Fruit From a Poisonous Tree
By Melvin Stamper
AN OLD FASHIONED COLLECTION AGENCY
THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE CREATING EITHER THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE OR INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
The Constitution requires that law create offices or agencies. Pursuant to this mandate, on July 1, 1862, during the Civil War, Congress created several bureaus in branches of the federal government. But did it create during the same time the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Internal Revenue?
In 1972, Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin (see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972- 2 Cum. Bul. 836.) On the very first page of this Manual, published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:
“(3) By common parlance [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that, ‘The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session...’”
Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue “…who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of internal revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue.”
In other words, “the office of internal revenue” was “the bureau of internal revenue,” and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today’s Internal Revenue Service.
This statement again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admitting that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. That Congress thought it had created this agency is an admission that even the government itself cannot find anything that created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of the Commissioner; that’s an individual, not an agency consisting of over 100,000 employees. Neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts. Congressman Pat Danner has acknowledged this deficiency: “You are quite correct when you state that an organization with the actual name ‘Internal Revenue Service’ was not established by law.”
EXAMPLES OF THE CREATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES
Offices of the United States are extremely easy to create. To establish a public office, all Congress has done historically was to enact legislation that expressly declared that an office was being created. For example, on February 14, 1903, Congress created the Department of Commerce and Labor, 32 Stat. 825:
“That there shall be at the seat of government an executive department to be known as the Department of Commerce and Labor, and a Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who shall be the head thereof, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate...”
Review of this particular statute demonstrates that this department was expressly created and that it plainly was one that constituted an office of the United States and its secretary was a cabinet officer.
But this is not the only example; there is a multitude of others. During the Civil War, Congress established a variety of bureaus. On July 5, 1862, Congress enacted a law which established several bureaus in the Navy Department, 12 Stat. 510:
“That there shall be established in the Navy Department the following bureaus, to wit:
“First. A Bureau of Yards and Docks.
“Second. A Bureau of Equipment and Recruiting.
“Third. A Bureau of Navigation.
“Fourth. A Bureau of Ordnance.
“Fifth. A Bureau of Construction and Repair.
“Sixth. A Bureau of Steam Engineering.
“Seventh. A Bureau of Provisions and Clothing.
“Eighth. A Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.”
On June 20, 1864, Congress created a bureau to dispense military justice, 13 Stat. 144, 145:
“Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, that there shall be attached to, and made a part of, the War Department, during the continuance of the present rebellion, a bureau, to be known as the Bureau of Military Justice...”
Later on March 3, 1865, Congress established another similar bureau, 13 Stat. 507:
“That there is hereby established in the War Department, to continue during the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter, a bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands... The said bureau shall be under the management and control of a commissioner to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate...”
Many public offices have been created as required by the Constitution. On May 29, 1884, Congress created the following bureau, 23 Stat. 31:
“That the Commissioner of Agriculture shall organize in his Department a Bureau of Animal Industry, and shall appoint a Chief thereof...”
See also 42 Stat. 139, 140: “Sec. 8. That there is hereby created and established in the Department of the Navy a Bureau of Aeronautics...”
On May 27, 1930, a bureau was established in the Justice Department, 46 Stat. 427: “There shall be in the Department of Justice a Bureau of Prohibition, at the head of which shall be a Director of Prohibition. The Director of Prohibition shall be appointed by the Attorney General, without regard to the civil service laws...”
These simple examples show that Congress is well aware of how to establish public offices pursuant to the Constitution. Congress surely knew how to and did create bureaus during the Civil War, but it has never seen any urgency in creating an “Internal Revenue Service.”
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Constitution of the United States makes provision for the manner and method of appointing “Officers of the United States.
Art. II, §2, cl. 2 of the Constitution, the President “…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
Pursuant to the Constitution, an “Officer of the United States” is one who has been appointed with the Senate’s consent to an office established by law. An inferior officer is appointed through the same method, except that consent of the Senate is not necessary.
How has the Supreme Court construed this provision of the Constitution? In United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888), the Supreme Court was required to determine whether a Navy paymaster’s clerk was an “officer” who could recover traveling expenses as allowed by law only for officers. Here, the Court was required to define the method for the appointment of officers of the United States, and it held:
“Under the constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the president, by and with the consent of the senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a department; and the heads of the departments were defined in that opinion to be what are now called the members of the cabinet. Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by, the president, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.”
Since in this case the president did not appoint Mouat, the Court found it essential to determine whether the head of a department had appointed him. There being no statute authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to approve Mouat’s appointment the Court concluded that he was not even an inferior officer.
But there is no statute authorizing the secretary of the Navy to appoint a pay-master’s clerk, nor is there any act requiring his approval of such an appointment, and the regulations of the navy do not seem to require any such appointment or approval for the holding of that position. The claimant, therefore, was not an officer, either appointed by the president or under the authority of any law vesting such appointment in the head of a department.
For this reason, it was held that Mouat was not entitled to travel expenses that were authorized to officers of the United States.
Another important case regarding the appointment of United States officers is United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888). Here, Smith was being prosecuted for embezzlement committed while he was employed as a clerk in the office of the collector of the customs. Since the statute under which Smith was being charged applied solely to officers of the United States, the Court was again required to define who was such an officer:
“An officer of the United States can only be appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a department. A person in the service of the government who does not derive his position from one of these sources is not an officer of the United States in the sense of the constitution.”
In this case, Smith was found not to be an officer because neither the president nor the head of his department appointed him:
“There must be, therefore, a law authorizing the head of a department to appoint clerks of the collector before his approbation of their appointment can be required.” No such law is in existence.
It is thus very clear that the constitution as well as a variety of decisions of the courts have provided the basic parameters to determine who is precisely an officer of the United States. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882). (“All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”) Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) (“There can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill”); and N.L.R.B. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956):
“Officers normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement.”
This case is the reason why 26 U.S.C., §7803, exists. But, remember, no statute exists regarding the appointment of others by the Commissioner.
This is perhaps why you will not find any evidence that an IRS agent has taken an oath of office, required of all Officers of the United States Government. If one exhibits an oath, that individual is most likely serving in the capacity of a Federal Marshal.
If law did not create the IRS and the Officers of the IRS are not Officers of the United States Government, under what authority do they exist?
Congress did not create the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Internal Revenue Service. These are not organizations or agencies of the Department of the Treasury or of the federal government. They operate through pure trusts, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury (Trustee). The Settlor of the trusts or the Beneficiary or Beneficiaries are unknown. According to the law governing trusts, that information does not have to be revealed.
TITLE 31 USC
The organization of the Department of the Treasury can be found in Title 31 USC, §3. You will not find the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms listed. I learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a.k.a., Internal Revenue, internal revenue, Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Internal Revenue Service, internal revenue service, Official Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Alcohol Administration, Director Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Division, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are one and the same organization. Their organizational offices and field offices have not been recorded in the Federal Register. They are all invisible as a matter of law.
My investigation discovered that, except for the very few who are engaged in specific or licensed activities, the Citizens of the fifty States of the united States of America have never been required to file or to pay “income taxes.” The Federal government is engaged in constructive fraud on a massive scale. Americans who have been frightened into filing and paying “income taxes” have been robbed. Millions of lives have been ruined. Thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned on the pretense they violated a law that does not exist. Marriages have been destroyed; property has been levied upon to pay taxes that were never owed. Many have been driven to suicide or insanity. The home of the free and land of the brave is not a description that I would give to the modern day United States.
Lincoln’s War Powers Tax
During the Civil war, Abraham Lincoln imposed what would later be termed a “War Powers Act” and a war tax upon the citizens of the Federal Government. The War tax lawfully applied only to those citizens who were considered to be in rebellion against the Union or who resided within the federal District of Columbia or the federally owned territories, dockyards, naval bases, and forts. Many Citizens of the several States volunteered to pay believing they were required to do so or simply because they wanted to help in the war effort. After the war the tax was repealed. This left the impression with the general population of the country that the President and Congress had the constitutional authority to levy an unapportioned direct tax upon the Citizens of the several States. In fact, no such tax had ever been imposed. The Tax was not fraud on the part of Mr. Lincoln or the Congress, as nothing was done to deceive the people. Those who volunteered, in fact, deceived themselves just as we do today.
Philippine Trust #1
By conquest of Spain, the United States acquired the territory of the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico as war reparations. The Philippine Commission passed the Philippine Customs Administrative Act during the period from September 1, 1900, to August 31, 1902. The Act was for the regulation of trade with foreign countries and designed to generate revenue in the form of duties, excises and imposts. The Act created the federal government’s first trust fund titled Trust fund #1, Philippine special fund or customs duties, (31 USC § 1321).
The Act was administered under the general supervision and control of the Secretary of Finance and Justice.
Philippine Trust #2
Bureau of Internal Revenue
The Philippine Commission passed another act known as the Internal Revenue Law of 1904. This Act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the federal government’s second trust fund called Trust fund #2, the Philippine special fund (internal revenue) and the IRS were born. [31 USC §1321]. Article I, Section 2.
“There shall be established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief officer of which Bureau shall be known as the Collector of Internal Revenue. He shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, and shall receive a salary at the rate of eight thousand pesos per annum. The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall belong to the Department of Finance and Justice.”
Section 3 states, “The Collector of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, shall have general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes and excises imposed by this Act or by any Act amendatory thereof, and shall perform such other duties as may be required by law.
Customs & Bureau of Internal Revenue Merged
The Customs Administrative Act was to fall within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which was to be responsible for “…all taxes and excises imposed by this Act.” The Act clearly included import and export excise taxes. This effectively merged Customs and Internal Revenue in the Philippines.
When Prohibition was ratified in 1919 with the18th Amendment, the government created federal bureaucracies to enforce the new law. As social protest and resistance mounted against Prohibition, new federal laws and the number of bureaucrats hired to enforce them increased. This seems to be the only way this de facto government can operate – more laws and more cops. After much public dissent, imprisoned citizens and loss of life, Congress repealed Prohibition with the ratification of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution in 1933.
For the purpose of our analysis on the demise of the Republic and the birth of a Democracy, the year 1933 will be as good as any. This country had elected a dedicated socialist, who by his actions would effectively destroy the Republic.
As one of his first acts as President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a “Banking Emergency” to bail out the Federal Reserve Bank, which had embezzled this country’s gold supply. The Congress gave the President dictatorial powers under the “War Powers Act of 1917” (amended 1933), written, by the way, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Congress used the economic emergency as the excuse to give blanket approval to any and all presidential executive orders, making Roosevelt a constitutional dictator. Roosevelt, a devout socialist, with a little help from his socialist friends, was prolific in his production of new legislation and executive orders, as has every president since. It is he who placed the federal and state governments and all of the people into perpetual bankruptcy, pledging their labor and property as collateral to the creditors, the International Banking families.[ This is why we need to all stop work in America and refuse to pay any more debt d.c ]
Who owns the Federal Reserve central banks? The ownership of the twelve central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed. They are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, or their European counterparts, the Bilderbergers:
Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Self of Italy
Goldman Sachs of New York
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan of New York
These bankers are connected to the London banking houses, which ultimately control the Federal Reserve central bank. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. The individuals listed below owned banks which, in turn, owned shares in the FED. They have incestuously passed this legacy on to their progeny, so the names remain the same with little deviation. The banks and individuals listed have significant control over the New York FED, which controls the other 11 FED Districts.
First National Bank of New York: James Stillman
National City Bank, New York: Mary W. Harnman
National Bank of Commerce, New York: A.D. Jiullard
Hanover National Bank, New York: Jacob Schiff
Chase National Bank, New York: Thomas F. Ryan, Paul Warburg, William Rockefeller, Levi P. Morton, M.T.Pyne, George F. Baker, Percy Pyne, Mrs. G.F. St. George, J.W. Sterling, Katherine St.George, H.P. Davidson, J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life), Edith Brevour Baker
It was estimated that, in 1933, these individuals represented one fifth of the entire world’s wealth. You can imagine what that number is today, after nearly seventy years of draining the wealth from this nation and our future generations.
The families that control the FED are the creators of and members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They have recruited some peons from amongst us to “take the heat” and have rewarded them lavishly for that treason.
In 1935 the Public Administration Clearinghouse wrote, and Roosevelt introduced, the “Federal Alcohol Act.” Congress passed it into law. The Act established the Federal Alcohol Administration. That same year, in a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the act among many others on a long list of draconian “New Deal” laws. The Federal Alcohol Administration did not go away; it became involved in other affairs, placed in a sort of standby status, which we will examine later on in the book.
Internal Revenue (Puerto Rico)
At some unknown date prior to 1940, another Bureau of Internal Revenue was established in Puerto Rico. The 62nd trust fund was created and named Trust Fund #62 Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue). Note that the Puerto Rico special fund has Internal Revenue, capital “I” and capital “R,” whereas the Philippine special fund (internal revenue) is in lower case letters. Between 1904 and 1938 the China Trade Act was passed to deal with opium, cocaine and citric wines shipped from China. It appears to have been administered in the Philippines by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
China Trade Act
In studying a copy of The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America that was in force on June 1, 1938, Title 26 – Internal Revenue, Chapter I – (Parts 1-137), I found reference to the China Trade Act on page 65. This is when the IRS first began to use their special brand of speak, with such terms as “income,” “credits,” “withholding,” “Assessment and Collection of Deficiencies,” “extension of time for payment,” and “failure to file a return.”
The entire substance of Title 26 deals with foreign individuals, foreign corporations, foreign insurance corporations, foreign ships, income from sources within possessions of United States, citizens of the United States, and domestic corporations deriving income from sources within a possession of the United States, and China Trade Act Corporations. Nowhere does an income tax on any natural person of any of the Republic States appear.
Narcotics, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
All of the taxes covered by these laws concerned only the imposts, excise taxes and duties to be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for such items as narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. The Internal Revenue Service likes to make much ado about the fact that Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, but that is not what he was jailed for. The IRS will not tell you that the tax Capone evaded was not “income tax” as we know it but the tax due on the income generated from the alcohol that he had imported from Canada. If he had paid that tax, he would not have been convicted.
The Internal Revenue Act of 1939 was clearly concerned with all taxes, imposts, excises and duties collected on trade between the Possessions and Territories of the United States. In addition to foreign individuals, foreign corporations or foreign governments, the income tax laws have always applied only to the Philippines, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, territories and insular possessions; never to the Republic States of the American Union.
FAA becomes BIR
Under Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1940, which appears at 5 United States Code Service Section 903, the Federal Alcohol Administration and offices of members and Administrator thereof were abolished and their functions directed to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Treasury through Bureau of Internal Revenue. I found this history in all of the older editions of 27 USCS, Section 201. It has been removed from current editions. Only two Bureaus of Internal Revenue have ever existed: one in the Philippines and another in Puerto Rico. The evolution that has transpired tells us that the Federal Alcohol Administration was absorbed by the Puerto Rico Trust # 62 (Internal Revenue).
Victory Tax Act
In 1939, Congress passed the Public Salary Tax Act (PSTA), apparently to tax only the salaries of federal employees. Soon afterward (in the early days of World War II) a “one time only” Victory Tax was levied on all citizens.
Somehow, it never went away, however; only the name changed. At the time, almost no one connected the income tax with the PSTA.
World War II created for the International Bankers a golden opportunity. Americans were willing to sacrifice almost anything for the United States fighting forces if they thought that sacrifice would win the war. In that atmosphere Congress passed the Victory Tax Act. It mandated an income tax for the years 1943 and 1944 to be filed and paid in the years 1944 and 1945. The Victory Tax Act automatically expired at the end of 1944; it was renewed for an additional two years and then again for five additional years. The federal government, with the clever use of language, created the myth that the tax was applicable to all Americans and hid the fact that it was a tax only on Government employees.
Nowhere does the Internal Revenue Code define the “individual” who is liable to pay the tax. This may explain why Congress has never converted Title 26 of the U.S. Code into positive law. It contains no liability statute; that is, it does not state who is liable to pay. Imagine the IRS taking someone to court on tax charges who then argues that he is exempt because he works for a private company, while the income tax depends on the Public Salary Tax Act. Now imagine what would happen if the judge decided against him, saying, “Everyone is subject to the PSTA.” He would have to admit publicly that the government – rather, its creditors – owns every business in the United States and that everyone is working for them! Either way he ruled, the Government would lose!
Because of their desire to win the war and their ignorance of the law, Americans filed and paid the tax. The government promoted the fraud and threatened those who objected with jail or confiscation of their property. Americans forgot or never knew the law had expired. When the date of expiration had come and gone, they continued to keep “records,” continued to file and continued to pay the tax. The federal government continued to print returns and collect the tax, never mind the fact that no Citizen of any of the several States of the Union was ever liable to pay the tax in the first place.
Federal Power Limited
The fiction that “because it was an excise tax, it was legal” is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property as stated in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;” as stated in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 3.
18 USC, Section 921, Definitions, states: “The term ‘interstate or foreign commerce’ includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).”
Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. Citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.
Bureau of Internal Revenue becomes IRS
The year 1953 saw the United States relinquish control over the Philippines. Several nagging questions remain:
1. Why do the Philippine Pure Trusts #1 (customs duties) and #2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered by the Secretary of Treasury today?
2. Who are the Settlors of the Trusts?
3. What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
4. What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
5. Who are the Beneficiaries? [yes, indeed,WHY? We should demand answers to these questions .d.c]
On July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. M. Humphrey, by “virtue of the authority vested in me,” changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue (BIR) to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06. This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue without the approval of Congress or the President. Without any legal authority, Humphrey turned a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury. His actions were illegal but went unchallenged. Did he change the name of the BIR in Puerto Rico or the BIR in the Philippines?
Along came Guam
In 1954 the United States and Guam became partners under the Mutual Security Act. The Act and other documents make reference to the definition of Guam and the United States as being mutually interchangeable. In the same year the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed. The Code provides for the United States and Guam to coordinate the “Individual Income Tax.” Pertinent information on the tax issue may be found in 26 CFR 301.7654-1: Coordination of U.S. and Guam Individual income taxes, 26 CFR 7654- 1(e): Military personnel in Guam, 48 USC § 1421(i): “Income-tax laws” defined.
The Constitution forbids un-apportioned direct taxes upon the Citizens of the several States of the fifty States of the Union; therefore, the federal government must coerce (defraud) people into volunteering to pay taxes as “U.S. citizens” of either Guam, the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. It sounds insane, and it is, but it is absolutely true. Each time we sign a 1040 Form, with its approved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number, we are saying under penalty of perjury that we are residents of the Virgin Islands. Check out the number on the form and ask the Director of the OMB if that number is not a designation for the Virgin Islands. One other point of interest on the 1040: how can you sign a form under penalty of perjury? The only way possible for you to have committed perjury is if you were under an Oath or an Oath of Office. If you are not a government employee, you are not under Oath of Office.
The Metamorphosis continues
On June 6, 1972, Acting Secretary of the Treasury Charles E. Walker signed Treasury Order Number 120-01, which established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He did this with the stroke of his pen, citing “by virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, including the authority in Reorganization Plan No.26 of 1950.” He ordered the “transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (including the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Director). The Director shall perform his duties under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) and under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations) (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary).”
Treasury Order 120-01 assigned to the new BATF Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such code, chapters 61 through 80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 USC Chapter 8), which in 1935 the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional within the several States of the Union. 18 USC Chapter 44, Title VII Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 USC Appendix, sections 1201-1203, 18 USC 1262-1265 1952 and 3615).
Mr. Walker then made a statement within TO 120-01 that is very revealing:
“The terms ‘Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division’ and ‘Commissioner of Internal Revenue’ wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order shall be held to mean ‘the Director.’”
Walker seemed to branch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), creating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), and then with that statement joined them back together into one. In the Federal Register, Volume 41, Number 180, of Wednesday, September 15, 1976, we find, “The term ‘Director Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division’ has been replaced by the term ‘Internal Revenue Service.’”
It appears that without any authority from Congress or the President, an Agency of over 100,000 employees is created by replacing “The term ‘Director Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division.’”
I found this pattern of deception and invisibility everywhere I looked during my investigation. For further evidence of the fact that the IRS and the BATF are one and the same organization, reference 27 USCA Section 201
THE ART OF PUTTING LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE
This is how the lightning master performed his light show. Secretary Humphrey, with no constitutional authority, created an agency of the Department of the Treasury called “Internal Revenue Service” out of thin air from an offshore pure trust called “Bureau of Internal Revenue.” The “Settlor” and “Beneficiaries” of the trust are still unknown. The “Trustee” is the Secretary of the Treasury. Acting Secretary Walker further laundered the trust by creating, from the alleged “Internal Revenue Service,” the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.”
Unlike Humphrey, however, Walker assuaged himself of any guilt when he nullified the order by proclaiming: “The terms ‘Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division’ and ‘Commissioner of Internal Revenue’ wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean ‘the Director.’”
Walker created the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of Humphrey’s Internal Revenue Service. He then said that what was transferred is the same entity as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. He knew he could not legally create something from nothing without the authority of Congress and/or the President – only God can do that – so he made it look like he did something that he had, in fact, not done. To compound the fraud, he had the Federal Register publish the unbelievable assertion that a person had been replaced with a thing: “the term ‘Director Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division’ has been replaced with the term ‘Internal Revenue Service.’” Incredible!
The Federal Alcohol Administration, which administered the Federal Alcohol Act, and offices of members and Administrator thereof, were abolished and their functions were directed to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Treasury through Bureau of Internal Revenue, now Internal Revenue Service. The Federal Alcohol Act was ruled unconstitutional within the fifty States and was immediately transferred to the BIR, which is an offshore trust.
This became the IRS, which gave birth to the BATF and somehow the term “Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division,” which is a person within the BATF, spawned the Internal Revenue Service via another flick of the pen on September 15, 1976. I asked the BATF, by use of a freedom of information request, to identify the person who now administers the Federal Alcohol Act. If I was wrong, a reply should have been sent stating that no record exists as to any name of any person who administers the Act. The request was submitted to the BATF. The reply came on July 14, 1994, from the Secret Service, an unexpected source, which disclosed a connection I had not suspected.
The reply stated that John Magaw of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, of the Department of the Treasury, administers the Federal Alcohol Act. You may remember from the Waco hearings that John Magaw is the Director of the Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms – the man in charge of the heroic deed accomplished by the BATF with the execution of 86 human beings in Waco, Texas. That source and admission confirmed all of my research.
Smoke and Broken Mirrors
Despite all the smoke and mirrors, there is no such organization of the Department of the Treasury known as “Internal Revenue Service” or the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” Title 31 USC is “Money and Finance” and therein are published the laws pertaining to the Department of the Treasury (DOT). 31 USC, Chapter 3 is a statutory list of the organizations of the DOT. Internal Revenue Service and/or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are not listed within 31 USC as agencies or organizations of the Department of the Treasury. They are referenced, however, as “to be audited” by the Controller General in 31 USC § 713.[Then they are deep state agencies d.c ]
Puerto Rico Home of BATF
Puerto Rico is a small but beautiful Island in the Caribbean which became U.S. Territory as war reparations from Spain. Ever since that day it has been a place where Congress could play games with the Constitution without much interference from the Supreme Court and a place where most of the Congress and other federal agencies still play games with the American people.
I have already demonstrated that both of these organizations are, in reality, the same organization. Where we find the Yin, we will surely find the Yang. In 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 250.11), Definitions, we find: “United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Puerto Rico” and “Secretary – The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” and “Revenue Agent – Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” Remember that “Internal Revenue” is the name of the Puerto Rico Trust #62. It is perfectly logical and reasonable that a Revenue Agent works as an employee for the Department of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, but in Cincinnati or Saint Augustine?
Under Which Shell hides the IRS?
Where is the alleged “Internal Revenue Service”? The Internal Revenue Code of 1939, a.k.a. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, etc., etc., etc. 27 CFR refers to Title 26 as relevant to Title 27, as per 27 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 250.30, which states that 26 USC 5001(a)(1) is governing a 27 USC law. In fact, 26 USC Chapters 51, 52, and 53 are the alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes, administered by the Internal Revenue Service; alias, Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias, Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias, Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division; alias, Internal Revenue Service.
Must be Noticed
According to 26 CFR Section 1.6001-l(d), Records… No one is required to keep records or file returns unless specifically notified by the district director by notice served upon him to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A of the Code. 26 CFR states that this rule includes state individual income taxes.
Don’t get fooled here, because in IRS-speak, “state” means “the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions.” ONLY!
No Implementation of Law
Title 44 USC states that every regulation or rule must be published in the Federal Register. It also states that the Secretary of the Treasury must approve every regulation or rule. If there is no regulation there can be no implementation of the law. There is no regulation governing “willful failure to file a return.” There is no computer code for “failure to file.” The only thing I could find was a requirement stating “where to file an income tax return”. It can be found in 26 CFR, Section 1 6091-3, which states that, “Income tax returns required to be filed with Director of International Operations.”
Who is the Director of International Operations?
Delegation of Authority
No one in government is allowed to do anything unless they have been given specific written authority by law, or unless someone who has been given authority in the law gives that person a delegation of authority order spelling out exactly what they can and cannot do under that specific order.
I researched the Department of the Treasury’s Handbook of Delegation Orders and found that no one in the IRS or BATF has any authority to do most of the things they have been doing for years. The IRS cites Treasury Order 150-10, dated April 22, 1982, as the delegation of authority to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for the collection of taxes. Close examination of the documents created serious doubts with this researcher as to the legality of the Order 150-10.
Delegation of Authority Order 150-37, dated April 22, 1982, superseded the previous Treasury Order 150-37, dated March 17, 1955. Treasury Secretary Ronald T. Regan duly signed treasury Order 150-37, dated April 22, 1982. The Official Seal of the Department of the Treasury was affixed to the letterhead. The stationary date at the lower left hand corner of the document was (2-81).
The Internal Revenue Service relied upon the Delegation of Authority Order 150-10 as its current authority. Upon close inspection of this Order, the Official Seal of the Secretary of the Treasury has been modified and was not the actual seal of the Secretary as was depicted on Order 150-37. Furthermore the date of this order was April 22, 1982, which is the same date that the former Delegation of Authority Order 150-37 was signed. The Secretary did not sign this Delegation of Authority Order, and the stationary date at the lower left-hand corner of the document, is (11-85). The tree from which the order’s paper was manufactured was growing for over three years, all the while purportedly giving authority.
I have serious concerns that indicate fraud with these documents:
1. That the Official Seal on 150-10 was not the same Seal as the one depicted on 150-37, even though they were allegedly administered the same day.
2. That the Secretary had not signed this important order (150-10) upon which the IRS currently relies as their official Delegation of Authority, whereas the Secretary felt it important to sign (150-37) which was to be superseded the same day by Order (150-10).
3. That the stationary date on Order 150-37 was fourteen months prior to the date of signature which seems appropriate from harvest to manufacture; however, the stationary date on 150-10 was forty three months after the Order was allegedly issued as the Delegation of Authority. I believe that, on its face, this constitutes fraud with malicious intent to defraud the American people.
No Authority to Audit
Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5), of May 12, 1986, is the only delegation of authority to conduct audit. It states that the IRS and BATF can audit only themselves and only for amounts of $750 or less. The Comptroller General, according to Title 31 USC, must audit any amount above that amount. No other authority to audit exists. No IRS or BATF agent or representative can furnish me with any law, rule, or regulation which gives the IRS the authority to audit anyone other than himself. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on Property but only if that Property is in the hands of third parties.
Authority to Investigate
The manual states on page 1100-40.2 of April 21, 1989, Criminal Investigation Division, that “the Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements by developing information concerning alleged criminal violations thereof, evaluating allegations and indications of such violations to determine investigations to be undertaken, investigating suspected criminal violations of such laws, recommending prosecution when warranted, and measuring effectiveness of the investigation processes.”
Why then have all prosecutions for individuals related to income tax law violations been prosecuted when they are not among the class of individuals identified in the above manual?
Authority to Collect
On page 1100-40.1 it states in 1132.7 of April 21, 1989, Director, Office of Taxpayer Service and Compliance: “Responsible for operation of a comprehensive enforcement and assistance program for all taxpayers under the immediate jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International) ...Directs the full range of collection activity on delinquent accounts and delinquent returns for taxpayers overseas, in Puerto Rico, and in United States possessions and territories.”
Fifty States not included
1132.72 of April 21, 1989, Collection Division says: “Executes the full range of collection activities on delinquent accounts, which includes securing delinquent returns involving taxpayers outside the United States and those in United States territories, possessions and in Puerto Rico.”
U.S. Attorney’s Manual
The United States Attorney’s Manual, Title 6 Tax Division, Chapter 4, page 16, October 1, 1988, 64.270, Criminal Division Responsibility, states: “The Criminal Division has limited responsibility for the prosecution of offenses investigated by the IRS. Those offenses are: excise violations involving liquor tax, narcotics, stamp tax, firearms, wagering, and coin operated gambling and amusement machines; malfeasance offenses committed by IRS personnel; forcible rescue of seized property; corrupt or forcible interference with an officer or employee acting under the Internal revenue laws; and unauthorized mutilation, removal or misuse of stamps.” See 28 CFR § 0.70.
So why is the Attorney General prosecuting all of these innocent Americans?
“Act of Congress”
I found this revelation in 28 USC Rule 54c, Application of Terms:
“As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. ‘Act of Congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.”
Title 28 USC is the “Rules of Courts” and was written and approved by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in writing 28 USC has already ruled upon this issue. It is the law.
It would appear, then, that any Act of Congress is applicable only to the District of Columbia and its instrumentalities unless specifically designated for the general population of the Union.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE, INCORPORATED