In
1861, Congress enacted the first income tax. Anthony Hargis claims it would
more accurately be described as the advent of the American Inquisition. In a
book by that title, American Inquisition, he shows that the procedures
used by the Catholic church to convict and torture heretics and to confiscate
their property are practically identical to those used by American tax
collectors.
For example, in both the Catholic and American
versions, assessors were/are sent into the various districts of a territory to
search for violators; in one the crime was unauthorized beliefs; in the other,
productive work.
In both cases, if a criminal voluntarily confessed
to his crime, the penalty was/is moderate; otherwise, it was/is multiplied.
In both cases, property was/is confiscated without
due process.
Both inquisitions employed/employs terror to
obtain maximum “voluntary” compliance.
Both systems imposed/imposes the burden of proof
on the “criminal”; and then deprives him of all property, or gives no
opportunity to carry such burden.
After illustrating the near identical procedures
of both inquisitions, Anthony then shows the income tax, and most, or all,
internal taxes to be unconstitutional. He then proposes novel and
common-sense alternatives to current taxes. Some examples are in order.
Direct tax. The Supreme Court declared the
income tax unconstitutional in 1894 on the basis that it was a direct tax and
had to be apportioned.
From the time of the first income tax in 1861 to
its defeat in 1894, it had been challenged several times on the basis that it
was a direct tax; and every time the government defended it on the basis
that it was an indirect tax. Thus, it would seem mandatory that, if
Congress wanted a constitutional direct tax on income, it would need
language that would clearly identify the proposed “tax on incomes” as a direct
tax.
Accordingly, an attempt was made to classify the
new income tax as a direct tax. The proposed amendment first appears with this
language, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes
on incomes without apportionment among the several States…” This proposal was
known as Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 39, it was referred to a committee – and
died there. Eleven days later, SJR 40 was reported out of that committee
with the language of the current amendment; that is, with the word “direct”
omitted.
The attempt, to change the income tax from
indirect to direct, was defeated.
When interpreting a constitutional amendment,
there can be no authority greater than to examine the actions and words of those
who framed the amendment. Here is clear language and action that indicates that
framers did not intend to authorize a direct tax on incomes. Despite this, the
income tax is imposed as a direct tax, which, according to original intent,
makes it unconstitutional.
Yes, there have been several challenges to the
income tax, since 1915, on the basis that it was imposed as a direct tax; and
all have been defeated. And, Anthony was unable to find evidence that any of
these challengers relied on the language, and defeat, of SJR 39. This
leads to the possibility that the government fabricated every non-39 challenge
and loaded each with obtuse and contradictory language – so it would naturally
be defeated; while challenges using SJR 39 were simply buried, or never let in
the courthouse.
Graded tax. Another feature that makes the
income tax unconstitutional is its graduated nature. In 1909 it seems that it
was common knowledge that the government had no authority to impose a graded tax
of any kind. To provide for a graduated tax, a Senator from Texas proposed an
amendment to the amendment: after the word, “incomes,” he proposed to add the
words, “and may grade the TA \s "44 Cong Rec" same.” This would have allowed
the new “tax on incomes” to be graduated; it was rejected; and this makes the
current income tax what? That’s right, unconstitutional.
General welfare. Now, an example as to why
internal taxes are unconstitutional. Congress gets its authority to lay
taxes from Article one, section eight of the Constitution, “Congress shall have
power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts
and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but
all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Most researchers look at this section and conclude
that the only limitations on Congress’ power to tax is that direct taxes must be
apportioned and indirect taxes (“duties, imposts and excises”) must be uniform.
There is more: all federal taxes must serve a particular purpose of the federal
government; here, the Constitution specifies some of those purposes,
namely, “to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare
of the United States.” Other purposes are found in the Preamble. A tax for any
other purpose is unconstitutional. And more, if a federal tax subtracts from,
or subverts, any constitutional purpose, the tax is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has recognized, in a fabricated
case, that, if the government gives money to a man, it improves the man’s
general welfare; but the Court failed to examine the other side of this coin: if
anyone takes money from a man (we discuss taking – not trading), the process
subtracts from his general welfare. The same applies to a city, a state,
and a nation. If Congress imposes taxes on American industry and American
workers, and does not impose an equal or greater tax on foreign industry and
workers, such taxes subtract from the general welfare and common defense of the
entire nation – and are unconstitutional.
This consideration, relative to internal
taxes, makes this book especially important relative to the movement to replace
the income tax with some other kind of tax; for, if the income tax is
unconstitutional because of its internal nature, most, or all other,
internal taxes would also be unconstitutional.
Alternatives. So, if most, or all, internal taxes are unconstitutional, how
can government lawfully finance its operations? This book addresses this
problem also. The purpose of American governments is to secure the rights of
the people. If there were no one to threaten such rights, there would be no
reason to organize governments. Therefore, Anthony suggests that taxes be
imposed only on those who make governments necessary; namely, domestic and
foreign bandits. Domestic bandits necessitate police departments and courts;
therefore, impose taxes on thieves. Instead of providing them with room and
board at taxpayers’ expense; we should setup work camps where convicts perform
some kind of labor to support themselves, provide restitution and pay the
expenses of police and courts – all, of course, according to due process of
law. We organize armies to defend against foreign bandits; they, and only they,
should finance our armies by duties imposed on all imported goods and services.
Anthony shows that, by these methods, taxes would
be imposed only by due process of law or voluntarily; a domestic bandit would
pay taxes only by the judgment of his peers and only so long as is necessary to
pay the expenses of his crime; the foreign importer will pay taxes only so long
as he sees an advantage to import his goods.
Retaliation. The government recently prosecuted Anthony, put him in jail
for five months and confiscated some five to six millions of his customers’
property – all without a trace of due process (see ‘Anthony in Wonderland,’ a 16
pp summary of the case).
Anthony asserts that the main reason for this
prosecution was to retaliate against him for his opinions and against his
customers for supporting him.
The government claimed that Anthony helped to
organize “abusive tax shelters,” and used American Inquisition to
secretly encourage customers to use the gold-based banking service that he used
to provide, which the government shut down with this case. The government
referred to the opinions in this book; examined several arguments used by
various so-called tax resisters; attributed these arguments to Anthony; and then
declared these arguments to be false. By this sophistry, the government created
the impression that the opinions in American Inquisition were false; and
that Anthony knew his opinions to be false – because someone else’s opinions
were false.
Let’s repeat that: by demonstrating that obviously
groundless arguments used by other people were false, the government persuaded
the judge that Anthony’s opinions were false.
A “Wonderland” aspect of this case is that Anthony
agrees with the government – the arguments examined by the government were
groundless; and, Anthony says, “I wouldn’t touch them.”
The court gave a summary judgment to the
government. If the case had been allowed to go to trial, this book, American
Inquisition, would have been a star “witness.” Anthony could have spent two
or three days examining the opinions found in it, and could have disinfected a
few minds – or knocked a few chips out of the foundation of the primary weapon
of American terrorists, who most people call ‘revenue agents.’ But he never got
a chance to examine his “accuser”; and even less, this “witness”; there was no
trial; nothing. He was required to disprove the government’s claim; and never
allowed an opportunity to do so.
“At least,” Anthony laments, “the government
proved the main theme of my book.”
This book also contains the essay, The Mystery
and the Fraud. What do the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the
original thirteenth amendment, the current fourteenth amendment,
the purchase of Alaska, the Bolshevik Revolution, for example, all have in
common?
We don't have to rely on suppositions for an
answer; from debates in Parliament to acts of Congress, it's all in black and
white. There's an English hand in all of them; and, they all served the purpose
of "returning America to English obedience." The English have never conceded
they lost the American colonies, and Anthony draws it all together in The
Mystery and the Fraud.
The English can maintain a purpose over centuries;
twelve hundred years, for example, to subdue Scotland. They've been working on
America for a mere two hundred years. When they recapture America, it will be
accompanied with the same slaughter witnessed in the French and Bolshevik
revolutions; for the Americans will not go peacefully.
The American Inquisition (essay
only, 83 pages), 24.00 (20.00 + 4.00 for p & h).
Pollock cases (190 pp., photocopies)
29.00 FRu’s (25.00 + 4.00 for p & h).
Congressional Debates re: sixteenth amendment (125 pp., less than perfect
photocopies from micro fiche) 29.00 FRu’s (25.00 + 4.00 for p & h).
All
three, 74.00 FRu’s (65.00 + 9.00 for p & h).
Maxims of American Law
If we are concerned about rights of man, we must study three major categories of
law: natural, constitutional and statutory. But, how do we study them?
If we desire to understand provisions and
limitations of a particular constitution, we go to that constitution and read
its words. If we desire to understand commands and restrictions of statute law,
we, likewise, go to a particular statute and read its words. For equal
precision relative to natural law, where do we go? Maxims of law are to natural
law what a constitution is to constitutional law; a statute, to statute law.
Maxims of law are conclusions and observations about human behavior that no man
can deny but at the cost of dementia or incrimination.
For example, “No man shall be a judge at his own
trial.” “In tyrannies friendship and justice hardly exist, in democracies they
exist more fully. Hence, to establish a tyranny, we must destroy the bonds of
friendship; to establish a free society, we must nurture them.” “What was the
end of killing the tyrant, but to be free from tyranny? A ridiculous motive,
and an empty exploit, if our slavery survive him.”
Maxims such as these were crafted by private men;
time and custom wove them into the fabric of natural law.
The maxims collected in this booklet are
necessarily filtered by my ethics and experience. Not all men will agree with
my choices; but at least I give something that all may begin with. Anthony
Hargis, Maxims of American Law, 120 pages, $18.00 ($14.00 + $4.00
for p & h).
A Tale of Two Bribes
This is a collection of four essays that pertain to surpluses accumulated by
American governments, from special district, to city, to federal. Together,
they have accumulated some seven to ten trillion dollars in surpluses, and
invested this money in stocks, bonds, real estate, among other things. Most of
this money is held in retirement systems for government employees, who plan to
retire on 50,000 per year for grunt bureaucrats; 150,000 for department heads or
judges. Most of this money was contributed by ordinary taxpayers – not
government employees. Poor taxpayer; he also gets to forego more than 600,000
in Social Security taxes over his forty years of working – only to collect maybe
10,000 a year for five or ten years. Gee, what a deal: he gives up 600,000
during the best years of his life so he can recover 50,000 to 100,000 during the
worst years of his life. This is information that no bureaucrat wants you to
know.
A Tale of Two Bribes, 50
pages, $14.00 (12.00 + 2.00 for p & h).
Send blank money order to
Anthony Hargis, 2427 N. Tustin Ave, Suite B, Santa Ana, Cal. 92705.
Design downloaded from
FreeWebTemplates.com
Free web design, web templates, web layouts, and website resources!
