Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

The Taxing Power

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

So spake the Supreme Court, in the early days of the American Republic. However, the power to destroy not only carries a like power to refrain from destroying, but its punitive power has the obverse role of granting privileges and immunities, otherwise known as rewards.

The political genius of the secretive Canaanite mechanism reached its apogee in 1913. Not only did it award control of the money and credit of the people of the United States to its most trusted henchmen; it also carried the admiralty powers conferred by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, carefully phrased to protect the monopolies, by making new and rival monopolies illegal, to a new high with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. This "income tax" amendment achieved the enviable goal of turning anyone who opposed the regime into a "criminal," while it simultaneously erected a vast bureaucratic maze in which the criminals could forever conceal themselves, immune from any punitive action.

The nineteenth century political observer, Lysander Sqooner, wrote,

"Whoever desires liberty should understand . . . that every man who puts money into the hands of a 'government' (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him."

Income Tax and the 'Power to Destroy'

1913 was the year in which Americans handed over to the international financiers control of their money and credit, and also allowed the passage of a tax amendment which in operation would allow the government to say who is a criminal and who is not. The result is that millions of law-abiding, hard-working, productive Americans are now toiling on a treadmill of taxation which seizes by extortion from fifty to eighty per cent of their earnings and assets each year. Lenin laid down the dictum, in "The Threatening Catastrophe," 1917, that "concealment of income will be punished by confiscation of assets." This became the official program of the Internal Revenue Service.

The tax billions which are hauled in by the IRS from working Americans are immediately trucked to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank—not to the U.S. Treasury! Any minor league IRS agent has the power to declare any American a criminal, and to seize his money and property. The legal redress against such declarations is almost nil. The majority of the assessments for "deficiencies" are figures which would cost the taxpayer as much or more to dispute by hiring a lawyer. As a bargaining figure, the IRS usually claims a deficiency at least four times greater than any possible amount "owed." The Washington Post noted, April 16,1989, that in 1988, the IRS, with all of its seizure power and totalitarian tactics, recovered only 26 per cent of the total deficiencies it had claimed it in vases that were closed." These were claims that were actually settled. In many cases, the IRS claims astronomical sums from taxpayers, claims of millions of dollars against citizens whose net worth may be ten or fifteen thousand dollars. The IRS knows that this money will never be collected, but it is a useful figure to bring before Congress. Budget increases are based upon such claims; the IRS can state that it has ten billion dollars in outstanding claims for deficiencies; Congress votes additional funds, so that the IRS can hire more people to collect the money, having no idea that two-thirds of the figure is mere hot air, with no possibility of its ever being collected.

The Post quotes Chief Judge Arthur L. Nims III, "They (the IRS) set up some big numbers once in a while, totally unjustified." However, these are the numbers which are religiously quoted in the media, as "evidence" that many Americans are "evading" billions of dollars in income taxes. In fact, the IRS is collecting every dollar it can claim, using techniques of seizure, garnishee, and outright theft. IRS abuses led Congress to pass a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Such a bill was totally unnecessary, because we already had a Bill of Rights. The IRS violations of the Bill of Rights caused Congress to pass a measure enormously popular with the voters, which promised to get the IRS "off their backs." In fact, the bill was an absolute fraud. Paul des Fosses, a former IRS agent, who now leads the National Association of IRS Whistleblowers, revealed in an interview in the Post, April 29, 1989, that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights was passed by Congress as a tongue in cheek measure. The Congressmen accepted the gratitude of their constituents for passing it, while at the same time notifying the IRS to ignore it. Des Fosses stated that:

"The reality is quotas (of tax collection) are still being maintained and enforced, and the problem lies in the fact that IRS is under tremendous pressure from Congress to provide the funds Congress needs."

One of the most forceful warnings against the 16th Amendment came from Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegate, on March 3, 1910. Father of the political leader, Senator Harry Byrd, Richard E. Byrd warned,

"It (the 16th Amendment) means that the state must now give up a legitimate and long established source of revenue and yield it to the Federal Government. It means that the state actually invited the Federal Government to invade its territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights of the commonwealth. This amendment will do what even the 14th and 15th Amendments could not do—it will extend the Federal power so as to reach the citizens in the ordinary business of life. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of a Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of book keeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor. When the Federal Government gets a stranglehold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commerce of the states."

Note that State Senator Byrd speaks only of the businessman. The original propaganda for the income tax amendment suggested that it would only apply to businessmen, who would be required to maintain tax records. Senator Byrd would have found it beyond the wildest imagination that Federal tax inspectors would require newsboys and scrubwomen and waitresses to record every nickel earned by their toil, and hand over more than half of it to the Leninist tax inspectors. Another of the five points of Lenin's 1917 program, which swept him into power in Russia, was "the abolition of commercial secrets." This goal could easily be attained by the tax agent program of the IRS. Although Lenin could hardly have foreseen it in 1917, another great benefit of the tax program has been the steady stream of U.S. taxpayers' funds which have been collected by the IRS and turned over to the Soviet Union. This is obviously illegal, because no government agency has any constitutional power to tax an American citizen for the benefit of a foreign power. The engines of government, most of which have been in existence for less than fifty years, are dedicated to maintaining their flow of fuel, that is, tax money. Some of the revenues are taken from one group of citizens and given to another group; this is the famed policy of "redistribution of wealth" which originated on the gaming tables of Europe. Much of the revenue is spent by the agencies on themselves, and on their further self-aggrandizement, or on programs which have been created deliberately to spend these revenues. Such programs have only one basic requirement, that all the expenditures be wasted.

Few Americans realize that the basis of "wasteful government," as well as its oppressive policies, is our debt money system, which can be traced back to the cult of Baal and the Babylonian money system. Money is created from debt; the payment of the debt extinguishes the money. Therefore, the sole purpose of our present manipulated government is to create inextinguishable debt, and to maintain the debt money machine. They continually waste this money in boondoggles whose creators live only for today, hoping in vain that tomorrow will never come.

One cannot understand the "income tax" or what sort of tax is being laid on what type of income, without knowing the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient for the government expenditures of that period, but the reformers wanted a government which would exercise more direct control over the people. Congress imposed an income tax on all incomes above $4,000 per year on Aug. 28, 1894. This was the equivalent of $60,000 a year in today's dollars. On May 20, 1895, the income tax law was declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 1895. The Court ruled that 1. taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate were equally direct taxes. 2. That taxes on personal property or on the income of personal property were likewise direct taxes. The whole act was declared unconstitutional and void.

Despite this precedent, an income tax was enacted by constitutional amendment in 1913, although many scholars have noted that the amendment was never properly ratified by most states. It was a necessary measure, required to fund the financing of the First World War by the United States. The European nations were already bankrupt and had no money to finance the war. Thus the income tax was properly a "war tax," a fact which became more obvious during the Second World War, when the withholding tax on incomes was passed by Congress as a temporary wartime measure. Forty-five years later, it is still in effect, having been regularly renewed by Congress to feed its insatiable appetite for public funds. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a scrip act, establishing a privately owned bank, which was not federal, which had no reserves, and which was not a "System," but a criminal syndicate. The Act authorized the central bank, which was thereby established to issue interest-bearing scrip. This was done by book-keeping entries, thereby creating money out of nothing, as King William HI had authorized its predecessor, the Bank of England, to do in 1694. The Federal Reserve Act further authorized the use of "elastic currency," that is, currency which could be expanded, in the great economic tradition of the rubber check. However, this elastic currency, inimitably expanded, had to be periodically retrieved, or the entire Ponzi scheme would collapse. The salvage agency which was created to handle this problem was the IRS. This agency has the task of sopping up the flood of elastic currency, known as counterfeit, or frauds, because it has nothing but paper backing, being backed by paper bonds.

Withholding Tax

The salvage operation was not wholly successful until Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, now known as the withholding tax. It has never been a "withholding" but it is an illegal garnishee of wages. A garnishee is a legal notice served as a writ of attachment to attach the wages of a debtor. Withholding named you as the debtor, and the government as the creditor. However, the tax is not collected by a legal notice, or by a writ of attachment. Second, no debtor-creditor relationship exists. The IRS makes the unfounded claim that the withholding system establishes "the liability at the source." However, no debt is established until the end of the year, long after the withholding has been collected.

In collecting the withholding tax for the government, the employer commits an illegal act against the employee. He executes a lien, although this has never been allowed in U.S. law. U.S. v. Hooe, 3 Cranch 73, established the legal precedent that "The United States, in the mere character of a creditor, have no lien on the real estate of the debtor. The priority to which the United States were entitled, did not partake of the character of a lien on the property of a public debtor. If the priority existed from the time the debt was contracted, and the debtor should continue to transact business with the world, the inconvenience would be immense." Not only does the employer have no authority to collect taxes; he collects taxes as a condition of your employment; both functions are illegal.

The withholding tax plan originated during World War II, ostensibly as the creation of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, a longtime Rockefeller Foundation employee. He boasted to a New York interviewer that the withholding tax plan had been devised at a luncheon meeting at the exclusive Plaza Hotel in New York, by himself and some "fellow intellectuals," whom he refused to identify.

Because of the strong arm methods of its agents, the IRS is frequently accused of violating the Constitution. However, the IRS does not operate under any provision of the Constitution, just as the Mafia does not operate under any provision of the Constitution. The IRS operates under the principles of the law merchant. Its victims are brought before the Tax Court, which is an equity court. Because of their law merchant framework, IRS agents seize property without legal authority, conduct trials without juries, and harass citizens until they die of heart attacks. American citizens facing "tax charges" are never told that Constitutional safeguards do not apply. The jurisdiction of these admiralty courts is based upon the alleged "contract" which citizens enter into when they obtain a Social Security number, or when they use Federal Reserve scrip. However, such a contract cannot be valid if the party of the second part, the citizen, has never been advised of its provisions. Similarly, any conviction handed down in an admiralty court proceeding can be overturned because the judge failed to issue a Miranda warning to the defendant that he would be allowed no Constitutional safeguards. In many tax cases, judges have sternly warned defendants not to cite Constitutional safeguards.

The IRS frequently goes public with its basic principle that the Constitution does not apply in tax cases. In August of 1988, Rosemary Campbell, a spokesman for the IRS, appeared on Denver radio station KOA. She was asked by the interviewer, Gary Tessler, if IRS agents were not required to abide by the same rules as police officers in making a search. "We aren't protected by the Constitution (in income tax cases)?" Tessler asked. "That's correct," Campbell replied, going on record for the IRS.

The motto of the IRS is the ancient cry of the English highwayman, "Stand and deliver." Robbery is their aim, and the admiralty courts uphold their methods. Citizens are frequently horrified and angered by the callousness and brutality shown by IRS agents against the public. This brutality is explained by the underlying desperation which inspires every action of the agents. They must recover the Federal Reserve scrip from the citizens; this allows for the issuance of more "elastic currency," and makes it possible to continue payments to the Bank of England (which controls the Federal Reserve System through five New York banks, who own 53% of the Federal Reserve of Bank of New York stock).

Former IRS agent Mike Klein is preparing an explosive revelation of the tactics used by the IRS in their dealings with American citizens. When Klein joined the IRS, he was stunned to hear agents boasting about how they threatened people. One agent declared that he loved to "bust chops," others were openly vicious. After talking to a citizen, an agent would brag, "Boy, did I make that guy jump. I had that woman crying when I told her I'd put her out on the street with her kids." Another agent was asked by a taxpayer how he expected him to pay the tax after he had padlocked his business. The agent rudely told him, "Go get your wife to peddle her "

The number of citizens who have died of heart attacks in IRS offices is not available, but it is believed to be in the hundreds. Many of those targeted for investigation are what the IRS terms "easy marks," that is, elderly people, in poor health, who can be easily intimidated. Klein cites the fate of one such taxpayer who was ordered to appear for an audit. After a lengthy and exhausting interrogation, he collapsed in the office and died of a heart attack. "They shoved the body into a vacant office, and threw a blanket over it." An audit is probably the most stressful ordeal any American can undergo. A citizen comes in, knowing that he may lose his business, his home, and all of his assets. The agent is also under tremendous strain; he must produce more revenue, because his career depends on how much money he can bring in.

One Criminal Investigation Division agent for the IRS was a lifelong sadist. He was so brutal to his wife and children that his son and daughter finally shot him. Despite the fact that the circumstances were widely aired on television, a judge sentenced the children to long prison terms.

Alarmed by the unconstitutional acts of the IRS agents, many Americans were faced with a serious dilemma—could they in good conscience continue to support a government which had now exceeded the worst abuses of King George III two centuries earlier? Some of them began to protest against the confiscation of property a la Lenin, without legal process. They thereby exposed themselves to immediate retribution, not only by the IRS, but also by other government agencies, and by the admiralty courts. One "conservative" group took an uncompromising stance—the John Birch Society thundered that "good Americans" were bound to pay all taxes assessed. They denounced any tax resistance. However, this move was said to have been forced upon them by their longstanding ties with the Council on Foreign Relations and other internationalist conspiracy groups.

The 1913 tax seemed a modest one, calling for a tax of 1% for couples with incomes over $4,000. By 1919, the minimum income for filing had been lowered to $1000, and the tax was increased by 77%. During the Great Depression, few Americans had to pay any income tax, because most of them were unemployed. By 1943, wartime employment made it imperative for the criminal syndicalists to enact a measure which would allow them to seize income "at the source," through the withholding tax. Although the Leninists' tax program was in full swing, few citizens remembered that an inalienable right of citizenship is the right to own property. It is the great distinction between our Republic and the Marxist nations, which forbid the ownership of private property. Property stems from the word "proper," deriving from the Latin "proprius, one's own, belonging to oneself," and from the French verb "proprier," to have in possession. Thus it is right to own property; one is not a proper citizen unless one owns property. The Founding Fathers required property ownership as a requisite to voting. Those who were not proper, who owned nothing, could not be expected to vote in a responsible manner.

We fought the Revolutionary War as a tax protest; no taxation without representation. Most colonists regarded themselves as good Englishmen; they had no desire to separate themselves from the British Empire. Indeed, slightly more than one-half of the colonists remained loyal to England throughout the war, the numerous Tories. Taxation was the bone of contention, although the admiralty courts and the denial of jury trial were also sources of unrest. Today, we have both excessive taxation and the admiralty courts, yet popular opposition is not nearly so great.

America's first tax revolt took place in 1632. The inhabitants of Watertown, Mass, were outraged when the directors of the Massachusetts Bay Co. levied funds for the fortification of Cambridge. The revolt was ended when the settlers agreed to the popular election of select men, who then levied the taxes. Americans accepted taxation if it was done by a representative government. The present Congress is loyal only to the monopolists, and to foreign governments.

President Andrew Jackson, who incurred the undying enmity of the international bankers by his battle against their central bank, the Second Bank of the United States, was so averse to taxation that in 1836, he reduced internal tax receipts to less than $500. In his Farewell Address, President Jackson said,

"Congress has no right under the Constitution, to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive."

William Gladstone observed that "I believe an Income Tax does more than any other tax to corrupt the people." In the face of this declaration, the House of Representatives noted in the Congressional Record, July 12, 1909,

"The income tax is the most just because (it) takes from the backs of the masses of the people some of the burden of taxation and lays it upon the pockets of those who do not bear their just share of the burdens of the government (i.e. the very wealthy)."

Congress' 1909 claim that the income tax takes from the backs of the masses should now read "takes from the pocketbooks of the masses." The principal victims of forcible IRS collections are newsboys and scrubwomen, waitresses and elderly widows. Contrast the treatment of scrubwomen by the IRS with the lengthy courtroom battles fought by media moguls such as the Newhouse family. Their newspaper empire is now worth $5.2 billion; the IRS seeks an estate tax of $609 million, later upped to $914 million. The Newhouses claim that the actual tax owed is $47 million. Insiders, according to Business Week, believe they will eventually pay some $50 million, plus several million in fees to their attorneys. The elder Newhouse was an autocrat who believed he would live forever; consequently, he refused to discuss estate planning. Now the heirs must bluff and cajole the IRS. One observer comments, "Don't shed any tears for the Newhouse boys. They will finally plant some trees in Israel, and the IRS will accept the lowest figure for a settlement."

Tax Reform Act of 1986

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently published a series, "The Great Tax Giveaway," documenting that thousands of Americans have received tax write-offs of billions of dollars through Congressional special tax "laws." One Californian received a tax break excusing him from paying millions of dollars in taxes; he then applied for a second private tax law to gamer millions more. These provisions were incorporated into TEFRA, the notorious "Tax Reform Act" of 1986, passed by Congress in September of that year. The Act closed off long established tax deductions for most Americans, but extended them for a favored few. There was no altruism involved; the recipients of these multi-million dollar tax breaks were those who had previously donated to political campaigns. A donation of a few thousand dollars could inspire gratitude amounting to millions of dollars in tax breaks. The 1986 tax law gave one company a $20 million tax break, even though it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1981 and no longer existed. It was disclosed that a New York lawyer is now reaping this $20 million tax break. Two paragraphs inserted into the 1986 law allow certain companies to avoid payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal income taxes. One company was able to avoid payment of a half billion dollars because of the special provisions incorporated into the "Tax Reform Act."

While opening the sluice gates of special refunds and tax breaks for chosen individuals and firms, the tax agents are steadily tightening the screws on the wage-earning population. Michael Milken can "earn:" $500 million in 1988 through "junk bond" deals, but a $100 a week waitress must disclose every dollar she receives in tips. Only the prostitutes can still scoff at the tax laws.

However, the IRS toughest crackdown is scheduled for the nation's children. New IRS guidelines have decreed that every child over the age of five must have a Social Security number. Most American children are now issued a Social Security number when their parents register them for their birth certificates. The teen-agers who mow lawns during the summer, babysit or deliver newspapers in order to save money for their college tuition must now report and pay taxes and / or penalties on every nickel they receive; otherwise, they become "tax evaders." The "kiddie tax" provision is an essential part of the Congressionally drafted and enacted TEFRA, Tax Reform Act of 1986, the same "tax reform" act which contains so many special multi-million dollar write-offs for the chosen few.

It has long been obvious that the income tax code is the greatest weapon of the monopolists. Not only is it the spoils system refined to an incredible degree, and, as such, the most lucrative gold mine for politicians and their favorite lobbyists; it is also the principal weapon against the productive American middle class. Not only are the children of this class (in a supposedly "democratic" government in which class distinctions do not exist) taxed and penalized because they wish to save money for their tuition—being "middle class," they are not eligible for the many tuition giveaways which are available to children from "special interest" families—but they are also prevented from engaging in "capitalist accumulation," as Karl Marx termed it, that is, saving money to finance any profit-making venture.

David Ricardo and 'Labor Theory of Value'

The greatest problem facing any of the monopoly corporations is the march of time; the replacement of buggy whips by automobile horns. This explains why the monopolists funded and gave political backing to the world Communist movement. Under Communism, economic development will remain frozen in time, as the cryogenic economy of the world. People will be driving reproductions of the 1938 Packard for the next three hundred years, as the Soviets have been doing since that year. To prevent the Henry Fords of the future from building a better automobile in a rickety packing shed, the monopolists intend to see that they will never be able to "accumulate" the couple of hundred dollars they will need for tools and supplies. The IRS obligingly fulfills this vital function, seeing to it that the American worker remains restricted to the "bare subsistence wage." Under this dictum of David Ricardo, the worker will never be paid more than the minimal amount which he needs for him s elf and his family. There would be no possibility of saving any money from this limited income.

Ricardo (1772-1823) was the third son of one Abraham Israel, a wealthy member of the Amsterdam banking community which had financed the Cromwell execution of the King of England, and the "Glorious Revolution," which put William of Orange on the throne of England, and resulted in the chartering of the Bank of England in 1694. Israel emigrated to England as part of the chosen influx of the Glorious Revolution. He soon became a prominent member of the London Stock Exchange. His son David worked closely with Nathan Rothschild, and amassed a large fortune, which qualified him to become an economist. He not only authored the infamous "subsistence wage" theory, but also provided that if it became absolutely necessary to increase the wages of the workers, for some reason, then the government must step in and increase their taxes by a corresponding amount.

Ricardo's slave labor theories of wages and labor were enthusiastically received by the more sinister elements of the capitalist community, not the least of whom was Karl Marx, a "scholar" who subsisted off of donations from wealthy entrepreneurs. Marx adopted Ricardo's theories, which became the guidelines by which the workers of Soviet Russia are enslaved today. Marx is even more renowned in the United States for his invention of the progressive income tax, which was first aired in his Communist Manifesto of 1848. The Marxist tax was enacted into law in the United States during the Civil War, shortly after Marx had authored it. A second version of Marx's tax was enacted in 1894, but was promptly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The monopolists were forced to take a new approach; they put the tax through as an amendment to the Constitution.

Ricardo's dictum, which became known as "the iron law of wages, " became a standard feature of economists' proposals throughout the world. His descendant, Rita Ricardo, came to Washington in 1980 as part of the "Reagan Revolution," which was intended to be a re-enactment of the Glorious Revolution of England. She promptly assumed the post of Reagan's adviser on social security payments and workers' pensions.

As the KGB of Ricardo's iron law of wages, the IRS not only works to maintain the monopoly corporations in power throughout the United States; it also protects the Marxist government establishment by routinely delaying any criminal investigations of other government agencies, and thus plays a vital role in Drug, Inc., the international machine of the drug czars and organized crime. Reader's Digest noted in an article, in 1981, "How the IRS Helps the Mob," that a key provision of the aforementioned TEFRA reform act of 1986 was its special pronunciamentos purporting to protect the right of privacy. The Digest noted that these provisions have proven to be so protective of criminal rights that TEFRA is now known as "The Organized Crime Relief Act." Government agents who were investigating a narcotics case in Cleveland requested IRS help in deciphering numerous financial records which they had seized in their raids. They were told to send the documents to the IRS. Months later, the IRS informed the agents that not only would they refuse to discuss the case any further, but that the records which had been sent to them had now been classified as "confidential tax information," and they could not be returned!

IRS Methods

Meanwhile, IRS agents continue to be the subject of an ongoing House Government Operations Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, chaired by Georgia Representative Doug Barnard Jr. In their investigation of IRS violations of civil and criminal statutes, the Committee found that when the IRS learned that senior employees were using their offices for private gain, and of other examples of misconduct, little or no punitive action was taken against the guilty parties. William Duncan, former Criminal Investigative Division agent of the IRS, testified that he felt like he had been "in the Twilight Zone." He had been ordered by superiors not to disclose information to the committee, and he was told to lie to the Congressmen if certain matters were brought up, including a money laundering operation. He then quit. Fred Goldberg, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner, sent a prepared statement to the Committee that he's not ready to make a quick judgment about the IRS internal security system. Duncan quit the IRS after 17 years of service.

IRS Manual on Revenue Procedure, 64-22 states,

"It is the duty of the Service to carry out that policy for raising revenue by correctly applying the laws enacted by Congress. . . . not to adopt a strained construction in the belief that he is protecting the revenue."

The IRS agents are in fact forced to take a "strained construction" if they are to protect their jobs; careers and promotions depend on the amount of extra money they can bring in. On p. 145, the manual states that there is no set definition of 'substantial compliance' on producing records." Here again, the agent plays it by ear. The citizen he is auditing will not have a copy of this manual in front of him, and must do whatever the agent demands.

The Committee has publicized some notorious examples from its investigations, including the incidence of criminal conspiracy to obstruct the tax laws in the Los Angeles office of the IRS. The former chief of the LA CED IRS was "persuaded" by Guess Jeans to investigate a tax fraud against a competing designer jeans firm, Jordache. The IRS official delivered the investigation, and then went to work for Guess. He was later found to have "deterred or impeded" two other tax investigations while he was head of the CID.

IRS agents have frequently played a crucial role in political campaigns, intervening on behalf of one candidate against another. The most famous victim of such abuse was Congressman George Hansen of Idaho. IRS tactics not only defeated him for re-election, but later sent him to prison on flimsy charges of "ethics violations." It was proven that he had followed House guidelines in filling out the new forms, but he was convicted and imprisoned in a political vendetta. When his wife announced that she would run for his Congressional seat, she was immediately threatened by IRS agents. They informed her that if she would not turn over lists of her campaign contributors, she too would be sent to prison. Her campaign supporters then came under fire from the IRS, and she was forced to abandon her race for Congress. All of these acts are forbidden by law; they constitute illegal interference with the electoral process, and at least five or six other criminal acts. Nothing has been done.

For those Americans who still believe that they have some Constitutional rights left, the Washington Post carried a demurrer on Feb. 26, 1989. The Post cited a Jan. 20, 1989 decision by Judge Larry McKinney, who handed down a ruling that there is no Constitutional right of privacy for bank accounts. (Raikes v. Bloomfield State Bank). The decision gives the IRS complete authority to continue its longtime practice of furtive examination of citizens' private bank accounts. The McKinney decision is merely part of a nationwide campaign to tighten the screws on all Americans by the tax collectors. Paul Craig Roberts noted in his syndicated column, Feb. 7, 1989, "Ever since Reagan and a handful of outsiders lifted the oppressive tax burden on the American people, Washington insiders and the capital's coterie of special interests have been trying to hike taxes."

Andy Melechinsky touched upon this problem when he recently stated

"Any person who lives by the Bill of Rights today, is 'at risk' of being caged, and even worse, by a powerful, ruthless, and insidious tyranny such as the world has never before known."

Melechinsky points out the vital distinction between "rights" and a "privilege" for those who depend upon their "rights" when they go into an American court. "I should point out that Fifth Amendment RIGHTS are not privileges in a court of law (as opposed to equity). Only in a court of equity do rights become privileges, and no one can be lawfully brought into a court of equity unless he knows exactly what he is getting into, and wants to be there."

Few Americans realize that if they elect to go into the Tax Court, they are walking into an equity court whose judges are chosen by the government taxing authorities. Under President Carter, the Tax Court Nominating Commission for judges was chaired by Robert Mundheim, the General Counsel of the U.S. Treasury Dept. Second in command was Jerome Kurtz, director of the IRS. The other commissioners had like backgrounds.

One of the more outspoken critics of the IRS has been Virginia scholar and activist, Kenneth White, who has for years headed the Virginia Taxpayers Association. White has given documented evidence on IRS abuses before Congressional committees and state legislatures. He has cited under oath specific IRS violations of 26 USC 7214 (extortion); 18 USC Sec 1001 (false and fraudulent documents); 18 USC 241 (conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate), and 18 USC 1341 (mail fraud). White has also filed two criminal complaints with former Atty Gen Edwin Meese III against Raymond Keenan, director of the Memphis IRS Center, and against other IRS employees for using false and fraudulent documents.

American citizens such as Kenneth White are routinely vilified by government propagandists, and their names placed on special blacklists. They are given the derogatory term of "tax protester" because they have dared to document criminal activities by IRS agents. A citizen who voices a complaint or registers a document stating that a crime has been committed against him or against any other citizen is not a "protester"; he is merely complying with the law. Statutes define one who fails to file information about a crime known to him is guilty of "misprision," that is, of failing to notify the concerned authorities about a crime which to his knowledge has been committed. Like other concerned Americans, Kenneth White is trying to clarify matters which have never been satisfactorily defined—such as "Who is actually required to file and pay an income tax?" "In what medium of exchange should such a tax be paid?" and whether the U.S. government is empowered to lay and collect taxes on American citizens for the benefit of foreign governments. Atty Lowell H. Becraft Jr. of Huntsville Ala. points out that the legal tender powers of Congress are valid only in "its jurisdiction." He cites the Revised Statutes, Title 39, Sec; 3588, the act which made U.S. notes a legal tender, "United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."

The last U.S. notes authorized to be printed in the United States were authorized by President Kennedy, shortly before his assassination in Dallas. On June 30,1963, Kennedy signed Exec. Order No. 11110, further amended E.O. Mo. 10289, Sept. 1951, thereby giving the President authority to issue the currency. He thereupon ordered the issue of $4,292,893,815.00 in lawful American money, which was not interest-bearing currency, as are the Federal Reserve notes. The printing order was rescinded as one of President Lyndon B. Johnson's first official acts after he succeeded Kennedy. At least he knew why he had ascended to the Presidential chair. Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve notes are issued by the privately owned Federal Reserve banks, they are still promissory notes, obligations or promises to pay by the American taxpayer.

When the present writer was sent the dread summons to appear at the IRS for a tax audit (unknown to him, the order had been sent at the instigation of an attorney who had been unable to defeat me in a lawsuit) I promptly sued the agent for $350,000 for terrorism. The case was filed in a state circuit court, but was immediately remanded by the government to federal court, whereupon the plaintiff filed a motion to have it remanded back to state court, citing numerous precedents and stipulations from the U.S. Code. The case dragged on for many months, during which time the plaintiff filed thirty-eight motions, not one of which was ever answered by the government, or allowed to be argued in court. Plaintiff also filed Written Interrogatories with the IRS which were never answered.

"Question 8. Plaintiff has charged the IRS with racial discrimination. Does the IRS practice racial discrimination against white taxpayers such as plaintiff, while allowing black political leaders to avoid paying income taxes because of these black leaders' threats to organize riots in the black communities if they are forced to pay taxes?

"Question 9. Why did an IRS official tell Drew Pearson that 'We accept noncompliance from black political leaders because this is the price that Americans must pay to maintain racial peace in American cities?" (Pearson printed this dialogue verbatim in his Washington Merry Go Round column.)

Not only does the IRS function as a "vigorish" or collection arm for the Black Hand, as the Mafia operation called the Federal Reserve System is known to insiders; not only does the IRS function as the enforcement arm of Karl Marx's program calling for a graduated or progressive income tax; not only does the IRS function to maintain monopoly corporation power throughout the United States, preventing American citizens from competing by developing their own businesses under our alleged "free enterprise" system; the IRS also functions as the single largest negative force on the U.S. economy. Michael Evans, in his ground breaking work, "Let's Abolish the Income Tax," records that during the year of 1986, Americans spent a total of 5.3 BILLION hours in maintaining financial records, documents, and the preparation of income tax returns at the command of the IRS. If the average income of these American taxpayers is computed at a reasonable figure of $20 per hour, because most persons who earn less than $10 an hour pay little or no income tax, we have a dead loss to the American economy of more than $100 billion a year, a figure which could significantly reduce our national deficit. In 1988, the progressive or graduated income tax of Karl Marx brought in some $400 billion of tax revenue to the government from individuals, as compared to only $100 billion collected in corporate income taxes.

If we examine the aforesaid loss of $100 billion a year from nonprofit activity of American citizens, from an economist's view of the phenomenon known as "velocity of circulation," with an average turnover of five times per year in velocity of circulation, we arrive at the true figure of a loss to the American economy of $500 billion a year—to say nothing of the psychological stress under which Americans are placed as they toil over their income tax returns, knowing that as an error of a few dollars may cost them everything they own, in penalties and confiscations a la Lenin.

Because the IRS system itself has been for years on the point of total collapse, Americans need not fear that they will have to continue spending five billion hours per year on their income tax returns. The IRS now has a 25 year plan under which IRS agents will eventually fill out all tax forms. They will compute your tax as a "simplified service" for taxpayers. In view of the fact that 60% of all IRS advice given to taxpayers about filling out their income tax forms has been shown to be erroneous, and is so faulty that the IRS itself will not allow the advice of its own agents to be used as a legal excuse for filing a faulty or incomplete tax return, we can only shudder at the chaos which will result when the IRS agents prepare everyone's tax form, and notify the citizen the amount he is expected to pay.

The IRS 25 year plan also calls for "pay equality," an IRS refinement of the ancient Marxist precept of "comparable worth," which sets down guidelines for paying taxes from each according to his worth and handing the proceeds out to each according to his needs. Under the IRS plan, hardworking Americans will be forced to accept "pay equality," that is, reductions in pay, disguised as higher taxes, while favored special interest groups will get special bonuses. Any challenge to such IRS decrees would be interpreted as "Criticism of the state," or by the accepted term in Soviet Russia, "Slandering the State," and would be punished accordingly. The contemplated IRS plan would permanently enthrone it as the KGB of America, an all seeing, all powerful secret police which would inflict the maximum punishment on anyone who dares to criticize Big Brother in our 1984 Socialist State. It is Orwell's vision of the jackboot being stamped into the citizen's face, forever.

Although few Americans have expressed alarm at the spectacle of some of the most notorious leftwing Congressmen hastily departing Washington only hours ahead of summonses and indictments, the exodus may have greater import than those revelations afforded us by the servile press.

The hegira of these professional politicians, although boding well for the future of the Republic, may not have been altogether inspired by the prospect of lengthy ethical hearings followed by the usual slap on the wrist. For some time, there have been rumors about a disturbing memorandum drawn up by the Department of Justice, which outlines a strong possibility that one or more of the Arab nations may request the indictment of a number of our more prominent Congressional leaders on war crimes indictments. The Department of Justice memorandum cites the public activity of these Congressmen in sponsoring and passing numerous appropriations bills for the State of Israel, these funds then being used to massacre Palestinian women and children in the vain efforts of the Zionist terrorist leaders to crush the desire of the captive Palestinians for freedom from their oppressors.

The memorandum makes it plain that these Congressmen, by their own admission, have become liable under the Nuremberg trials guidelines for the "massacre of thousands of civilians, including many women and children," for "confining thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, under extremely inhumane conditions prohibited by the Geneva Convention," and for "plotting and waging aggressive war" against civilian populations.

The legal basis for the indictments is that these Congressmen have provided all of the military and economic aid to Israel which has made the Israeli occupation possible, which has paid for every bullet fired into the body of each Palestinian victim of Zionist atrocities, and which has paid all of the expenses of the Israeli occupation government. Under the Nuremberg guidelines, the Israeli government qualifies as a military occupation force equivalent to Nazi occupation governments in European countries in which they had set up satellite states. Many officials of these occupation governments were subsequently convicted and executed by decision of the Nuremberg tribunals, although, in many cases, the evidence of their liability was much less than that of U.S. Congressmen in the sponsorship of the Israeli government actions.

The Department of Justice memorandum was prepared in response to an inquiry from a Congressional staff member about the possibility of war crimes charges being brought against one or more members of Congress. Its conclusion is that

"We regret to inform you that, from the overwhelming amount of evidence readily available for prosecution, that defense against such a charge would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Even though conviction of charges of war crimes would not necessarily result in the imprisonment or other punishment of those charged, due to the absence of an international force capable of carrying out such a sentence, the mere airing of such war crimes charges would be very damaging to the continuation of present United States foreign policy commitments, and might well result in extensive rethinking of and revision of our outstanding commitments to the State of Israel."

The memorandum went on to describe the "deleterious propaganda value of such war crimes charges," because the United States government would find it difficult either to defend the accused or to cooperate in their prosecution.

Another Department of Justice legal position recently surfaced which has even more alarming potentialities. It suggests that great obstacles now exist to further prosecution of American citizens who are indicted on charges of failure to file or failure to pay income taxes, because of the possibility that they can mount an unbeatable defense by citing the First Amendment, (1791),

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

For some years, I had pointed out that Congress, by enacting into law numerous appropriations bills which gave billions of dollars to the State of Israel, were in violation of the First Amendment. My argument had been that because the State of Israel is publicly known as a theocracy, that is, as a religious state with an openly religious government, and which excludes from office members of other religions who are nevertheless resident in and paying taxes in that nation, the Congress is thereby guilty of violating the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I had not yet had the opportunity to introduce this argument in a legal action, but had long been hoping for the chance to place a federal judge on the spot, forcing him to admit that it was impossible to extort by force funds from American citizens, when those funds were then appropriated by act of Congress to be sent to a theocratic state, for the purpose of maintaining a religious entity as a sovereign nation among the family of nations. Indeed, the State of Israel seems to be the only world power at the present time which is openly and acknowledgedly a theocratic state, the tendency in modem history having been for several centuries against theocracy in government, and favoring governments which were open to members of all religious beliefs, as in the United States.

Support for my legal argument emerged last year when the hero of the Congressional political show trials of the Iran-Contra debate, which has finally resulted in the conviction of Col. Oliver North on vague charges of having "obstructed Congress," a charge, which if true, should cause him to receive a medal from the American people, said hero, Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D. Hawaii), who was then chairman of the Senate foreign operations subcommittee, aroused a controversy by yielding to the command of one of his campaign contributors that he appropriate eight million dollars from the U.S. Treasury to build religious schools for North African Jews in France. Inouye, who had been notorious for his vicious attacks on Col. North throughout the Iran-Contra hearings, eagerly agreed to violate the Constitution of the United States by giving the eight million dollars to the Zionist agitprop group, the Ozar Hatorah organization. There was a brief discussion of the appropriation in the servile media, although no mention was made of the fact that it was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Congressmen, like our judges, look upon the Constitution as an outmoded document which, in any case, has been totally replaced by admiralty law or the law merchant. Under the law merchant, there is no legal stigma or prohibition against U.S. taxpayers' funds being spent for Jewish religious instruction, as the law merchant observes no Bill of Rights. Most of the bills enacted into law by the United States Congress base their legal validity upon the principles of the law merchant, the most notorious being the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act into law by Congress in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act openly violated the Constitutional provision that only Congress should have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof (Art I.Sec.8), and may be said to have enthroned the law merchant as the new and regnant law of the United States.

The problem of funding Jewish religious schools is once again raging in Washington, as a headline in the Washington Post of July 18, 1989, duly noted, "AID Funding of Israeli Religious Schools Hit" "Lawmakers Decry 'International Pork Barrel.'" The story revealed that the Agency for International Development (AID) has earmarked $3.5 million for the construction of two orthodox Jewish religious schools in Israel and a teacher-training institution for Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. AID deputy administrator Mark Edelman is now fielding protests about the "apparent increased politicization" of AID's $35 million ASHA program—American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. The story goes on to condemn the ASHA program as "an international pork barrel for pet projects of key pro-Israeli senators and their Jewish fundraisers." AID is also paying out one and a half million dollars in construction funds to the Sha'alvim Teachers College in Ayalon, Israel, to build dormitories for Israeli students, who will then work as teachers in West Bank Jewish settlements. The teachers college, founded in 1976, is described as "a center for the teaching of Jewish culture."

Also scheduled for AID funds is the Machon Alte Institute in Safed, Israel, part of a network of Jewish centers run by the Chabad Lubavitcher Movement, an extremely orthodox Hasidic sect which is headquartered in Brooklyn, and which is well-known for sponsoring local vigilante groups in Hasidic neighborhoods. It also has one and a half million dollars ear-marked by AID for the construction of dormitories. AID also has set aside $500,000 for the Or Machayim Girls College in Bnei Brak, Israel, whose stated purpose in its AID application is "to raise the economic and cultural levels of Israel's Sephardic population." The Israel Arts and Science Academy in Jerusalem is also scheduled to get $1.5 million from AID this fiscal year, and an additional one million next year for dormitory construction. Its American sponsor is Robert H. Asher, who, coincidentally, is also the chairman of Washington's most powerful political lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. With such influential backing, it is understandable that the Agency for International Development would be appropriating such large sums to institutions in the State of Israel, even though its dedication to these goals might lead some Americans to think that AID stands for the "Agency for Israeli Development." Nevertheless, Asher denied that AIPAC had any part in obtaining these multi-million dollar appropriations for his ideological homeland.

Several Congressmen have called for a review of these appropriations, not from excessive zeal in protecting the American taxpayer from such outrageous exploitation on behalf of a foreign theocratic power, but from fear that, as AI D becomes more identified in the public mind as an agency of AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies in Washington, it could endanger their multitudinous other pork barrel projects, public revulsion against such wholesale raiding of the U.S. Treasury leading to cutbacks in many other government funded operations.