Fruit From a Poisonous Tree
By Melvin Stamper
CHAPTER THREE
COLLECTION AGENCY
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.
Constructive Fraud
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.
Prohibition
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).”
Transformation complete
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.’”
Incredible!
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.
next
THE FEDERAL RESERVE,
INCORPORATED
