Income Tax Plank

Jake, I just watched a documentary by Aaron Russo called "America: Freedom to Fascism," that focuses on the Income Tax. Although you probably wouldn't learn anything you don't already know from it, I think that it is a great way to present the case against the Income Tax to people who haven't researched the Income Tax. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ukEs_S5QwM

Joseph Sneddon

Ask questions. Think for yourself.

Jake, you may already know this...http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

31 Questions and Answers about

the Internal Revenue Service

Revision 3.5

certified by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Citizen of California, Federal Witness,

Private Attorney General, Author and

Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library

Internet URL of home page:

http://www.supremelaw.org

Internet URL of this file:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Common Law Copyright

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

1.      Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer:  No.  The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.”  The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS.  See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D.  The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats).  See Article IV, Section 4.  Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

2.      If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

Answer:  The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”).  But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña.  See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision inUsed Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998.  Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and1961 et seq. (“RICO”).  Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.

3.      By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?

Answer:  After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.

Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.

However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive biddingbefore such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor.  There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes;  on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.

4.      Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?

Answer:  No.  It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes.  Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count of mail fraud.  See also 31 U.S.C. 333.

5.      Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?

Answer:  No.  Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act.  The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal “agency” by Act of Congress.  See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).

Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ.  The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees.  Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above.  As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.

6.      Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?

Answer:  No.  Neither was properly ratified.  In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.

That so‑called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored.  See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that were properly executed and filed in that case.  Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.”  The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States.  Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense.  See 18 U.S.C. 1031.

Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d  266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.

Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.

The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.  As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  See Article IV, Section 1.

Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”  (See Answer to Question 19 below.)

For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional.  See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.

7.      Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?

Answer:  Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.  Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16).  For example, see IRC section 1461.  A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.

After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck.  Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legallyliable for those taxes, not the worker.  See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).

If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes.  In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer;  in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.

8.      Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?

Answer:  No.  The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States.  See Article I, Section 1.  The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever.  This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.

If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax.  Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.

“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.”  See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added].  However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has beenremoved from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.

9.      The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?

Answer:  The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and all “residents of the United States”.  However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed bysubtitle A.

Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin).  The Ackercase cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority. (See Answer to Question 8 above.)

10.     How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?

Answer:  There are two (2) classes of citizens:  State Citizens and federal citizens.  The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used.  (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.)  Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.

The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”.  See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870);  Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union.  Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.  Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law.  See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.

The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used.  This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983.  Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”.  The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchiseprimarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.  Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.

Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens.  Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As we now know, that proposal was never ratified.  (See Answer to Question 6 above.)

Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.

Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.).  Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983;  whereas State Citizens do not.  SeeWadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).

Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law.  These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition.  See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.

11.     Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

Answer:  Yes.  The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there.  These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.”  (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag;  the stars on the flag are the 50 States.)  As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.

Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens.  For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909).  The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government.  See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.

Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has.  In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.

But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy;  their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e.the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).

12.     Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?

Answer:  Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16thamendment.  Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory,i.e. inside the federal zone.

Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.

Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company.  He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.

The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion.  In

But the question is...is it true that the IRS is NOT part of the
Federal Government, just as The Federal Reserve is NOT a legal part of
the Federal Government. And if that is the case...what can be done
about it?