THE TAX GATHERERS
Let's take a look at an equitable tax system. Yes ....
there is such a thing . . . it's in our Constitution.
Our first compact for the national government was called
the Articles of Confederation. These were a disaster. Most
states would have preferred to remain independent and refused
to give up powers they enjoyed as colonial states. All the
original states had their belly filled with abuses from the
British monarchy and feared the power of any central
The Articles were drafted in 1777 and argued and debated
for three and one half years. The new government finally
got off the ground in March 1, 1781. One reason for the
delay was the requirement for unanimous acceptance by the
They were called Articles of Confederation and Perpetual
Union Between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay,
Rhode Island and Province Plantation, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. This union was "for
their common defense, the security of their liberties, and
their mutual and general welfare."
The Articles were a confederation in name only. There
was no executive branch to execute the laws, no court system
to try the laws, Congress could make war but could not demand
the money to pay for it, it could enter into treaties but had
no power to enforce them, it could borrow money but had no
means to repay it. Congress could requisition money from the
states for operating expenses but could not demand it.
States were late in paying their share and more often than
not, would send less than the Congress requisitioned. It was
a case of one government waiting for thirteen other govern-
ments to offer their help.
There were border squabbles, jealousies, heavy taxes
between the states, in some instances, man's unalienable
rights were violated . . . the whole system was beset with
There were a couple tries to get the states together for
a constitutional convention and they finally succeeded in May
1787. For 100 days, through the heat of summer, these men
argued, cajoled, persuaded, compromised and finally in
September, the new proposed document was sent to Congress for
submission to the states and the people for final approval.
Concerning taxes, they set up the most simple and
equitable tax system devised by man up to that time. Article
I, Section 2, clause 3 is the apportionment rule.
"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 actual Enumeration shall be made within three
years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in
such a Manner as they shall by law direct."
Then in Article I, Section 8, we find:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts, Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States."
The first authority (Art I, Sec 2) allows for direct
taxes. The Framers expected this taxing power to levied on
land and buildings only. Being apportioned meant that if
State A had 20 percent more population than State B, State A
was required to send 20 percent more money to the national
government as their share for the expense of government.
This was the reason for census taking which is ordained in
the same section. The feeling at the convention was that
direct taxation should not be used except when absolutely
The power granted in Art I, Sec 8 was for an indirect
tax and this had to be uniform throughout the country. As
you can see, it involved duties, imposts (tax on imports) and
excises and were meant to be taxes on consumption. Whether
is was liquor, tobacco or horse carriages, whatever, it was
on consuming or using the item. It was assumed that this
would be the chief source of direct income for the feds for
years to come. And it was.
In checking through the Federalist Papers to find their
intention concerning taxes, not one word is ever mentioned
that they were going to tax individuals directly. Where did
we go wrong?
None of these powers diminished the power of the states
to tax their citizens. Hamilton, in paper No. 32, points out
"Under the plan of the convention, they retain that authority
in the most absolute and unqualified sense; that an attempt
on the part of the national government to abridge them in the
exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power,
unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."
(Any reference to paper no. in this series refers to The
Let's jump into our time machine and come forward to
1894 when Congress passed a law to tax income. In 1895, the
Supreme Court threw it out because they said it violated the
Constitutional requirement that all direct taxes be appor-
tioned. The only way the power brokers behind our government
were going to beat this roadblock was to propose and pass an
amendment to the constitution doing away with the requirement
In 1909 the Sixteenth Amendment was proposed and sent to
the states for their approval. This is the one which the
bureaucracy claims is their authority to tax you and me but
they have got big troubles with this one.
Let me first point out some absolutes in our Constitu-
tion. The power in the document for the business of
government was granted by WE THE PEOPLE and can ONLY be
altered by us. Article VI states that the Constitution is
the supreme law of the land and all laws passed have to
conform to the permission given by us. Everyone who works
for the feds in any capacity has to take an oath or affirma-
tion to God to support the document.
To be President of the United States, a person MUST be
a natural born citizen of the United States. (Art II, Sec 1)
This is a fixed, explicit command. There are NO excep-
tions allowed. No emergency allowances or any amendment
saying anyone but a natural born citizen can be president.
This is the only requirement in the entire document that a
candidate be natural born. It's obvious the Founders put it
there for a specific purpose.
July 31, 1909, the proposed taxing amendment was
introduced into Congress by Philander C Knox who was play
acting as secretary of State. The man who was acting as
president was William Howard Taft.
Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio on September 15, 1857.
SURPRISE . . . Ohio was NOT admitted to the Union until
August 7, 1953! At the time Taft was elected to be presi-
ident Ohio was simply a territory. It was not a state which
means he was not a natural born citizen. Our Constitution
was violated. He was not eligible to be president by any
stretch of your imagination.
Taft was not president and his illegal lackeys such as
Philander C Knox were not officials of the government. They
introduced this amendment illegally into Congress. It is
therefore an unconstitutional act and of no legal conse-
quence. So our illustrious Congress hits the panic button in
a frantic effort to correct one big booboo. In their finite
'wisdom', they passed a Joint Resolution admitting Ohio as a
full and equal member of the union. (Public Law 204, 83rd
Congress, 1st Session).
Section 2 of that resolution states: "This joint
resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Approved
August 7, 1953." You don't need a calculator to show that
it's backdated by 150 years. That's ex-post facto law.
They CAN'T do it. Ex-post facto law is forbidden! It's
a conspicuous violation of another command in our Constitu-
tion which states: "No . . . ex post facto law shall be
passed." (Art I, Sec 9) This was added protection for our
citizens. An act which was legal one day could not be
declared illegal a day, a week, or even years later. NO law
can be predated by one day. We didn't agree to any change
through the amendment process. That guaranteed protection of
no ex post facto law is still the law of the land.
From where do they assume such a power especially when
there are explicit commands forbidding what they did? First
they believe that we all are simple country bumpkins and it's
really none of our business what they do to run the country.
Their stinking arrogance shows that! Most are lawyers which,
they feel, puts themselves above us. They are just more
equal than we are.
Two amendments which are absolute prohibitions to their
assumption of powers we did not give are the Ninth and Tenth.
These are the two amendments bureaucrats insist do not exist.
THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN
RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE
OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY
THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES,
ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE
These two absolutely tell everyone that the federal
government is a government of enumerated and limited power.
They are the fence that we built around their operational
powers to keep them from exceeding what we allowed. Why do
you suppose they can't read and understand these?
Madison insisted that the authority of the new national
government is no greater under the new constitution than it
was under the Articles of Confederation. Other than the
power to regulate commerce, no new powers were given to the
feds. The powers they had under the Articles were given
vigor (to quote Madison) and the power to enforce.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to
the federal government are few and defined. Those which are
to remain in the State governments are numerous and in-
definite. The former will be exercised principally on
external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations and
foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will,
for the most part, be connected. The power reserved to the
several States will extend to all objects which, in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and
the properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement and prosperity of the State." Madison, paper
Another problem surfaces under this Public Law making
Ohio a member of the Union. They used a resolution to make
the law when the intent of the Founders was for only bills to
become law. Resolutions are to express an opinion or to
censure some person or action but were never to become law.
Congress knew very well they were violating the Consti-
tution. This 'law' was buried for twenty years before some-
one found it while doing research. And they tell us that
ignorance of the law is no excuse!
Public relations people at the IRS are real quick to
tell Americans that the Supreme Court decided that the
Sixteenth Amendment is constitutional. This is a filthy lie!
The case they cite as proof is called Brushaber vs Union
Pacific RR, (240 US 1, 1916.) There is NO lawyer, bureaucrat
or otherwise, no researcher that can point to a statement in
that finding that the Supreme Court rendered a decision
saying the 16th Amendment is constitutional. These people
must be using Orwell's newspeak now. The case didn't even
involve the 16th amendment!
These same PR people then tell us that if we don't like
the tax assessed, we can go to Tax Court to challenge the
IRS. This, they say, meets the requirement of due process of
law. What a crock.
Due process of law is guaranteed by our Fifth Amendment.
It begins with the Constitution. If any link is broken
between the Constitution and the law as it operates, there is
no due process of law. Due process of law is only operative
when the requirements of the Constitution are being followed.
We pointed out earlier about Article VI (the Supremacy
Clause). Any 'law' which is passed outside the authority in
the document, is NO LAW . . . due process is then inoperative
and we are not required to obey the law. It's that simple.
Another statement they like throwing at us is that the
entire tax system depends of voluntary compliance. Yea,
Actually, that's true. But they depend on the fear
factor to make sure you comply voluntarily. If they are
operating outside the law as we granted power, why the fear?
If we are not required to obey an unconstitutional law, why
The entire debate in Congress, while the proposed 16th
Amendment was being considered, concerned only using civil
penalties. We have already proven the feds have no power to
determine what comprises criminal activity (See the chapter
entitled People Control in this volume.)
Now get a copy of the Constitution and notice something
special about amendments . . . many carry the statement,
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article with ap-
propriate legislation." Says nothing of the kind in the 16th
Amendment. We gave them NO authority under this amendment to
say you can go to jail if you don't pay or if you don't file!
How come lawyers don't know this? Or is it that they don't
want to rile up one of their fraternity buddies (the judge)
or that they don't want to incur the wrath of the IRS?
We pointed out the tragedy of the 'forfeiture laws' they
use in the drug enforcement scene (read the chapter entitled
Food and Drugs). Our friends at the IRS love to do the same
thing . . . part of the fear factor to make sure that you
Perhaps you have been unlucky and have had to go
through the devastating seizure of your home and belongings
. . or know someone who has been so unfortunate. We've all
seen the 'official notices' in the newspaper . . . 'Under the
authority of Section 6331 of the Internal Revenue code, the
property of John Doe' and so forth. How asinine!
This 'Internal Revenue Code' is what Congress has
enacted, written and rewritten many times under the so called
authority of the Sixteenth Amendment. What Sixteenth
Amendment? It's was an illegal act of Congress as we have
pointed out. Any operation and function of the IRS code is
also an illegal act of Congress and the IRS! Due process of
law again, remember? The taxing power of the government is
as stated in the Constitution . . . not the IRS code!
This seizure by the IRS is an area of human conduct
where I experience a tremendous letdown. How any human can
buy property of another through an illegal seizure and sale
by government is beyond me! It always reminds me of an ugly
old vulture sitting on a tree limb waiting for a dinner of
If people would gain the knowledge of the illegal
dealings of our friends at the IRS, then perhaps the ones who
purchase these properties will cease buying. If the IRS
could sell no more property, it would be impossible for them
to seize other possessions. Didn't the due process clause of
the Fifth Amendment say that property cannot be taken without
due process of law? ALL these seizures are a violation of
Let's examine another facet of this mishmash of
gobbledegook. All the forms and in the code it makes the
statement, something to the effect that anyone made liable
for the tax, check schedule A or B or whatever to see how
much tax you owe.
Now, WHAT makes you liable? Ask your accountant . . .
ask the folks at H&R Block . . . ask anyone . . . what makes
you liable? There is nothing in law which makes you liable
for federal income taxes. You make yourself liable by filing
a return. When you sign a 1040 'under the penalty of
perjury', you are waiving your rights. You have just become
a witness against yourself. At that point, you have fallen
under the authority of our friends at the IRS and given them
jurisdiction. How about them apples?
See why they can honestly say our tax system depends on
your voluntary compliance? It does.
Then people wait for a refund on their tax return . . .
refund hell . . . it's your money!
Something else the IRS is pushing for very hard . . . a
cash less society. Know why? They cannot trace cash . . .
but even the idiots working for the service can follow the
trail left behind by the use of credit cards or checks.
Another favorite stunt of the PR people at the IRS is to
claim people who don't pay their taxes are cheats, crooks or
worse. The argument goes that if they don't pay their taxes,
we have to make up their share. This stinks to high heaven
too. If they don't pay their taxes, we don't have to pay our
taxes either. No one is required to obey an unconstitutional
law . . . that includes you, me and the other guy.
Alexander Hamilton has a very interesting statement in
paper no. 33 . . . "If the federal government should overpass
the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of
its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to
the standard they have formed, and take such measures to
redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency
may suggest and prudence justify."
Following that suggestion, for starters let's FLOOD the
Congress with Petitions for Redress of Grievances. We must
demand the so-called 16th Amendment be removed from our
Constitution and the IRS be dissolved. Both are illegal
under our charter for government. I mean they have to be
flooded with petitions, letters and phone calls. A couple
they might consider annoying but if they were to receive a
million or two, they would have to sit up and take notice.
The author already has one petition for redress before
Congress concerning this very issue. One congressman, Chick
Abraham Kazan, decided that after a few letters refuting what
I had claimed, he was behind the eight ball. He submitted my
Patition to Congress on April 28, 1981 where it was referred
to the Judiciary Committee. There is no power in the
Constitution which allows them to throw the petition out . .
it's still before the committee. Easiest way to buy time
and also to ignore the issue is to pigeonhole the petition
and perhaps I will die and the issue will also be dead.
Nothing has happened as far as redressing my grievance
but as I said, one petition they can ignore. Let's get a
million or two into Congress and see if they can ignore all
of us! For all my readers who register for this Volume 2, I
will send a copy of the Petition together with all correspon-
dence and a copy of the page in the Congressional Record
showing its acceptance. You too can drive them nuts.
All you guys or gals who were in the service, remember
part of your oath? You swore to God ... that you will
protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. All naturalized citizens also took the
same oath. What do you say to God now? . . . "Hey I didn't
mean what I said?" Or perhaps, "Sorry, God, I was lying!"
If we do nothing about all these violations of our laws,
as the axiom says . . . we deserve what we get.
REGISTRATION IS ONLY $19.95
PLEASE READ 'SALES PITCH' CHAPTER