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

Note: Article II of the U.S. Constitution says no direct tax shall be levied upon the public except through reapportionment after a census is taken. The 16th amendment which "authorized" federal income tax should have never been passed because it runs contrary to the body of the Constitution. The original definition of amendment has been changed to accomodate this illegality. Originally and amendment could not be brought forth that ran contrary to what it was amending; i.e. amendment was defined as : amplify, clarify, expound, extend, but the only thing that cannot be brought up in the amendment process is that which runs contrary to what is being amended. The founding fathers understood this definition, that is why there was a provision for a constitutional convention.

"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."   -   http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con027.pdf

In one of the first income tax cases to go to the Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), Stanton's attorney made the point 35 times in his briefs and oral argument that the 16th Amendment created a new class of taxes, that is a direct tax not regulated by the apportionment rule. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated in its opinion, "By the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." - Therefore, there is no exception to the apportionment rule for direct taxes.

The political activism to amend the Constitution allowing for an income tax started as a result of the Supreme Courtís Pollock ruling. The Pollock Case determined that income taxes on investment and business profit were direct taxes. Pollock was a stretch and, the American People thought, a bad ruling. The income that was taxed in Pollock did not diminish the source, but only took its bite out of profits that were generated from the source. At the time, only about 10 percent of Americans had an income; the rest worked for wages or salaries. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to take income taxes out of the category of direct taxes, where the Supreme Court put it, and place it back into the category of indirect taxes where it had previously been. Constitutionally speaking, the income tax of the 16th Amendment is an indirect tax and can be levied only on investment income and business profit.

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.

Legal Facts & Did You Know

Re:Position #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.

  • Example: 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.

Re:Position #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.

Re:Position #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.

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 ruling 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.

  • Read the facts for yourself.
  • Judge what is truth.
  • Pass it on.

Patriots Page: ARCHIVES # 1

The ads shown here
may not necessarily
represent our views,
but you should
certainly feel free
to visit them
if you wish.

Visit the Patriots Page
Visit the Made in USA Search Engine

These pages are developed by J. R. Beaman - Web Master at - The WWWeb Factory
On-Line July 4th, 1996 - © All Rights Reserved - Member HTML Writers Guild
Be sure to clear your memory and disk cache, as our pages may change daily!
Products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.