends, so it is.
PJ 16CHAPTER 12REC #1 HATONN
FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 1990 9:21 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 310
THE CONSTITUTION/THOMAS JEFFERSON:
Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion and delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people; they fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.
* * * * *
What is your political creed? It WAS: ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE
--WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
In your efforts to "offend" no man and meet the selfish desires of all ones, good or evil, have you forgotten your path? Have you allowed men of no conscience and greedy intent to rule the world, desecrate and destroy that which is fundamental to your existence?
As we walk through these days of remembering, will enough heed the cry of the Phoenix in her agony, to "rally and recall the people"?
We can remind you of the way as some of your own brother Americans have been efforting to do in these trying times with the clock running out. Will you hear and heed? We shall see!
There are only two things you "have to" do in life. No, one of them is NOT taxes and that is the purpose of this Journal--to show you a better way and in the changing you will recall your people unto the Constitution rights of Life, Liberty and the (Free) pursuit of Happiness. You can regain control of your government BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE. So, what are the two things?
You "have to" die, and you "have to" LIVE UNTIL YOU DIE. YOU MAKE UP ALL THE REST. So, how shall it be, brothers? We can help you but you must "live until you die"--you will choose how that life shall be!
Remember that while you complain of how it "ought to be" and how "I can't do anything about it, I am just one--and not very smart or strong", remember: GOD DOES NOT MAKE FAULTY PRODUCTS! Stop the nonsense about your lack of perfection for you are a product of God. You will most surely lose that thing which you do not use--and your freedom and Constitution is all but lost. Ponder it most diligently.
Back to our "taxing" work, please.
PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT
We will consider one more tax which troubles some of you in concept simply because it is "there". Then we will move on to practical descriptions of actions of various kinds. I have efforted to tell you how it "ultimately" IS. You can check out the references for proof or take my input as valid, or whatever. However, there are other less drastic measures than telling them to go shove it. I advise you to NEVER be less than gracious, cooperative and sickeningly friendly and nice to the dastards who will come to hang you.
Further, you are already "in the mess" so it may be the better part of intelligence to ease your way out of it. The man with the gun will always win the skirmish; if you are diligent, persistent and do it right--YOU will win the war. NEVER ALLOW IT TO SLIP THE FOREMOST ATTENTION OF YOUR MIND WHEN DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR HENCHMEN: WHAT THEY DO IS ALWAYS LEGAL! EVEN IF IT IS UNLAWFUL, ANY ACTION THEY PLACE "INTO THE RULEBOOK' BECOMES *LEGAL*! That is why you play the game properly, carefully and in sweet innocent truth. You are NOT out to overthrow a government in any manner whatsoever--YOU ARE SIMPLY RECALLING THE LAWS WITHIN YOUR CONSTITUTION TO RESTORE YOUR NATION UNDER THOSE LAWS AS LAID FORTH IN YOUR CONSTITUTION. NO MORE AND NO LESS. YOU CAN MAKE A REVOLUTION WITHOUT BEING REVOLTING!
The Public Salary Tax is misunderstood by almost everyone. You have been led to believe that the PSTA imposed a tax on public employees. A closer look, and sound reasoning, will reveal the erroneous conclusion.
The Public Salary Tax Act didn't impose a tax on anyone, but was an act of legislation by which Congress merely consented to the taxation of compensation of certain public employees.
As you have learned from the court cases cited herein, taxation "on" income is in the category of an indirect tax and in its nature, an excise. You have also learned from these court cases that an excise is NEVER upon property, money or otherwise, but upon activities or events which are taxable for revenue purposes. Therefore, it goes without saying that the only public employees who would remotely be subject to such a tax are those whose activities cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right.
If, on the other hand, the activity is lawful, innocent and harmless, it cannot be taxed for revenue purposes, no matter where it is performed.
It also remains true that the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 did not impose a direct tax on that compensation, because, as has been repeatedly held by the U.S. Supreme Court, all direct taxes must be apportioned in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. To additionally demonstrate that this act applies to that indirect tax, which is called the "income tax", Section 1 of Title I of the act reads as follows:
Section 1. Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the definition of "gross income") is amended by inserting after the words "compensation for personal service" the following: ("including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing)".
Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 provided the definition of "gross income" for "income tax" purposes which is now found in Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Of course, the code relates only to those whose activities are taxable for revenue purposes.
Let us go back and look at the example used earlier (John Doe, the janitor). John has a God-given and constitutionally secured right to lawfully contract his labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities. Whether John is sweeping floors for the corner grocery, or for the city water works, or for the IRS or the FRB, FBI or KGB, the activity is just as lawful in one place as it is in another. The same principle can be applied to any other occupation such as that of a secretary, or of a filing clerk, or of a fireman, or any other Occupation that an individual can pursue as a matter of natural right.
Since any activity which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right can be taxed for revenue purposes, what was the reason for the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939? Wouldn't such activities be taxable under the previous income tax statutes?
You will notice that in Section 4 of Title I of the act, the consent to tax such compensation is conditional; that is, if such taxation does not discriminate against such officer or employee because of the source of such compensation".
Earlier in the history of your nation, the courts had held that under the Constitution the states were without power to tax instrumentalities of the United States and you might look up, McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819)), and that the United States was without power to tax the salary of a state officer (see Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 (1871)). Also, in 1931 the U.S. Supreme Court said:
"It is an established principle of our constitutional system of dual government that the instrumentalities, means and operations whereby the United States exercises its governmental powers are exempt from taxation by the States, and that the instrumentalities, means and operations whereby the States exert the governmental powers belonging to them are equally exempt from taxation by the United States. This principle is implied from the independence of the national and state governments within their respective spheres and from the provisions of the Constitution which look to the maintenance of the dual system".
Indian Motorcycle Co. v. U. S., 238 U.S. 570, 575 (1931)
The reason for these rulings is that if either of the governments were to tax a specific function of the other, it would impede the function of the one taxed. As held in McCulloch v. Maryland, the power to tax is the power to destroy. It is implied by the Constitution that one government does not have the power to destroy a necessary function of the other.
However, as time went on, the U.S. Supreme Court took a closer look at the situation in a number of cases. The court considered that if the tax were nondiscriminatory so that it would apply equally whether the function was performed in the private sector or for a government, it would not impede the operation of the government. There is no need to review these cases in detail, because it goes without need to say that if the activity IS NOT taxable for revenue purposes, the activity is no more taxable if performed for a government than it would be if performed in the private sector. If you would care to research this issue, you might begin with Helvering v. Garhardt, 304 U.S. 405, Helvering v. Terrell, 303 U.S. 218, and Graves v. N.Y. Ex Rel. O'Keef, 306 U.S. 466.
There are a large number of public employees who are also trying to stand up for their God-given and constitutionally secured rights. Once it is understood that a so-called "income tax" is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise and that an excise is never upon property, money or otherwise, but only on activities which are lawful subjects of revenue taxation, the public employee's course is clearly the same as it would be if he were performing the same job in the private sector. The legal criterion or standard by which an employee is to be determined as to whether or not he is employed in a revenue taxable activity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much wages or money he earns, but instead, is determined exclusively by the factual description and precise nature of his employment in terms of what he does or did and whether or not it involves any kind of activity which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. A revenue tax liability is not incurred by the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.
It cannot be proper to say that the public employee has a government granted privilege to work for the government. Congress, as well as the state legislatures, are without power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations of natural or common-law right which are rights secured by the Constitution.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them". Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
Regarding this subject you will once again be faced with only one of two choices--you are a "taxpayer" or a "nontaxpayer" and the definitions are in no manner changed. Do not enter a frivolous argument about it and waste time and advantage. Do not go forth with another frivolous argument such as "I am not subject to withholding because I am not an employee as defined in the Internal Revenue Code". This is foolish indeed, and a total waste of time. IF YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY, YOU HAVE CREATED A TAX LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THAT ACTIVITY. IF YOU ARE NOT, AND HAVE NOT BEEN ENGAGED IN A REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY, YOU ARE WITHOUT THE SCOPE OF THE REVENUE LAWS: YOU ARE A NONTAXPAYER, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR NOT!
I am a bit torn in indecision at this particular point in this Journal because I do not want you to rush off and do foolish things without adequate information; however, since thus far in the Journal has been discussed the fact that you are a "nontaxpayer"
--instructions for actions utilizing this approach should be placed next in sequence.
If I refer you to the appendix for the information you can as easily skip the next segments, therefore I shall herein place a "LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER", as example, and petition you to analyze it and do nothing until you complete the Journal or you may very well miss a far better approach to an individual situation.
You must understand, I am going to next tell you that you are NOT a United States Citizen--you are a CITIZEN of the United States or rewritten; United States' Citizen. You are THE by the people, for the people and of the people. Is this a "trick" definition? No, but then the United States Government is a "trick" government and it will ask you this "trick" question very often and you better learn how to respond. Are you a United States Citizen? Be most careful, my friends.
Check your Constitution and then put the question in perspective. Let's use a simple example: "the car of Mr. Jones". We can rewrite it, "Mr. Jones' car". Do you note the apostrophe? In most words you'd add both an apostrophe and an "s", but when a word ends in "s" you needn't add another. Yes, you do remember that grammar rule, don't you? Then a Citizen of the United States could, as I just said, be rewritten as United States' Citizen, BUT NEVER United States Citizen! It makes an incredibly important difference. Enough so, that I shall repeat it when we get to the subject. Meanwhile we will discuss a sample letter to suit the prior Journal portions and trust that you will not jump in front of the train in your eagerness to cross the tracks.
Let us take a brief rest and we will continue later, Dharma. Thank you for your service.
Hatonn to clear, please. Thank you.
