| According to "The
Pink Papers," an intra-departmental report written by a group of employees
from the Internal Revenue Service, every American taxpayer in this
country has been lied to regarding the payment of income taxes based
on wages, salaries or personal services. Well, I'm sure that this
does not come as a great surprise to many of us, based upon the long
history of lies and deceptions that have been perpetrated on the American
Nevertheless, the question that lingers in my mind is how
can an entire nation of intelligent individuals not even be remotely
aware of the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court made this decision
during the 1930's, thereby making it the "law of the land," so to
speak. As a result of the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling, every employee
of the IRS (as well as all employers who demand that employees submit
to this illegal form of taxation in order to be employed) are, in
fact, accessories to high crime and fraud against the American people.
Approximately one-third of each employee's wages go directly
to the payment of "income" taxes, in direct violation of the U.
S. Supreme Court's ruling on this matter. And, to make matters worse,
most of the money does not remain in the U. S. Treasury, but instead
is transferred directly to the "privately-owned" Federal Reserve
in order to pay off the "national debt." This so-called "debt" can
never be paid in full, nor would the people responsible for creating
this debt want it to be paid, for they are able to amass huge sums
of money from interest on previous loans that led to the creation
of this debt, as well as use this debt to "control" our government,
our country, and our economy.
We are speaking about the "Global Elite," a group of super
wealthy individuals (with a combined wealth in excess of sixty trillion
dollars) who loan huge sums of money to countries all over the world
by manipulating wars and other conflicts through a process known
as "playing one country's government against another" (similar to
the old Machiavellian principle of "divide and conquer"). This process
was very successful and instrumental (as well as lucrative) during
World Wars I and II, Vietnam and the Gulf War. For further information,
David Icke can provide you with all the specific details in his
outstanding book entitled And The Truth Shall Set You Free,
also currently available in our bookstore. I will provide you with
a more in-depth review of his powerful book in one of the next issues
of Community Connexions.
"The Pink Papers" provides you with 15 pages of specific
details pertaining to (1) why you do NOT have to file a tax return
if your income is primarily wages, (2) why it is NOT a crime, and
(3) the basic defenses for your personal lawyer. This intra-departmental
report on defending our tax exempt wages was never meant for public
consumption. Nevertheless, since the ultimate appellate court is
the U. S. Supreme Court, we must look to them for a definite answer
regarding the question of conformance and affirmation of the IRS's
"little secret" that wages are not classified as income which
can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that ... "it becomes essential to
distinguish between what is, and what is not, 'income' " (Eisner
v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)), and further determined that the
"... 'income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so
as not to include everything that comes in, as the true function
of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the
word 'income' " (So. Pacific v Lowe, 238 F 847) (U.S. District Court
S.D.N.Y. 1917, 247 U.S. 30 (1918)).
The Court determined that "...the definition of income approved
by the Court is 'the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained
through sale or conversion of capital assets' " (Eisner Supra).
The Court further determined that "...income within the meaning
of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means 'gain'...and in
such connection, gain means 'profit'... proceeding from property
severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in,
received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit
and disposal" (Staples v U.S., 21 F. Supp. 737 (U.S. District Court
ED PA, 1937).
In the case of Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), the U.
S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that "the claim that salaries,
wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as
an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who
has performed the services which produced the gain is without support
either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts
construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions
of the Act and to regulations of the U. S. Treasury Dept. which
either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services
be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual
performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language
of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or compensation
for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That
which is to be included is gains, profits and income derived
from salaries, wages or compensation for personal
The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v Edwards, 255 U.S.
527 (1921) and, in 1969, in Connor v U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187, that
"whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment
became effective; it was true at the time of Eisner v Macomber Supra;
it was true under Section 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1938; and, it is likewise true under Section 61 (a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income...Congress
has taxed income and not compensation."
"...one does not derive income by rendering services and
charging for them" (Edwards v Keith, 231 FI 11, 1916).
Even at the State level, we find courts following the lead
of the U. S. Supreme Court: "There is a clear distinction between
profit and wages (or compensation for labor)." Compensation for
labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law
(Oliver v Halstead, 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E. 2d 858, 1955), and "...reasonable
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit" (Lauderdale
Cemetary Assoc. v Matthews, 345 Pa. 239, 47 A. 2d 277,280, 1946).
Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect
to what is (or is not) income, we find the word "income" does not
mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual,
but profit or gain FROM the money an individual receives, such as
interest, stock dividends, and profit from an employee's labors
(but not from a person's wages, which are compensation for their
labor). This means that the average person in America, who has no
large investments or riches upon which he/she receives interest,
dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed in the statute,
but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to
be required to file a tax return.
As a final note, I must ask all of you who are reading this
the following question: If all government agencies are "public servants"
by law, and are, in effect, acting merely as "employees" of the
American citizens, then that makes each of us an "employer," does
it not? Since when does an employee dictate any matters to an employer,
particularly when it involves intent to commit fraud?
It appears that all American taxpayers are now eligible to
receive the largest cumulative tax refund going all the way back
to the 1930's. I am most certain that the U.S. Supreme Court, by
its own ruling, must (and will) support your efforts towards procuring
your own individual cumulative tax refund, as well as those of your
immediate families and relatives. I am also certain that the U.
S. Supreme Court will make every effort to determine the identities
and subsequent punishments of all the guilty parties that assisted
in perpetrating this fraud against the American people. So what
are you waiting for?
"... the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth!"
Copies of the Pink Papers are available at
Alternatives for a New Millennium.
The editorial on this page is provided by the advertiser
and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of this paper.