Freedom Freak - Income Tax Fraud

Hey Folks, on this page I want to expose the fact that any real fraud concerning income tax is on the part of the Federal Government.

Below is an exerpt from a source that I tend to agree with, and in it is layed out the main structure of my belief concerning this issue.

With the Illuminati in complete control of our monetary system, they were ready for the next step. They couldn’t touch the money of the people, because the Constitution did not contain any provision for the taxing of income; so they now set into motion a plan to accomplish this, in order to oppress the middle class, and increase the lower class, who would have to depend on the government for their survival.

From 1862-72, to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax: 3% on incomes from $600 to $10,000, and 5% for incomes above that, which was later deemed to be insufficient, and it was increased twice, till it reached a high of 10% on all incomes over $5,000. The tax was criticized because it wasn’t apportioned among the states according to population. The Act of 1862 also provided for a sales tax, excise tax, and inheritance tax; and established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and was given the authority to enforce tax laws. In 1868, tobacco and alcoholic beverages were taxed.

The income tax was discontinued in 1872, but after heavy lobbying by the Populist Party, it was reinstated in 1894, as part of the Wilson-German Tariff Bill, when Congress enacted a 2% tax on all incomes over $4,000 a year. On May 20, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional, because it was not distributed among the states in accordance with the Constitution. Newspapers controlled by the Illuminati denounced the Court’s decision.

When the income tax legislation was introduced in the Senate in 1894, Sen. Aldrich had come out against it, saying it was “communistic and socialistic,” but in 1909, he proposed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, with the support of President Taft, which called for the creation of a progressive graduated income tax. It was ratified in February, 1913, and levied a 1% tax on all incomes over $3,000, and a progressive surtax on incomes over $20,000. Although praised by reformers, conservatives said it was “a first step toward complete confiscation of private property.”

According to a 2-volume investigative report called The Law That Never Was, by William J. Benson (who had been a special agent with the Illinois Department of revenue for 10 years) and M. J. Beckman, on February 25, 1913, shortly before the end of his term, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox ignored various irregularities, and fraudulently declared that the 16th Amendment had been ratified by three-fourths (or 36) of the 48 states. Benson traveled to all the states’ archives, and to the National Archives in Washington, DC, obtaining more than 17,000 pages of documents, all properly notarized and certified by state officials, that proved that the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

A 16-page memo dated February 15, 1913, to Knox, from his solicitor, stated that only four states had “correctly” ratified the amendment, that Minnesota had not forwarded their copy yet, and that the resolutions from 33 states contained punctuation, capitalization, or wording different than the Resolution that was approved by Congress. The memo read:

“In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. The other thirty-three resolutions all contain errors either of punctuation, capitalization, or wording. Minnesota, it is to be remembered, did not transmit to the Department a copy of the resolution passed by the legislature of the state. The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, or both, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording...”

Benson discovered that some word changes and misplaced commas were done by legislative intent. State Legislatures voting to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment, must use a certified, exact copy, as passed by the Congress. Since this was not done, legally, the Government can only collect an income tax within the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and all sections of the Internal Revenue Code, based on the 16th Amendment, are not valid.

So, of the 48 states:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitution to empower the federal government to tax their citizens.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, but later declared it passed without a recorded vote only after the amendment had been declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California, and Washington violated their own state constitutions during their ratification procedures.

Minnesota had not sent any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed copy, as was required by law.

Oklahoma, Georgia, and Illinois had made unacceptable changes in the wording, as did some of the above states (in addition to the other unacceptable procedures).

When you deduct these 21 states, you only had a proper ratification by only 27 states, far less than the Constitutionally-mandated 36.

Because of his diligence, Benson was arrested and imprisoned on income tax charges, but later released.

Why the Federal Government Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction Over States

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power ... to exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful building...”

This passage reveals the true intention of our forefathers, which was for the Federal Government to coordinate the efforts of all the States in order to combine their resources when it came to things like trade and defense, since the States were actually like separate countries. Therefore, the Congress only had jurisdiction over the area of Washington, D.C., and non-state territories like Alaska, and Hawaii (before they became states); and the present countries of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and others; and Federal property such as military bases. This area will be hereinafter referred to as the District (as in the District of Columbia), as it is in the United States Code (see 26 USC 7701(a) (1), and 26 USC 3121(e) (1) ).

Since America is a Republic, and not a democracy, the Government has a responsibility to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, as granted by the Constitution, rather than to grant privileges, known as civil rights, which are decided by the will of the majority. When the sovereign state citizen gave power to the State Constitution, which created State Government; this in turn gave power to the U.S. Constitution, which created the Federal Government; which has, in a sense, incorporated and gave power to the United States Government; which has turned the U.S. citizen into a subject of the U.S. Government. Therefore, the Federal Government has been able to wield its influence over the entire country, rather than just the area referred to as the District.

This is possible, because, for all intents and purposes, there are two of every state. For example, the official name of Pennsylvania is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; but to the U.S. Government, it is known as the State of Pennsylvania. There are even two state flags. One with a gold fringe, which represents the State of Pennsylvania, and martial law under the U.S. Government; and one without the fringe, which represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The gold-fringed flag was reserved for use by the General of the Army, where it was present at military headquarters and displayed at court martials. Its use elsewhere, as a government battle flag, was only to be done at the discretion of the President, within his role as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, to establish the jurisdiction of the military presence. This gold-fringed flag, which is common in many public places, such as courthouses, and schools, is not the national flag which represents our constitutional republic. It is a symbol of federal government jurisdiction.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, he called for an emergency session of Congress on March 9th, where the Emergency Banking Relief Act (also known as the War Powers Act, which seized all the country’s constitutional gold and silver coinage) was passed, which gave FDR the power to issue any order, and do anything he felt was necessary to run the country, without restriction, by authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (which placed all German citizens under the authority of the President, because they were enemies of the U.S.).

In 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2, subdivision (c), of the Trading with the Enemy Act, defined the Enemy as someone “other than citizens of the United States…” and in 1933, according to Chapter 106, Section 5, subdivision (b), the Act designated as the Enemy “any person within the United States.”

America was under the authority of an emergency war government. According to the book Constitution: Fact or Fiction by Dr. Eugene Schroder (with Micki Nellis), our Constitution was actually nullified on March 9, 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt declared a national emergency. As recorded in Congressional Record in 1933, Rep. James Buck said:

“...the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means it’s dead.” Senate Report 93-549 (Senate Resolution 9, 93rd Congress, 1st Session) in 1973 said that since 1933 “the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency … A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency...”

The Act was never repealed after the World War II, because Roosevelt died; and Truman used the extraordinary powers he gained through the rewriting of the War Powers Act to establish the National Security infrastructure, which included the C.I.A.

The “national emergency” technically ended on September 14, 1976, when the 93rd Congress passed H.R. 3884, the National Emergencies Termination Act (50 USC 1601, Public Law 94-412) in response to President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the Trading with the Enemy Act (which was part of Roosevelt’s emergency legislation). Though he had promised an end to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, he actually escalated the war by authorizing the secret bombing of Cambodia. And then later, in December, 1972, Nixon ordered American B-52’s to drop over 36,000 tons of bombs over Haiphong and Hanoi. Congress then appointed the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), who began holding hearings in July, 1973. Even though it appeared that the emergency legislation was repealed, the last paragraph said that it didn’t apply to any “authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended.”

Chuck Morse wrote in his article “Is the ‘National Emergency of FDR’ Still In Place?” that:

“This was a classic example of sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on the emergency of 1933 that were already in place. Rather than being based on the authority of the President under a ‘national emergency’ these federal laws would now be codified as a permanent part of the U.S. Federal Code. Included among the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which classifies the American citizen as an enemy of the government.”

The declaration of a National Emergency can legally empower the President to suspend the Constitution. According to Senate Report 93-549, the “President may: Seize property, organize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute Martial Law, seize and control transportation and communication, regulate operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

President Carter declared a new national emergency in 1979 during the Iranian hostage crisis, and Bill Clinton, during his two terms in office, declared 12 National Emergencies.

A 1976 Senate report noted that there were 470 extraordinary grants of power to the President, during times of National Emergency.

However, because of Executive Orders 6073, 6102 (gold confiscation), 6111, 6260 and 6262 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it is believed that the District went bankrupt in 1933, and since then, has undergone various “reorganizations.” The Secretary of Treasury was appointed “receiver” in the bankruptcy (Reorganization Plan, No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903; Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, pg. 5967). Representative James A. Traficant, Jr. of Ohio, according to the Congressional Record (pg. H1303), on March 17, 1993, said: “Mr. Speaker, we are now in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official Trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the United States government…”

It was in 1933 that FDR enacted the Social Security Act, which effectively redefined the word “employee” to indicate “government worker.” Then came the Public Salary Tax Act in 1939, which gave the U.S. Government the power to levy a tax on those people who were either government employees, or who lived and worked in a “Federal Area.” A year later, the Buck Act was passed, which gave the U.S. Government the power to create a “Federal Area” so they could levy the Public Salary Tax. Since it was unconstitutional to tax anyone outside of the jurisdiction of the District, this Act, in Section 110(d) and (e), made the land within the territorial boundaries of a State, a “Federal Area.” This, in effect, created a paper state, known as a Federal Area, for the purposes of the U.S. Government; and those people who were sovereign state citizens, now found themselves also living in this Federal Area. Now the U.S. Government had to make that citizen one of their subjects by bringing them under the jurisdiction of the District.

This was accomplished by deceiving the citizen into entering an adhesion contract with the U.S. Government, such as a Social Security application, an Income Tax form, a Driver’s License application, a Bank Account application, and other similar things. Contrary to what most people believe, it is not mandatory to apply for a Social Security number; however, in order for a sovereign state citizen to be eligible for Social Security benefits, they have to waive the rights given to them under our Republic.

Probably, the most incredible example of the adhesion contract is the Income Tax system. In 1884, it was accepted that the “property which every man has is his own labor (and) as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” Therefore, since ‘wages’ are received as compensation for labor, it can not be legally taxed. ‘Income,’ however, is the process of profiting from a business (someone else’s labor) or investments, and is taxable, as in a Corporation, which is an artificial entity which is given the right to exist by the State. The Constitution only allows the Congress to collect taxes, and that is limited to a uniform excise tax on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, telephone bills, firearms, and tires, things revolving in one way or another around interstate commerce. The payment of these taxes are voluntary, because they are based on consumption. These funds go directly to the U.S. Treasury to pay the expenses of the country.

Because we live in a Republic, the Internal Revenue Service Code, Title 26 USC, could not be passed into law by the Congress, and instead, was passed only as a Resolution, which is a formal expression of intent that was to pertain only to citizens of the District. So, how do they make you a citizen of the District? In the upper left-hand corner of the 1040 Federal Income Tax form is a place to put your preprinted address label, which is designated with the words “label here.” However, to the left of that is the word “label,” which seemingly identifies the entire section as a whole. However, the word “label” actually has another legal meaning that has nothing to do with your name and address. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “label” is defined as: “A slip of ribbon, parchment, or paper, attached as a codicil to a deed or other writing to hold the appended seal.” Since your “seal” is your signature, the “label” is actually a codicil which indicates you are waiving your constitutional right as a sovereign state citizen to become a citizen of the District and its Federal Area.

Although the Internal Revenue Service is considered to be a Bureau of the Department of Treasury, like the Federal Reserve, they are not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391), and in fact were incorporated in Delaware in 1933. It is pointed out that all official Federal Government mail is sent postage-free because of the franking privilege, however, the IRS has to pay their own postage, which indicates that they are not a government entity. They are in fact a collection agency for the Federal Reserve, because they do not collect any taxes for the U.S. Treasury. All funds collected are turned over to the Federal Reserve. If you have ever sent a check to the IRS, you will find that it was endorsed over to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, in turn, deposits the money with the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the United Nations (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 816), where it is filtered down to the International Development Association (see Treasury Delegation Order No. 91), which is part of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly known as the World Bank. Therefore, it is now clear, that the American people are unknowingly contributing to the coming World Government.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund (Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942; U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-81; 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11); Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10); the United States has not had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch. 214, pg. 654); and for all intents and purposes the U.S. Treasury is the IMF (Presidential Documents, Volume 29, No. 4, pg. 113; 22 U.S.C. 285-288).

Chief Justice John Marshall said: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Alan Keyes, the former ambassador to the UN, who ran for President in 2000 said:

“We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with liberty. It is actually a form of slavery. A slave is someone the fruit of whose labor is controlled by somebody else. A slave is not somebody with nothing. Rather, he has only what the master lets him have … Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax, therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn. There are, in principle, no restrictions to the pre-emptive claim the government has.”

The income tax was intended to rob the earnings of the low and middle class; or as the saying goes, “the more you make, the more they take.” However, the tax didn’t touch the huge fortunes of Illuminati members. The tax was an indication that the U.S. was heading for a planned war, because they couldn’t go into a war without money. Since the tax provided less than 5% of total Federal revenues, increases were later made to accommodate World War I, FDR’s New Deal, and World War II. In July, 1943, workers in this country were subject to a payroll withholding tax in the form of a “victory tax” that was touted as a temporary tax to boost the economy because of the War, and would later be discontinued. However, the deduction remained because it forced compliance.

<Back> Table of Contents <next>

What can be done? Amazingly, it is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles. You CAN take back your power and stop volunteering to pay taxes to the collection agency for the BEAST. You can take back that which is yours, always has been yours and use it to pay off your debts. And you can send others to these pages to discover what you are discovering.

Here's some more interesting information.

MOST CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN

THE 16TH ("INCOME TAX") AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS A FRAUD

IF YOU FILE, YOU WAIVE YOUR 5th AMENDMENT RIGHTS

These are the major points expressed in a Remonstrance, that was hand delivered to leaders of the three branches of the federal government on April 13, 2000, by a group of citizen-delegates representing all 50 states. These grievances concern alleged illegal operations of the federal income tax system and the IRS.

The Remonstrance was signed by thousands of citizens, and was delivered as part of an event sponsored by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to research and education in matters of taxation & governance.

The main propositions of the Remonstrance are:

1) The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states. The Courts have refused to hear this issue.

"[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government?."

U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438

2) Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary, because there is no statute or regulation that requires the vast majority of U.S. citizens to file and pay income taxes -- or to have taxes withheld from the money they earn.

Neither the IRS nor the Congress can cite an authorizing law or regulation.

3) Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against themselves.

You can be criminally prosecuted for your "voluntary" return.

Robert Schulz, chairman of the Foundation, and Joseph Banister, a former special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (accompanied by a videographer) delivered copies of the Remonstrance to designated officials of the three branches.

At the White House and the Capitol, the delegates had the opportunity to explain and discuss the contents of the Remonstrance, and to ask that the government send experts representing the three branches to a conference to be held in June, where those experts could debate the tax issues with a group of researchers invited by the Foundation.

The officials agreed to the idea of having such a conference, and the Foundation scheduled the meeting for June 29th.

The officials the delegates delivered the Remonstrance to were: At the White House-Jason Furman, Senior Director and Senior Economic Advisor of the National Economic Council; at the Capitol-Dr. William Koetzle, Legislative Director for Speaker Hastert, and Keith Hennessey, Policy Director for Senate Majority Leader Lotte.

However, on June 2nd the White House reneged on the promises it made during the April 13th meeting. As with three previous conferences, the government has again refused to debate the grievances. Jason Furman told Robert Schulz, "The legality of the income tax is not a high priority item at the White House, and we will not participate in any conference on the subject."

WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE POINT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S EVASION MUST BE REGARDED AS AN ADMISSION.

If the government had valid counter-arguments to the Remonstrance, it should be a simple matter to clarify the law, provide the appropriate regulatory references and promptly settle the matter.Our government's repeated avoidance of these debates should speak volumes.

On this, the 224th birth celebration of our one Nation under God, the We The People Foundation offers the following facts, internet links and a challenge for each American: Read the facts for yourself. Judge what is truth. Pass it on.

We hope you will join many who now believe that the time has come for our government and our nation to begin a long-overdue process of public debates concerning the economic, political and constitutional problems posed by the true legal restrictions upon our current system of taxation.

As a nation of justice and due process, we cannot tolerate a tax system, or a government, that seizes our property, sends us to prison and induces fear in our hearts -- while refusing to provide us basic proof of their legal authority, clearly written tax codes and unambiguous legal rulings on Constitutional and legal issues concerning the income tax.

We pray that you be convinced that nothing less than our freedoms, our property and our Republic are at stake. The Soul of America needs illumination. Please join us.

Legal Facts & Did You Know

Proposition #1

The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment has never been decided by a court of law. The courts have instead tossed the issue into the lap of Congress as a "political question," even though fraud is a clear issue for judicial review, not a political question.

A brief report printed by the Congressional Research Service in 1985 states up front that, "The report does not attempt to rebut specific factual allegations?." It then goes on to make the astonishing assertion that the actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts! (John Ripy, "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment." CRS, 1985.)

An attorney speaking for Senator Orin Hatch in 1984 offered to pay former tax investigator William Benson a fortune not to publish his research proving that the 16th amendment did not even come close to being legally ratified by the required number of states in 1913.

Philander Knox, Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913 during the Taft administration, proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration, even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.

Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilts. He had created for them the largest cartel in the world, then was appointed, at their request, as Attorney General in the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted Kentucky as having approved it. Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as approving the amendment.

Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of its own state constitution in the ratification process, its approval would be null and void. At least 20 states were guilty of serious violations of their constitutions. For example, Tennessee's constitution provided that the state legislature could not act upon any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution submitted by Congress until after the next state legislative elections. Yet the Tennessee legislature acted on the proposed 16th amendment the same month it was received and before any elections.

Judges have been extraordinarily unwilling to allow defendants in "failure to file" cases to present evidence or testimony of expert researchers regarding the constitutionality of the 16th amendment.

Proposition #2

Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax return cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any law or regulation that requires it.

An increasing number of employers have stopped withholding taxes from their workers, and stopped filing W-2s and 1099s for the same reason.

Unless one is a foreigner working in the U.S., or a U.S. citizen earning money abroad, one is not liable for the federal income tax.

The OMB Number on Form 1040 is cross-referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations to the section covering taxes by resident aliens, which, therefore, doesn't apply to most Americans.

Responding to an inquiry by a constituent who was a tax consultant, Sen. Daniel Inouye told him that based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, no provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires an individual to pay income taxes. He then went on to warn that Section 7201 sets forth numerous penalties for not paying income taxes owed. However --

The failure-to-file law applies to alcohol-tobacco-firearms taxes, (Section 7201), not to income taxes, and convictions are based on the mis-application of the alcohol-tobacco- firearm regulations.

No law requires employees to provide a Social Security Number to an employer, nor for an employer to demand one from an employee.

Proposition #3

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the filing of an income tax return (Form 1040) and the information on the 1040 is not compelled, and, therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to waive their 5th amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not applicable to federal income tax returns.

"The [5th Amendment] privilege protects against compelled testimonial communications?." U.S. v Conklin (1994), WL 504211 (10th Cir. Colo.)

No one has been able to collect the $50,000 reward offered by William Conklin (www.anti-irs.com) to anyone who can:

1) show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's 5th amendment rights, and 2) identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

Consider this nugget from a guy who ought to know what he's talking about!

Ex-IRS Man Declares Himself Tax-Exempt

Joe Banister traded his agent's badge for a crusader's mantle. His critics call him a danger to taxpayers.

As seminar crowds go, the one at the hotel in Irvine was eclectic. Longhaired men in suits and women in flowing dresses jostled with elderly people in wheelchairs and walkers as they sampled organic foods and anti-tax paraphernalia.

But they were united as they scrambled for their seats when a slim, dark-haired accountant named Joe Banister got up to speak at the Health and Freedom Rally.

Banister is their kind of hero. "I'm a big fan of his," said Robert Schulz, chairman of We the People, a Washington-based anti-tax group that helped organize the seminar.

For five years, Banister had been an IRS special agent, with a gun and a badge, sworn to uphold the tax laws of the United States. Then, in the mid-1990s, he began to have doubts about his calling.

He became convinced that the tax laws were unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment, which established the income tax, was improperly ratified by the states, he came to believe. And because the Internal Revenue Service doesn't collect taxes in person, a legal principle called "voluntary compliance" should, he decided, make tax payments optional.

"There are laws that have been passed by Congress that do require some classes of people and/or entities to pay the federal income tax," Banister said in an interview. "But that group of people is not as big or large a group as the American people have been led to believe."

Banister's theories have been discredited. The Supreme Court rejected the argument about faulty ratification in 1916, and other claims that the income tax is illegal have gone nowhere.

But schemes to dodge income taxes are proliferating on the Internet and at anti-tax seminars like the one at the Atrium Hotel in Irvine last month. And after a lapse in enforcement, the IRS is starting to crack down on tax violators like Banister and Irwin Schiff, author of "The Great Income Tax Hoax: Why You Can Immediately Stop Paying This Illegally Enforced Tax," according to lawyers and others who track the agency.

"Schiff and Banister have been proselytizing their anti-tax philosophy for so many years that it has reached a boiling point," said Elliott Kajan, a partner at Beverly Hills tax law firm Kajan Mather & Barish. "It is the government's expectation that if the charges against them are proven, it will have a profound effect in communicating to others that the IRS now means business."

IRS officials won't say they have ever been soft on people who won't pay taxes. But they do acknowledge that enforcement took a hit from budget cuts in the late 1990s that forced deep reductions in staffing. Recent gains in staff productivity, partly because of Americans' increased use of the Internet for filing tax returns, have allowed the agency to free up additional resources for enforcement, IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in recent testimony to Congress.

Criminal tax prosecutions in 2003 reached 1,353, a 32% increase from the year before.

Although the number of cases referred to the Justice Department for prosecution may still seem paltry, Dale Hart, an IRS deputy commissioner, pointed out that criminal prosecutions are a last resort. Most cases are either settled in civil court or resolved when the IRS sends tax violators a letter demanding that they pay up, said Hart, the IRS official in charge of individual taxpayer compliance.

"We take these people very seriously," she said, referring to anti-tax authors, lecturers and others. "We prosecute them; we get civil injunctions against them; we spend time searching the Internet trying to figure out who they are and stop them from selling this kind of stuff."

At the same time, Hart and others say, the IRS continues to concentrate its enforcement efforts on big-time tax cheats. After all, people who buy how-to books and videos to duck Uncle Sam tend to have smaller tax liabilities than those who hide money in offshore accounts or squirrel it away in complex tax shelters.

Armed With Credentials

Just how many people refuse to pay taxes as a kind of tax protest is unclear. Hart said the number was probably in the thousands. Schulz of We the People Foundation contends that there are tens of thousands — and perhaps hundreds of thousands — of Americans who thumb their noses at the IRS and refuse to file tax returns.

To this group, Banister is an icon, in large part because of his former career as an IRS agent.

"This person has credentials," Kajan said. "That makes him a little more dangerous to the government than a person off the street."

Banister, a graduate of San Jose State, joined the IRS in 1993 after spending several years in private practice as an accountant. His job as a special agent in San Jose was to chase down the most serious tax violators. This group includes drug traffickers and other criminals, which is why Banister packed a gun.

He said his conversion came after about five years on the job, while he listened to anti-tax activist Devvy Kidd on a talk radio program.

"At the time, I thought those ideas were kooky, outrageous," said Banister, 41. "If I had heard her say those things in a store or a street corner, I would have dismissed it and kept going."

He set out to prove Kidd was wrong and ordered her books to become more familiar with her views. And gradually, he changed sides. He found himself agreeing with those who contend that several of the state legislatures that ratified the 16th Amendment weren't legally able to do so, leaving it shy of the required three-quarters majority.

What's more, Banister came to believe that filing an IRS Form 1040 violates the 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, since it requires taxpayers to admit under penalty of perjury how much they have earned.

Banister put together a 95-page memo raising these and other issues, which he presented to his bosses for a response.

"Instead of answering my questions," he recalled, "they asked me to resign."

It was the beginning of a new career. He had already come into contact with many like-minded individuals while researching his memo, and they welcomed him into the lecture circuit. He flew to Washington to confront the IRS with other tax fighters and began to assemble an e-mail list through which he could keep his followers apprised about what was happening in the "truth in taxation" movement.

He turned his memo into a book titled "Investigating the Federal Income Tax" and starred in two videos claiming to show how the tax laws are illegal.

Banister, who practices what he preaches and doesn't pay federal income tax, says he makes about $100,000 a year from the sale of books and videos, speaking gigs, representing tax clients in battles against the IRS and appearing as an expert witness in tax cases. That's more than the $80,000 annual salary he pulled down with the IRS and, he said, enough to provide a comfortable living for him, his wife and two sons in San Jose.

"He's a very decent and honest man," said Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer (his credits include "The Rose" and "Trading Places") who is attempting to win the nomination to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. "He asked some questions of the IRS to make sure that what he was doing was right and lawful. They refused to answer his questions, and in one week he was gone. They let him go. I admire his courage. I respect the man."

Seen as a Danger

Banister's critics say he is a danger to taxpayers, who may be unaware that they risk fines and jail time by taking on the IRS.

"Tax returns signed under penalties of perjury should not represent an offer to negotiate legal theories, particularly theories that have often been held frivolous," said Beverly Hills tax attorney Charles P. Rettig.

Banister himself was sued in U.S. Tax Court in San Francisco last year by the IRS, which wants to block him from representing tax clients, on grounds that he misrepresents the law and has failed to file his own returns. Judge William B. Moran granted the order in January; Banister is appealing it.

The IRS would not comment on whether further charges against him were planned.

"Banister's assertions have been addressed by so many federal courts that they are no longer afforded the dignity of repeating the explanations as to why the claims are meritless," Moran said in his decision. "The very significant problem with Banister's advice to his clients is that it is absolutely wrong."

In another high-profile case, the IRS last year sued Schiff to stop him from selling the "Income Tax Hoax" book and other writings, claiming that erroneous information in them had harmed taxpayers. The case, which has attracted some attention because of its 1st Amendment implications, is scheduled for a hearing April 26 in Las Vegas.

Even Schiff's attorney appears to harbor doubts about his client's reasoning.

"Schiff's belief system appears to be completely circular: Within that system, Schiff is right, the government and courts are wrong, and he remains impervious to rational discussion," attorney William A. Cohan said in a court filing.

The Justice Department indicted Schiff last month on tax fraud charges. Another of Schiff's attorneys said his client would plead not guilty.

As it seeks to counter the arguments of tax protesters like Banister and Schiff, the IRS points to a spate of recent court rulings in its favor:

In September, Lanis R. Metteer was sentenced by a federal judge in Oregon to 33 months in prison for failing to file personal income tax returns and obstructing the IRS. Metteer also was ordered to pay the $13,884 cost of his own prosecution after claiming at trial that he believed the federal income tax was voluntary.
In January, the owner of Arrow Custom Plastics, Richard Simkanin, was convicted in federal court in Texas of 29 counts of willful failure to withhold taxes and submitting false or fraudulent claims for refunds. He is scheduled to be sentenced April 30.
In February, Ricky Paul Brunet, a Tennessee member of the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship, was sentenced by a federal judge in Nashville to serve 27 months for tax evasion. Brunet's contention — like Banister's — was that he could find no legal requirement that compelled him to pay taxes or file a return.

Banister said such court decisions didn't bother him.

"I went to Catholic schools where they talk about the Ten Commandments," he said. "One of them is that you shall not bear false witness. I couldn't think of a more egregious violation of that commandment than to learn what I learned and keep quiet about it."

By Kathy M. Kristof, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer