Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Tax Questions for Congressman Bilirakis

Dear Congressman Michael Bilirakis:

I just ran across this ruling and decided to ask you about it. Note the asterisks I added and the context of the usage of the term "United States."

... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution .... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States**, has made those guaranties [sic] applicable. [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

It is clear to me from this ruling that the term "United States" has at least two meanings. One is the Corporate United States (territories, possessions, enclaves), and the other is the Union of States (the 50 states united under and by the Constitution. The Constitution protects Citizens of the Union of States, but not Corporate United States citizens.

The fact that there are two meanings for United States causes enormous confusion when trying to understand the Internal Revenue Code 26 USC. I have long wondered why Congress would pass laws imposing an income tax that courts have ruled is an excise (indirect) tax, but that in implementation is a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. Courts have ruled that the income is not what is being taxed, but rather some activity, and that income is only the means of measuring tax liability, but the tax code actually does tax income. Courts have ruled that the 16th amendment confers no new power of taxation, but the IRS acts like it has the power to take people's money directly, first by taking it from employers (or at the source, such as when you show up to collect your lottery or other gambling winnings), and second, failing that, by taking it right out of your bank account, even without a court order or prior hearing.

Why does the IRS take such liberties when the Constitution prohibits it?

Could it be that when the term "state" is used in the tax code it only refers to the possessions and territories of the USA, and not the 50 states united by the Constitution?

Could it be that when the term "United States" is used in the tax code it only refers to the corporate area of the United States (D.C., territories, possessions, federal enlcaves ceded by states), and not to the 50 states united by the Constitution?

Could it be that the IRS is violating the Constitution because they think I am not under its protection?

Please answer those questions and explain your answers. Please provide some proof.

Now, I have been studying 26 USC in an effort to understand how it is possible that IRS agents can be allowed to take money directly from my income without a court otder or even a hearing. I especially do not understand this in view of the fact that I am not now and, except for breif periods when I was in the Navy, never have been a resident of the Corporate United States (i.e., its territories, possessions, enclaves), and I have never been a citizen of the Corporate United States, but in fact I am a natural born Citizen of the State of Texas and I am now a resident and Citizen of the State of Florida. I am a Citizen of the Union of States but not of the Corporate United States, so why is the IRS messing with me? Could it be that I signed some form at some time in the past, claiming I am a US Citizen, and they interpreted that to mean I was claiming I was a Corporate United States citizen?

I have noticed in my increasingly intense study of 26USC that no statute is supplied that makes me liable for any income tax. Since I am not in the alcohol, tobacco, or firearms manufacturing or importing business, I have not conducted any activity in my entire lifetime that would make me subject to or liable for any income tax for revenue purposes.

As you know from my previous messages to you, I am aware that a direct tax is a tax upon my property, person, or labor, and the Constitution very clearly stipulates that a direct tax must be apportioned among the states and cannot be taken directly from individuals. Since the IRS is very busy stealing my money under the color of law (and is doing the same to most other Americans), and since I have informed the IRS that I am not under the purview of 26USC by virtue of the fact that I have not been doing any taxable activity, they must have some reason for thinking they are right in taking my money. What could that reason be?

Do you think it could be because the protections of the Constitution do not apply to Corporate United States citizens, and the IRS agent dealing with my file thinks I am one of those citizens? If so, will you help me convince them that I am a Citizen of the State of Florida and a natural-born Citizen of the Union of States, but not a citizen of the Corporate United States?

Congressman, either the IRS has a mistaken notion about my citizenship, or they do not understand the constitutional protection I have as a Citizen of the State of Florida, or they are criminals. I believe they are criminals. I do not nave the money to go after them and bring them to justice. The only proper remedy is for YOU to do the job for which you have been hired, and clarify the terminology so there can be no mistaken understanding, either by the courts or by IRS agents: taking taxes directly from American citizens of the Union of States is a criminal violation of the Constitution and an exceeding of authority; using trickery like allowing courts to assume a person is a taxpayer just because they have signed tax forms is fraud; advertising that people ought to pay their taxes as though everyone working for a wage owes a tax on that wage is fraud; intentionally deceiving people into claiming they are United States citizens, knowing they will mean Citizens of the Union of States, but intending to misconstrue that a smeaning a Corporate United States citizen, is criminal fraud.

If you do not agree with my assertions in the above paragraphs, please let me know and tell me why, showing statutory, constitutional, or common law proof. If you do agree, please tell me what you are going to do to make the law clear, hold the IRS accountable for its criminal behavior, and stop their terrifying abuse of Americans.

I have a recommendation. If you are befuddled about this, STUDY and LEARN about it. Hint - you won't get the straight truth from the IRS, nor from the CRS, who just echos Treasury Department propaganda about taxes. You'll have to study outside sources, just as I am doing.

Here's another recommendation. If Congress needs to raise money, do it through the proper avenue for direct taxation, and prohibit the IRS from trying to take money and other property directly from people's paychecks, bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, garages, or houses. Go get the money from the States, or increase tarriffs and excise taxes on foreigners entering America for vacation or residence.

Pease tell me: why aren't you pushing for direct taxation by following the rule of apportionment?


Bob Hurt

No comments: