It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
News Updates about Taxation
According to the report, in 1913, just months after the purported ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress attempted to stretch the meaning of the legal term “income” beyond the meaning and intent of the framers of the 16th Amendment, as recorded in EVERY official and professional document of the era: congressional record, congressional reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.
In the Income Tax Act of 1913, Congress surreptitiously, by stealth and without authority, included an un-apportioned, direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans and instituted withholding at the source.
However, in 1916, as Mr. Hart’s report demonstrates, the Supreme Court brought the devilish action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.
As the research documents, Congress was then forced to amend the Income Tax Act, to remove salaries, wages and compensation from the definition of taxable income, to outlaw the withholding of wages from the paychecks of citizens and to direct the Executive Department to refund all wages withheld. All this, of course was done to bring the law into compliance with Brushaber.
The Hart report demonstrates there is absolutely no foundation to the position of the Executive branch (the Treasury Department, the IRS and the Department of Justice) that wages and salaries EQUALS taxable “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, or that an individual’s wages, received in direct exchange for his labor, equals income and is, therefore, taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment.
On the other hand, the report proves beyond a shadow of doubt what “income” means within the meaning of the 16th Amendment -- that a corporation may derive “income” from labor, as that corporation utilizes labor in pursuit of profits, and that such corporate income is taxable. Likewise, a person or a corporation may derive “income” from investments in stocks and bonds or real estate, and that such (passive) income is taxable.
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”
1774, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113
Before going further, I’d like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority...............
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law …abridging …the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.".
While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.
By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.
Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.
Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.
Under this heading, all officers of the government are liable, if they strayed from their oath of office.
The reverse principle of "Taxes Before Redress" is based on the essence of monarchy and kingly power: the king owns everything under his domain. People possess property under a monarch by his grace alone. Since a king owns everything under his domain, he merely has to speak to lawfully dispose of his property. Thus, if a king imposed a tax on land he imposed it on his own land and whoever occupied the land was obligated to pay the tax to the king’s treasury. A tax, then, being a part of the king’s property, was legally presumed to be in the possession of the king before and after its assessment.
This proposition was soundly rejected by the Founders in designing our unique system of governance.
In America, such presumptions constitute grievances. The first duty of any officer is to uphold the Constitution – the entire Constitution, without reservation and without bribery or blackmail.
Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievance naturally includes the ability to compel admissions – the production of information and answers to questions.
The idea that taxes are to be paid before redress is asserted by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code at Section 7241, which states, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person …."
How repugnant! American government is supposed to be organized to protect American citizens; but section 7241 authorizes the IRS to destroy them with impunity and the judiciary is cooperating with the executive and legislative branches in a collective decision to deny the People their constitutional Rights. Such acts of government are unconstitutional and must be stopped.
In America, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances is the basis of our liberty. Our founders explicitly recognized this right in the first amendment to our constitution -- for they understood that without it, we could not have a servant government whose power is defined and limited by the consent of the people.
In America, the right to petition our government for a Redress of Grievances is an unalienable right. It derives from our faith in a supreme being - an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government's absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people's petition.
The way the system is now working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. The servant is taking over the House: the government has brought us to the brink; the Constitution is hanging by a thread.
Not only is the government neglecting its duties, it is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around its powers.
With today’s failure to respond, we can see a clear pattern. Our elected representatives do not feel compelled to respond to the People.
We must take the appropriate next step. As of two o’clock today, the government has left us no choice but to engage in civil action – a pro-active, non-violent mass movement, with the explicit goal of restoring the Republic by bringing the government back under the control of the People and our Rule Book – the Constitution of the United States of America.
This meeting here on the National Mall is the culmination of Freedom Drive 2002. On November 8, citizens from across the nation began driving in caravans toward Washington DC, to peaceably assemble here to await the government’s response to their Petitions.
The nature of our resistance is clear. It is not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it is an act of resistance to a government that is violating the purposes for which the Creator -- through the People and the Constitution -- has ordained civil government.
We are not "anti-war." We are not "anti-tax." We are "pro-constitution" and "anti-fraud."
We did not initiate this conflict. We have been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and have pursued that course for decades.
We have no desire for resistance or violence of any kind. However, in the People's peaceful reconciliation attempts, the People's petitions and appeals have been met with force, and in some instances with near- military force.
Any wage earner who gives money to the federal government and any employer who withholds money from the paychecks of working Americans is undermining the People’s Rights, Freedoms and Liberties. Under the present circumstances, their behavior must be considered to be un-American.
As our Founders said so clearly: "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."
You have voted MidnightDStroyer for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Originally posted by TheBorg
I need to research that a lot more before I do anything bold...
I propose we start a research project on this.
We the People Congress on Long Island with the approval of Headquarters is planning to inform people about the Right to Petition and the D.C. "V" rally in 2007 to the thousands of people shopping this holiday season in NYC. We would like it if we could all do this together.
Dates: Saturday and Sunday Dec. 16th & 17th
I spoke with Police Officer Paul Spano of Midtown South Community Affairs Division of the NYPD and they assured me there will be no problem for us to hand out information on the side walk in costume, it is our first amendment right. I am working on obtaining a letter from the NYPD stating just that so we don't have any problems.
For the message we are delivering to be uniform, everyone will receive a talking sheet as to what to say about the mask and why we are here, etc. This way everyone gets the same message.
Please dress appropriately under your "V" costume, the weather in NY has been in the mid to low 40s.
You have voted MidnightDStroyer for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
Originally posted by TheBorg
I wonder if they would organize nationwide walks instead of just in D.C.?
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
After all, to get attention from today's media, you need some kind of flashy "gimmick."
[edit on 14-12-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]
Originally posted by TheBorg
No. I was referring to that professor that holed himself up in his home, and had some militia members joining him in his efforts. It was posted here on ATS, but I can't remember what thread it was in. I posted in it, but I believe I removed it from my thread faves.