The Crime and the Cover-up
Mr. President, Tear Down This Tax!
June 10, 2005
33 years ago, high officials in the Executive branch, including the President of the United States, committed a crime against the People and covered it up. However, thanks to “Deep Throat,” who was one of the Executive branch’s own criminal investigators, the crime was uncovered, the guilty were punished, and for the first time in our history, a sitting President was forced to resign, rather than face prosecution and imprisonment.
We should thank the Creator for people like Deep Throat who love their country – and not the government, recognizing the difference between the two and the inherent danger in the latter.
Until last week, Mark Felt remained anonymous, probably out of fear for his life, but certainly for fear of persecution for revealing the truth about the misdeeds of his high ranking superiors. At 91 years of age, Mark Felt finally identified himself as Deep Throat.
Sixty years earlier, coincident with the First World War, another, far more serious crime against the People was committed by high ranking officials of both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. It too, was covered up. And just like Watergate, it was uncovered by one of the federal government’s own criminal investigators. The year was 1999. The investigator was Joseph Banister (Special Agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service).
However, that’s where the similarities end. Unlike Deep Throat, who secretly handed the results of his investigation to a newspaper reporter, Banister chose to quietly submit the results of his legal investigation to his government superiors, along with a request for answers to certain questions. Unlike Deep Throat, who was able to finish out his civil service career and retire, the highly decorated investigator Banister was forced to resign within a week of submitting his research report. Unlike Deep Throat, who induced a national commotion by his revelations about the unlawful cover up of a politically motivated “run-of-the-mill” criminal act which was committed by high-ranking public officials who were in office at the time -- and were subject to legal (and political) accountability, Banister revealed the truth about a well-packaged web of official deceit, fraud and constitutionally violative acts that had spanned almost a century and was gradually sold to the People across generations, using the veil, and force, of government and the law itself. Unlike Deep Throat, who revealed the truth about a lie that was only superficially concealed and was never deeply ingrained in the body politic, Banister revealed the truth about a lie that has been around for decades and is deeply believed.
And unlike Deep Throat, who hid in the shadows of history and successfully avoided both publicity and persecution, Banister, who dared to document this crime and directly confront those in government who were complicit in its perpetuation, is now being persecuted – and prosecuted for his part in bringing this crime to the attention of our nation.
The crime uncovered by Banister is summarized as follows.
As a fundamental starting point, it must be stipulated that the U.S. Constitution does not, and more importantly – can not -- authorize Congress to impose a direct tax on human labor. If a 1% tax on a person’s labor were to be held constitutional, a 100% tax on labor would also be constitutional, subject only to the whim of the political majority or the desire of government bureaucrats. In other words, the Constitution does not, and cannot, authorize Congress to use its limited taxing power to force the People to labor for the government.
In 1909, the meaning of the word “income” did not mean money received by a worker in direct exchange for that person’s human labor. It meant money derived from capital or labor or both, as, for example, money (profit) derived by Wal-Mart or Merrill Lynch from the labor of its workers. At the turn of the previous century, it was well understood that the legal term “income” did not mean the wages or salary earned by the worker for his own labor.Today, due to the well-packaged web of lies that has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, most people today incorrectly believe “income” means not only money derived from someone else’s labor, but also money earned by workers in direct exchange for their own labor.
In 1909, the U.S. Congress passed a proposed “income tax” Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which was simply to clarify the fact that Congress had the power under the existing clauses of the Constitution to tax income derived from real estate, stocks, bonds and other forms of capital, without apportioning the tax among the taxpayers --- that is, without requiring every taxpayer to pay the exact same amount.
So far, so good. There was nothing untoward about Congress proposing an Amendment to the Constitution for clarification purposes.
The crime and the cover-up began in 1913 with actions taken by both the Executive and Legislative branches.
In 1913, just thirty days before he was set to leave office, the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, declared by his certification that the proposed Amendment had been legally and properly ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, despite the well documented fact that he had been informed by his solicitor general that the Amendment had not come close to being ratified. The Congress adopted the Amendment as the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Within months of the fraudulent declaration by Knox, Congress crafted and passed the Income Tax Act of 1913, which included a definition of “income,” that stretched the meaning of the legal term “income” well beyond the constitutional meaning and well beyond the documented intent of the framers of the Amendment, as recorded in every official and professional document of the era: the Congressional Record, congressional committee reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.
With its statutory, unconstitutional definition of “income,” Congress improperly broadened the definition of “income” to include money received by a person in direct exchange for that person’s labor. In technical terms, Congress included a “non-apportioned, direct tax” on the salaries, wages and compensation of all American workers. Even though the Act exempted from the tax those workers earning less than $4,000, the government soon began to receive so much money from the “income” tax that its revenue increased from about $380 million in 1914 to more than $3.7 billion by 1918.
The Income Tax Act of 1913 also instituted withholding at the source and the tax return, Form 1040.
With these features, the Income Tax Act of 1913 provided the government with a stream of revenue that enabled it to spend large amounts of money before it had it. The central government not only had much more money to spend, it could now do whatever it wanted to do, even if it did not have the money to do it. At its heart, the Income Tax Act of 1913 enabled the government to pledge, as collateral, the labor of its citizens to secure its debt. The government could now guarantee the repayment of borrowed money by forcefully taking bread from the mouths of labor. Slavery has always been the ultimate form of lender security.
However, the still-standing Constitution prohibited a tax on labor. The Income Tax Act of 1913 was soon tested in Court. In 1916, the Supreme Court brought the unconstitutional labor tax to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S.1 (and the cases bundled with it, including Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103), that wages are not income within the meaning of the income tax Amendment to the Constitution, or any other provision of the Constitution.The Supreme Court's decision in Brushaber soundly rejected the government’s self-interested interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically limited “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply. The Brushaber court explicitly concluded that the16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation, meaning that direct taxes on wages, salaries and compensation received by workers in direct exchange for their labor fell outside of the meaning of the 16th Amendment and still must satisfy the fundamental requirement of apportionment as a direct tax, if, indeed, the government could overcome the slavery issue.The Brushaber decision forced Congress to consider changing the statutory definition of “income,” to bring it in line with the Constitution. However, true to form and consistent with the nature of governmental power, the government was loathe to relinquish the spoils and booty that flowed from its direct tax on labor, and the power and control that came with the tax (and its enforcement mechanisms). The crime continued in the halls of Congress and in the White House with the adoption of the Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917). Although the 1916 Act ended withholding of wages, salaries and compensation and ordered the money that had been withheld from workers to be returned to those workers, and the Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Directive 2635 and saw to it that the money withheld was returned, the 1916 Act failed to define the legal term “income.” While the act carried over the definition of “income” from the 1913 Act, Congress specifically qualified in Section 25 of the Act that the "income" subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. No further explanation was provided in the Act. In other words, after the Supreme Court's explicit ruling in Brushaber, the government adopted a revised tax law that said, in effect, “the meaning of the word ‘income’ has changed but we are not going to tell you how.” Confused or ignorant of the law, and too patriotic and engaged with World War I to question their government, workers toiling above the $4,000 exemption level kept sending in their Form 1040’s and paying a tax on money earned by them in direct exchange for their own labor. As the years went on, the tax rates went up, the exemptions dropped, and more Americans succumbed to the popular belief that the law required them to file and pay. During the great Depression, the crime deepened.While the more wealthy workers were unwittingly continuing to pay a tax on money earned in direct exchange for their labor, not just on their passive income, Congress and the President, again acted without constitutional authority, and in defiance of the now numerous (and consistent) rulings of the United States Supreme Court (the latest ruling coming in 1920 in Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189). In 1933 the government adopted a law forcing all workers to pay an “income” tax by another name, on money earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The new labor tax was called a “Social Security” tax. Along with this new unconstitutional labor tax, withholding was re-instituted in America. During World War II, the crime deepened further.Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President instituted still another labor tax on all Americans, not just the wealthy, calling it a, “Victory Tax.” Along with the “Victory Tax” came withholding of the “Victory Tax” at the source. Drunk with power, taking advantage of the People during times of strife, the government was “piling on” one direct labor tax after another, calling them “income” taxes, without ever statutorily defining the term “income.” The “Victory Tax” was a tax on the money people earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The People were told that “Victory Tax” would expire with the conclusion of the War. It didn’t. Neither did withholding. The Victory Tax continued unabated, becoming the Federal Income Tax of today. In 1965, the crime deepened even further.Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President piled on yet another direct tax on the labor of all working men and women, calling it a “Medicare Tax.” Along with the “Medicare Tax” came withholding of the “Medicare Tax” at the source.
The Bottom LineSince 1916, Congress and the Executive, with the cooperation of the lesser courts, have been relentlessly tightening the yoke of slavery on all Americans as they have imposed and enforced an increasing number of unconstitutional direct taxes on the salaries, wages and compensation. Beyond this, our institutions of government have, by duplicity, threat and force, coerced the businesses of America into collecting these labor taxes by withholding them at the source – i.e., from the paychecks of American workers.As the final interpreter of the Constitution, we, the People believe the Supreme Court got it right – a tax on labor – regardless of its label or beneficent intent -- is a “slave tax,” and is a violation of not only fundamental, human Rights, it is patently unconstitutional.
Most Americans, covered with a blanket of propaganda, believe they are free as they pledge allegiance to their country, a Republic, but follow the dictates of a government run by elected and appointed officials whose first allegiance is to their Party. Make no mistake: money earned in direct exchange for labor is being seized by the government, without rightful authority, from the workers of America by force --- that is, by violence --- to be distributed, with its opportunities for profit, influence and corruption among our elected and appointed public officials -- political henchmen and party workers, and those that seek to keep them in office for their own benefit.
The People have repeatedly Petitioned the government to remedy this oppression, but their repeated Petitions have been met by repeated injury.
Americans who know the truth about the “income” tax, and who protest the labor tax and government’s continuing crime by retaining their money, are dragged first through an administrative process and then, if necessary through a civil and/or criminal judicial process – all of which suffer from fatal Due Process defects because there can be no law authorizing a slave tax. The taxpayer’s defense is the Constitution and the law. However, the government does not answer any questions by the protesting tax payer prior to, or during the administrative process, other than to say the questions are “frivolous.” During civil and criminal trials the tax payer is likewise prevented from citing the Constitution or the law and is, therefore, prevented from defending himself, because the law is his defense.Making matters worse, jurors, more often than not, have a vested interest in the status quo; they come from a population of people who work for the government, have family members who work for the government, work for a company that sells goods or services to the government and/or directly receive some form of payment or “entitlement” from the government.
The full extent of the cover-up can best be illustrated by the cases of Richard Simkanin, Phil Hart, Irwin Shiff and Joseph Banister, although there are many, many other examples going back to the 1960s.There can be no illusion or equivocation: Our income tax system is a crime against We The People and their Constitution. That our servant government refuses to confront the evidence and address this issue in a peaceful, responsible manner not only furthers and abets the crime, but places our country at significant economic and political risk.That our servant government would dare to persecute and prosecute those that have exposed these crimes of unfathomable magnitude, is an abomination to everything that is just and moral and necessary for the continuance of Freedom.It's time to face reality and the likelihood that significant problems lay ahead unless our government is soon held accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law, and unless we eliminate – regardless of the degree of practical difficulty – the labor taxes that are antithetical to the very principles upon which our nation was founded. It is time to end the fraud. It's time to end the persecution. This is America. Let's start acting like it.Mr. President, It's time to “tear down this tax.”
Article Related LinksPlease note: Most of the .pdf documents below are in excess of 500KB in size. It is strongly suggested that you RIGHT-Click on the links to download the document to your computer before attempting to open it.1913 Tax Act (partial) 1916 Tax Act (partial)
1917 Tax Act (partial)
Treasury Decision 2635 ordering refunds of withholdingSupreme court decision in BrushaberBanister pleadings: Motion to Dismiss Motion to Strike
PREVIOUS ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE
The Journal of History - Fall 2007 Copyright © 2007 by News Source, Inc.