How surprising is it to find out that some employers in the United States have actually been intimidated through misinformation peddled by extrajudicial government powers into behaving against their own interests? After more than three years of medical misinformation “brought to you by Pfizer” the sleeping giant of America has stirred from its slumber and begun rubbing the midnight propaganda from its weary eyes. And as the nation wakes up and takes a look around, it’s noticing that liars and psychopaths seem to have their hands in just about every pie. While some of the corruption has been extra brazen, many of the most insidious lies have gained traction under the quiet cover of boring.

An especially pernicious threat to the liberty of ordinary Americans has come unexpectedly from the Department of Homeland Security in recent years. Under the auspices of Immigration and Naturalization Services, DHS have successfully fooled some private employers and nonprofits into believing they are somehow required to force applicants to fill out immigration forms in order to legally work within the United States. But how could lifelong American citizens living within the United States possibly be required to file paperwork with federal immigration authorities? The short answer is, “They’re not!”

While the Department of Homeland Security falsely claims that everyone has been required to fill out an I-9 form since 06 November 1986, the organization known as Homeland Security did not even exist until the second Bush Administration created it in November of 2002 under the unconstitutional authority of the USA PATRIOT Act. It might be true that migrant workers have been required to file the I-9 form since 1986, but not so for the general population of Citizens residing lawfully in the States, and definitely not under the “authority” of a three-letter agency that didn’t even come into being for another 16 years.

This is the same agency that now actively seeks to target and silence Christians and conservatives as a “top priority” of its anti-terror capabilities. Funded by the Targeted Violence & Terrorism Prevention Grant Program (TVTP), Homeland Security has been weaponized against the American people, resulting in joint operations like the armed raid by dozens of federal agents against a commercial gun store in Great Falls, Montana this month.

On Wednesday, 14 June 2023, Highwood Creek Outfitters was hit by 20 heavily armed federal agents from the IRS and ATF. The store has purportedly been the victim of surveillance and harassment by several federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

Owner Tom Von Hoose indicated how this raid transpired in spite of the fact that he’s never missed a tax return and has maintained a good relationship with the ATF:

Van Hoose says his shop has a good relationship with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fiearms, which was also present. He says because his shop carries “fun guns” like AR-15’s and AK-47’s, their level of licensing draws more scrutiny. “We have a reputation of dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s because there’s so much legal fun to be had,” said Van Hoose. “It’s just not worth doing things that are going to get you in trouble.”

Any decent attorney knows that, “The Devil is in the details!” It’s common knowledge that you’ve got to read the fine print if you want to get at the heart of anything legal. So laws are referred to as “code” for good reason. As computer code programs operating systems, legal code literally programs society. But it’s also “code” in the sense that its meanings are often deliberately obfuscated so as to be misunderstood by the general public. The writers of legal code do not use the common English that is spoken by the common people but a language that is deceptively similar to English called Legalese which is used to achieve specific goals based on legal definitions of words. Today’s legal “code breakers” are the attorneys with knowledge of the Constitution that this country was founded upon who also possess the fortitude to stand up for the inherent rights of their clients.

Most Americans have never been told that capitulating to the unlawful dictates of an increasingly tyrannical federal government might be the force responsible for laying the groundwork for our subjugation. Most remain unaware of the fact that the signing of government documents – not the avoidance of them – is what affirms the power of the state over us. You don’t have to be a criminal to get raided by the feds, you just have to have signed their documents verifying your status as a subject of their despotism.

Since no one reads what they sign anymore, few have any grasp of what their signature allows for, be it the terms and conditions for iTunes or the law behind the I-9 immigration form. We would do well to remember how to examine the fine print because the act of penning a signature is legally binding whether the signer knows what they’re agreeing to or not.

While most American employers have never heard of INS form I-9, many have been fooled into the false belief that they’re required to subject their recruits to it in order to legally perform work for their companies. Nothing could be further from the truth because the I-9 form is explicitly intended for migrant workers. Camouflaged within the fine print of the law are its hidden intents, among them, the subtle attempt to shift responsibility for immigration enforcement onto private employers. This not only spells an egregious violation of Americans’ rights, but a profoundly frightening future for this country.

The following legal breakdown comes courtesy of the brilliant minds at Original Intent, an organization dedicated to helping Americans remember their inalienable rights and empowering Citizens to stand up “boldly and decisively when government threatens those rights.” Their breakdown of the I-9 lunacy opens by spilling the beans on the hidden purpose of the statute straightaway:

“While the United States government may lie to us or twist the facts on a myriad of issues, the purported “requirement” of the INS Form I-9 for general private sector employment is a particularly abrasive and loathsome case. The INS Form I-9 (if it were enforceable here in the states of the Union) would create a de facto system of mandatory federal ID in order to get a job. That is not to be tolerated.”

It’s also worth nothing that, while the federal government has attempted many times to coerce Montanans into their de jure system of mandatory federal identification known as the REAL ID, the State of Montana has repeatedly tabled this “requirement”. It was set to become mandatory by 2023 until Montana petitioned for yet another extension into the year 2025. This might seem like a small victory for the Treasure State until we consider that the people running the federal government never take “no” for an answer. While the REAL-ID program was an explicit form of mandatory federal identification, the I-9 “requirement” snuck in as one that was more implicit.

Unfortunately, most Americans coerced into filling out this form never consider the fact that their signature on something that is explicitly intended for migrant workers might come back to bite them in the ass someday. But why would Americans be required to do this in the first place?

“How is it that the government claims to have created a law that requires an American to fill out federal paperwork, and sign it under penalty of perjury, in order to work? Please note that we said the government claims to have created such a law. This is because the government frequently misrepresents its authorities and powers to the American public. As we get further into the issue, you will decide for yourself whether the law that deals with the Form I-9 has anything to do with you.”

The fact that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of this malarkey stands in stark contrast to the insistence within a tiny cadre of frightened employers who earnestly believe that if they fail to comply with this law that they’ll be on the hook for fines and incarceration. But many savvy lawyers have asserted with confidence that this form remains exclusive to migrant workers, and only migrant workers. After all, the “I” in “I-9” stands for “Immigration.”

Nevertheless, several payroll companies alongside law firms and insurance agencies have become the peddlers of misinformation upon the small businesses they serve as clients, convincing them of their obligation to this form when none exists. Similar to the “no jab, no job” ultimatum, some employers have been convinced that acting against their own interests is not only the right thing to do, but also legally “required”. Thorough examination of the law proves otherwise.

Most executors who have become convinced of the I-9 requirement will probably be unable to explain to their employees why they’re required to fill it out beyond vague and spurious notions of proving citizenship. Additionally, the top of the form reads in bold print:

“Employers are liable for errors in the completion of this form.”

Since only employers can be held liable for “errors” on the I-9, they are the ones who feel the fear associated with this ultimatum making them more likely to force this on their employees. If the liability were conversely declared to be on the employee, it seems likely that fewer people would sign it because there would be no enforcement middle man. The government is exploiting a fear tactic in order to deputize individual businesses to do the government’s work for them.

Thankfully, the folks at Original Intent have already translated the important details of the code into plain English so that the average American can see the devils behind them. What follows does not constitute legal advice, and readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter, as only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information that follows (and your interpretation of it) is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Having said that, it behooves anyone who has been subject to this nonsense to familiarize themselves with the following analysis.

By What Authority?

The law concerning “work eligibility” (which is what the I-9 is used for) is contained in Title 8 of the United States Code. Title 8 is named “Aliens and Nationality”. The regulations that address the I-9 issue are found in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is also named “Aliens and Nationality”.

The interesting thing about Title 8 of the Code, and its associated regulations, is that they deal exclusively with aliens, border controls, and issues of naturalization. The only authority that Title 8 possesses in reference to a native-born American Citizen would be if a Citizen were to violate a federal immigration law. In other words, in big broad terms, if a Citizen does not assist an alien in illegally entering this country, or does not unlawfully interfere with an INS officer or employee in the commission of his official duties, then nothing in Title 8 has any affect upon such a Citizen.

So where does the authority for “work eligibility” forms come from? When the United States grants an alien entrance to this country, the alien is either permitted to work, or not. [What goes into that decision does not concern us here.] In other words, conditions are placed on an alien’s entry; conditions to which he agrees in writing, or he is not allowed to enter the country.

However, let’s be frank, the government can pass no law that makes you legally accountable for enforcing immigration law, which includes checking the status of people who apply to you for a job. The enforcement of immigration laws is the sole responsibility of the government. It is not your responsibility, nor can they make it yours by passing a statute. The government can no more compel you to enforce immigration law than it can pass a law requiring you to come to the local federal building and sweep their floors! So what gives?

There are several factors that come into play when unwinding the sophistry of 8 USC 1324a, and its regulations at 8 CFR 274a.

To Whom It Properly Applies

The first and most notable fact that leaps off the page is the odd phraseology that is used to express who is doing an unlawful act by hiring aliens unauthorized for employment.

8 USC 1324a(a)(1) – It is unlawful for a person or other entity…

Note that it says, “…a person or other entity”. Why does it not simply say, “…a person or entity”? Why include the word “other”?

Lest you think we’re just being silly nitpickers, here’s one of the fundamental canons [rules] of statutory construction:

Effect must be given to every word of a statute and that no part of a provision will be read as superfluous.

According to the canons of statutory construction, we would be in error not to investigate the significance of the word “other”, as used in the statute.

As a first step in this process, let us determine what “entity” means.

8 USC 1324a(a)(7) – For purposes of this section, the term ”entity” includes an entity in any branch of the Federal Government.

Of course only the government uses the same word to describe the term being defined! Nevertheless, what the government is referring to in the definition above is every element of the federal government, down to an individual federal officer or employee. We will remind you that “includes”, when used in federal statutes is generally a term of “limited expansion”. “Limited expansion” means that things that are reasonably within the boundaries of the definition that Congress is attempting to establish (by the words of the definition) can be added, even if not specifically enumerated. In other words, in the definition above, a corporation created by Congress can be “included” because it fits within the theme of the definition, but a private business cannot because there is no similarity whatsoever between a “branch of the Federal Government” and a private firm.

So now we know that the definition should read something like this:

It is unlawful for a person or other element of the federal government…

In this grammatical application, “other” is analogous to “further”, “additional”, or “similar”. In a legal sense it means “other such like”, which refers back to “person”. Phrased another way, it means the elements that come after the word “other” are in the same or similar class as what is being generally described by the word(s) that comes before “other”. Stated another way, the terms “person” and “entities”, as used here, have a similar or synonymous meaning.

Having established this much, it is still our duty to determine the statutory meaning of “person” applicable to the provision we’re addressing (if such statutory definition exists). At 8 USC 1101 we find:

(b) As used in subchapters I and II of this chapter… (3) The term ”person” means an individual or an organization.

So we now know that §1324a must use the definition of “person” shown above. The definition pivots on 2 words – “individual” and “organization”.

It is important to understand that in mala prohibita [regulatory] law, legal terms such as “person”, “natural person” and “individual” all have an underlying connotation of “the man (or class of man) under a duty…” In other words, “person”, “natural person” and “individual” do not mean “everyone”, but specific people who are under a duty to perform, or not perform a particular act concerning a specific area of law. Accordingly, in this instance, the “individual” who is a component of “person” must be someone who is inherently subject to the authority of Congress in immigration matters. Guess what? That’s not you!

[Ed. Note – The term “person or other entity” in §1324a does embrace an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of Title 29 of the United States Code) due to a nexus with the federal government. Original Intent has chosen not to present that information because that provision does not address the vast majority of the American work force.]

Let’s take a look at “organization” (another component of “person” in 1324a).

Organization – As a term used in commercial law, includes a corporation, government, or government subdivision or agency…”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed

Now, given the phrase, “…or other entity” [remembering that “entity” means the U.S. government], which part of the above definition do you think the legislative draftsmen meant when they chose the word “organization”?

So let’s review for a moment. The opening phrase of §1324a states:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity…

If we take all that we have learned about “person” and the “other entity”, how might we expand the phrase so that the average man wouldn’t have to jump through all the hoops you’ve just jumped through to understand what is really being said? We think it would look something like this:

It is unlawful for any government corporation, government officer or employee, or any other governmental entity in any branch of government, to…

Knowing what you now know about definitions, as well as the fact that Congress cannot legislate you or me into the immigration law enforcement business, doesn’t this suddenly make the whole scheme of §1324a fall into place? We think so.

“Hire” Means “Knowingly”

As we’ve established, 8 USC 1324a does not apply to private firms in the states of the Union. However, it doesn’t hurt to understand that there are additional layers of protection from having to be involved in the I-9 nonsense.

One fact of which most American firms are unaware is that it is not illegal to hire a person who may turn out to be an alien unauthorized to work. Even if one were to believe that §1324a applies to his firm, the prohibition is only against hiring someone whom you know is an alien unauthorized to work!

8 USC 1324a – (1) In general – It is unlawful for a person or other entity – (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien…

At this juncture one might reasonably ask why one would ever ask a worker to fill out an I-9. It would certainly appear to result in more trouble than it’s worth. The answer to why large corporations use the I-9 is this:

8 USC 1324a(a)(3) Defense – A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section [by which they mean completing an I-9] with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

So what is an “affirmative defense” you ask?

Affirmative defense – In pleading, matter asserted by defendant which, assuming the complaint to be true, constitutes a defense to it.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Did you get that? If a “person or other entity” demands that its employees complete a Form I-9, but an unauthorized alien is discovered working there, the statute says that the employer can use the I-9 as a legal defense against the allegation, while essentially admitting that they did knowingly hire an unauthorized alien! Only the government could concoct this type of smarmy legal trickery – and only lawyers would suggest their clients buy into it.

It should be noted that with or without an I-9, the government still has the burden of proof to show that the accused knowingly hired an alien unauthorized for employment. That’s a pretty tough burden to meet in the vast majority of cases.

The Double Edged Sword

So far we’ve been talking about §1324a and the hiring of aliens unauthorized for employment. It is appropriate at this time to take a look at some of the language in the regulations which really frosts the cake:

8 CFR 274a.1(k)(2) – Knowledge that an employee is unauthorized may not be inferred from an employee’s foreign appearance or accent. [italic emphasis in original]

Let’s see if we understand the lay of the land here. The government doesn’t want folks to hire aliens who aren’t authorized by the INS to work in this country. However, (leaving aside upon whom the law properly operates) the alleged illegal act isn’t hiring an alien who’s unauthorized to work, but only hiring an alien who you know at the time you hire him (or continue to employ him) is unauthorized to work. BUT, the regulations specifically say that an employer may not infer that the potential worker is an alien unauthorized to work because of his foreign appearance or accent. Lovely! Do you see why this type of legislation could only be binding upon the government’s hiring and employment practices?

Hearings For Violations

If there was any question that this law operates exclusively upon officers and employees of the government, this next item should end all doubt.

8 USC 1324a(e)(3) Hearing –

1. Before imposing an order described in paragraph (4), (5), or (6) against a person or entity under this subsection for a violation of subsection (a) or (g)(1) of this section, the Attorney General shall provide the person or entity with notice and, upon request made within a reasonable time (of not less than 30 days, as established by the Attorney General) of the date of the notice, a hearing respecting the violation.
2. Conduct of hearing any hearing so requested shall be conducted before an administrative law judge. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 554 of title 5.

What this section tells us is that the US Attorney General, without any authority other than Congress creating this statute, can impose an “order” upon an employer who violates this statute. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 tell us that such orders can restrict our future behavior and may even include monetary punishment.

Can the US Attorney (all by his lonesome) impose a fine upon an American citizen who’s running his own business in a state of the Union without taking that citizen to court and having a jury find him guilty of a crime? Not a chance in hell! One might reasonably ask, “To whom can the Attorney General do that”? The Attorney General can unilaterally impose fines on the following persons:

• Government officers and employees
• Government departments or agencies
• Government owned corporations
• Corporations contracting with the United States government
• All businesses in U.S. possessions or territories [not states of the Union]

Evidence that this is merely an “internal administrative” procedure can be seen on subsection (B), which states, “Conduct of hearing any hearing…shall be conducted before an administrative law judge.”

An interesting facet of being heard by an administrative law judge is that such a hearing presumes you are subject to federal regulatory control! Is the average private firm, operating within a state of the Union, subject to the regulatory control of the INS? Absolutely not – but the “persons and other entities” shown above are!

Penalties

If a “person or other entity” is properly within the regulatory reach of the INS, certain actions can give rise to criminal prosecutions. It should be noted that criminal prosecutions under an Act of Congress can only be sustained in limited circumstances:

• The business is located on federal land
• The business is located within a U.S. possession or territory
• The violator is an officer or employee of the U.S. government
• The violator is a corporation wholly or partially owned by the U.S. government.
• The violator is a corporation created by Congress.
• The violator was using the Form I-9 in a fraudulent manner.

Please note that a private sector firm in a state of the Union is not within the government’s reach in this matter if they steer clear of using the Form I-9.

Some people may make the observation that private firms within a state of the Union have been prosecuted for an offense under §1324a. That is true, but it is the responsibility of the private firm to assert their Constitutional exclusion and to challenge the Department of Justice’s jurisdiction. Acquiescence to an authority not actually possessed by a government agent creates the presumption of legitimate authority.

Even if a person was affected by the statute, the criminal element is very narrow and specific.

1324a(f)(1) – Criminal penalty – Any person or entity which engages in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) of this section shall be fined…

And I bet you thought “pattern or practice” was just a couple of plain old words! To the contrary, “pattern or practice” is a “legal term” that means exactly what the definition provided for us in the regulations says it means!

8 CFR 274a.1(k) – The term pattern or practice means regular, repeated, and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic, or accidental acts.

Can a person be prosecuted criminally for failing to use I-9 forms? Nope; the criminal provision has nothing to do with the use or non-use of a Form I-9. The criminal elements are engaging in actions that are regular (as in “common place”), repeated, and intentional.

Summary

Let’s review what we’ve discovered.

1. The DOJ and the INS only have Title 8 authority over;
   1. entry into the country by aliens
   2. status of the alien once in this country
   3. the naturalization process
   4. the actions of the U.S. government in carrying out each of the aforementioned duties.
2. Congress has no authority to make any person in the private sector, within a state of the Union, responsible for the enforcement of U.S. immigration law.
3. Congress is free to create laws that govern how the U.S. government will handle the employment of aliens in the federal work force.
4. Congress is free to create laws that govern how the governments of federal possessions or territories will handle the employment of aliens in their government work force.
5. Congressional Acts that address how the U.S. and its possessions and territories handle government employment may include requirements for the production of documents by anyone applying for governmental employment, whether aliens or citizens.
6. The Form I-9 is the form that the Department of Justice has designated for use by the U.S. government and the governments of the possessions and territories to verify that applicants for government jobs are eligible for governmental employment.
7. Even when §1324a is operative, the standard for wrongdoing is knowingly hiring an alien unauthorized for employment.
8. If accused of wrongdoing, the Form I-9 can be used to “get off the hook” while essentially admitting that the accused did knowingly hire an alien unauthorized for employment. This is called an “affirmative defense”.
9. All accusations of wrongdoing must be made against those persons who are subject to the regulatory control of the Department of Justice in reference to immigration matters. By 8 USC §1324a (and its regulations) Congress has brought all three branches of the U.S. government under DOJ regulatory control in reference to hiring alien employees.
10. Criminal actions for violation of §1324a apply to the same persons as the I-9 requirement, but the government must prove that the accused engaged in hiring unauthorized alien on a regular, repeated, and intentional basis.
11. No presumption of an applicant or employee being an alien unauthorized for employment can be inferred by a foreign appearance or accent.
12. No private firm, in a state of the Union, which is not obligated to follow §1324a by the terms of a contract with the state of federal government, is required to use any federal forms when hiring workers.

When three IRS whistle blowers stepped forward with the We The People Foundation to inform Americans that the income tax represents an institutionalized fraud of the highest order, the predictable response from those in power involved labeling the dissidents as conspiracy theorists, tax cheats, and other pejoratives. Those who benefit from the status quo know that anyone exposed to the authentic history of the IRS and the 16^th Amendment becomes more likely to join the 90 million Americans who refuse to file income taxes. So the owners wheel out old red herrings to get the unwashed masses to fight among themselves. The corporate media run stories meant to turn a shackled population against anyone trying to help free them. We hear that “tax dodgers” are inherently selfish people who “refuse to pay their fair share”. Such ridicule has thus far prevented the working classes from banding together and going after the powerful who benefit from the situation remaining unchanged.

Because common literacy of the legal fiction threatens the scam, those in charge have a vested interest in perpetuating the lie. In the words of former IRS Criminal Investigator John Turner, “The IRS fears the public gaining a knowledge of how their scam works.”

Many activists and journalists have attempted to negotiate with the IRS directly about these problems, including many prominent employees of the IRS itself. But the agency stonewalls just about every inquiry that comes their way. In the words of another former IRS agent, Sherry Peel Jackson, “[the authorities] can’t answer because if they did, the American people will know the whole thing is a fraud.”

And in the words of IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister, “Rather than pulling up a chair they pull out a club.”

These whistleblowers have helped many Americans understand that an unapportioned tax on labor is completely unconstitutional. They have exposed the fact that there is no law requiring Americans to file with the IRS. They’ve also illustrated that there is no way to file an income tax without testifying against yourself.

INCOME TAXES DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Remember when actress Emma Thompson and her husband Greg publicly declared their refusal to pay another penny in income tax until justice is served to the thousands of HSBC bankers who were caught laundering billions of dollars in Mexican drug cartel money?

If we’re supposed to get angry with anyone refusing to “pay their fair share” of the overall tax burden, where is the outrage for corporations that pay zero income taxes? The average American pays more income taxes than Exxon-Mobile, and plenty of other multi-billion dollar operations such as General Electric, Verizon and Boeing likewise avoid the income tax completely. So how can huge corporations avoid income taxes while simultaneously dodging scrutiny about paying their fair share? Wouldn’t such an arrangement place an obviously disproportionate burden on the working class?

Most Americans continue under the false impression that everything in society from the roads to the schools to the military must be funded by income taxes. But roads and schools and military services existed prior to the formation of the 1933 income tax. America has funded government services since the Declaration of Independence officiated its existence in 1776. For over 150 years America somehow financed government without income taxes, without the social security system, and without the IRS.

In 1982 Joseph Peter Grace was appointed by President Ronald Regan to identify waste and inefficiency in the US Federal government, in turn creating the now infamous Grace Commission. Grace requested that members of his commission “be bold” and “work like tireless bloodhounds” leaving no stone unturned in their search to root out inefficiency. Their conclusions were so shocking that the report was ultimately buried, and most students of history have never even heard of the Grace Commission.

The Grace Commission’s final report submitted on 15 January 1984 concluded:

“… all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government… 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt.”

Exactly zero percent of income taxes collected go towards funding government. The Grace Commission concluded that income taxes only fulfill the interest payments on the debt our government owes to the banks. Every cent of America’s finances are loaned to it at interest by the private Federal Reserve. According to John Whitehead, America’s government borrows $6 billion a day. This fact exists in spite of a stubborn unwillingness from countless Americans to acknowledge the evidence that the FED is privately owned. Said evidence includes the unnamed shareholders the official website admits to – shareholders who earn dividends based on interest payments collected through income taxes. The FED has historically collected $36 million an hour in interest from the American people this way. Income taxes are not really taxes per se. They are interest payments and America’s owners have grown fat from them.

We’ve only had an income tax since the 16^th Amendment’s fraudulent passage in 1913, which just happens to have been the same year that the Federal Reserve came into existence. Prior to that, Americans kept 100% of their earnings, going all the way back to 1776. No IRS, no tax on labor, and no April 15^th filing deadline. Yet somehow America financed schools, colleges, libraries, roads, railroads, subways, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and many other services and institutions that exist today. So how could America fund all of those programs without an income tax?

Countless taxes are levied against American workers every day, including property taxes, automobile registrations, building permits, court fines, gas taxes, traffic fines, marriage licenses, medicare and social security, parking meter fees, hunting and fishing licenses, toll booth levies, inventory taxes, real estate taxes, road usage taxes, septic taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, CDL fees, tobacco and liquor taxes (i.e. “sin taxes”), and in most states there is also a sales tax.

When we include the Federal Income Tax into the ever-growing list of compulsory fees, fines and surcharges, today’s average American pays more than 64% of their total earnings into various tax collection schemes. That’s more than four times the relative tax rate that triggered the American Revolution.

WHY IS OUR GOVERNMENT PAYING INTEREST TO BANKS?

The rubber meets the road in the margins and in the fine print and in the loopholes when it comes to America’s legal and political processes. If the people don’t want something that benefits big business, the industry doesn’t take it as a learning experience to become more ethical, but as a cue to conjure the next loophole. They never take no for an answer, and no low is too low when it comes to their methods for infecting systems of governance with corruption that benefits them.

Such it was when the Federal Reserve Act was first pushed through Congress during the holidays. On Christmas Eve of 1912, when very few lawmakers were present in Washington, a tiny handful of legislators were on the floor and knew they could pass legislation without the rest of the Congress. An administrative technicality required only a majority of those physically present to pass legislation. So if only three showed up, and there were only three in the building, they only needed two for successful passage. The only potential hurdle after that was executive veto, but President Wilson had already agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act into law in exchange for campaign financing. Wilson could be expected to fall in line because he took those campaign contributions from the very bankers pushing the bill through the legislature vicariously through their political puppets.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve came into existence and began loaning money to America at interest, placing the country immediately into debt. America entered the Great Depression as a direct result of the bankruptcy that inevitably occurred following the adoption of usury onto the national Treasury.

Through this elaborate system, which does a brilliant job of keeping us ignorant of the fact that we’re anything but free, our central banking system extracts wealth from the workers through the parasitism of interest. The intended effect of usury has always produced greater ownership possibilities for those who already have all the money. Banks profit from loans because borrowers must pay back a larger sum than was provided by the lender. So how can a country ever repay the debt in full, if the entire existing money supply is less than the money owed? It can’t. Eventually entire nations are forced to provide additional resources in “collateral” to satisfy the banks they’re indebted to.

John Perkins wrote extensively about this in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, describing this very process with regards to how the World Bank and International Monetary Fund put entire countries into debt through similar schemes.

So by 1933, after twenty years of loaning the country money at interest, America owed more than it had to the private Federal Reserve Bank. It only took two decades the render the country broke, at which point the bankers proposed another “solution” to the disaster they had created.

THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Ardent supporters of the status quo alongside fawning economics professors and government authorities continue to insist that the 16^th Amendment grants the power to levy an income tax on the private labor of American citizens.

It does not.

In 1894 the US Supreme Court ruled that an unapportioned tax on labor is unconstitutional. As John W. Whitehead explains:

Determined to claim some of the citizenry’s wealth for its own uses, the government reinstituted the income tax in 1894. Charles Pollock challenged the tax as unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Pollock’s victory was relatively short-lived. Members of Congress—united in their determination to tax the American people’s income—worked together to adopt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Pollock decision.

On the eve of World War I, in 1913, Congress instituted a permanent income tax by way of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution and the Revenue Act of 1913. Under the Revenue Act, individuals with income exceeding $3,000 could be taxed starting at 1% up to 7% for incomes exceeding $500,000.

The 16^th Amendment never legally passed the ratification process because the number of states required to do so was never met. Despite this fact, the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted.

But the fraudulent passage of the 16^th Amendment was so problematic that another series of lawsuits prompted yet another Supreme Court ruling. And the Supremes once again determined that the average American is not required to pay the tax because the 16^th Amendment’s powers only extend to gains earned as a result of corporate activity. Thus the Supreme Court ruled that the 16^thAmendment granted “no new powers of taxation”.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND SOCIAL SECURITY

America is supposed to have a National Treasury, but the treasury has operated under emergency powers since 1933 following the nationwide bank collapse that brought about the Great Depression. In 1933 the country enacted the Social Security system as a way to collateralize the debt through birth certificates. Despite what most of us might think about them, birth certificates weren’t always part of the economic system. Birth certificates are bank notes and labeled as such on the edges which are designed with a webbing similar to that on the dollar bill. Before 1933 there were no such things as birth certificates. Prior to that, obstetricians recorded a Live Record of Birth as the common standard slip filled out upon a newborn’s arrival. It was not a “certificate” because certificates are defined as warehouse receipts on human resources.

This note’s worth is based on the estimated taxable value throughout a person’s life, which on average accounts for roughly $750,000. Birth certificates differ little from the deeds that 18^th century plantation owners kept on their slaves. We the people are their collateral to keep this financial farce floating forward. One of the effects birth certificates have on society is the formation of a new corporation every time someone is born. And once a corporation comes into existence its financial profits can be treated as corporate gains, making it eligible for levy by the income tax.

Diligent study of the code reveals that there simply is no clear law requiring the average American to pay income taxes. The exception involves any corporate entity that records gains from corporate activity. This dirty little secret explains why refusing to file with the IRS is completely within your legal rights. Legitimate authorities wouldn’t have to rely on intimidation and scare tactics to enforce the tax if it were an authentic means of funding government services.

ON 15 APRIL USS AMERICA BECAME A ROGUE PIRATE SHIP

If you’ve ever wondered where the April 15^th filing deadline came from, the answer has something to do with Abraham Lincoln, the Lieber Code and George Washington.

After George took office in 1789 a currency was developed for the country on a standard 70 year contract. That contract came to an end during the Lincoln Administration’s tenure in the 1860’s. Lincoln presided over 34 states at the time, but 21 of them were free from banking rule because only 13 colonies were included in the original contract. The additional states had come into existence as sovereign territories since Washington’s original establishment negotiations. So when Lincoln started his own financial renegotiation to extend the currency another 70 years, the banks demanded additional collateral. The Lincoln Administration agreed to all 34 states, but without the consent of the individual states themselves. When word of this got out, the states enacted their 10^th Amendment powers and seceded from the union and on 27 March 1861 the Lawful Congress of this country disappeared forever.

The country formerly known as America was effectively disintegrated at this point and replaced with a military government. Abraham Lincoln continued to preside over the emergency executive branch but could no longer be called “the President” as there wasn’t a country to rule over following the secession of the constituent states.

On 15 April 1861, the Lincoln Administration issued executive order #1 establishing martial rule over all Federal territories. The spring of 1861 effectively voided the contract known as “the Constitution” and the United States as it had been known to that moment ceased to exist.

Since a new way of governing the Federal Territories would be required, Lincoln issued the General Orders 100 on 24 April 1863. General Orders 100, also known as the Lieber Code, has come to replace the old government with the military government we’re living under today. It instituted a martial rule and established a text-book dictatorship without a Congress or President accountable to the citizens. 1863 was also the year the Supreme Court was abolished. Without a lawful Constitution to guide the bureaucracy, the Article 3 Judiciary no longer existed and a new Supreme Court was established in the District of Columbia. But this De Facto court is very different than the one originally put in place by the founders.

In 1870 the Department of Justice was created to provide some semblance of law, but it was placed under the direct authority of the Executive branch. So the President now controlled the legal system. The top Law Enforcement Officer under this new system is ultimately the Attorney General, who is appointed by the executive.

In 1871 a new private municipal Corporation was created under the Organic Act, complete with a corporate charter called The Constitution of the United States of America. This is not the Article 6 Constitution published in 1789 since it was never intended to be a living document, as it explicitly stated. With no Constitutional authority to do so whatsoever, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia in 1871, replacing the organic Constitution and with a corporate one. America is not even a country anymore. It is a Corporation.

CONCLUSIONS

The IRS will never send SWAT teams into the headquarters of HSBC or Exxon-Mobil, or General Electric. Those corporations own the politicians who direct policy for the IRS. The irrational authorities in power selectively enforce laws to operate against the interests of the people. The facade of legitimacy around all things “government” clouds our ability to identify unfair exploitation, but the tide is turning, and faith in this system of taxation is waning.

If the present owners are to remain in power, their self preservation demands a divide-and-conquer approach against any attempt to upend their hegemonic apple cart. The authoritarian system that built their mechanisms of tyrannical bureaucracy would instantly collapse beneath the weight of the common people if we ever came to understand the extent of our collective enslavement.

What prevents Americans today from the kind of outrage that inspired a Revolution two centuries ago? It was much easier to stage a revolt when an ocean physically separated one side from the other. When the British imposed taxes, Americans recognized the exploitation for what it was. Today many Americans honestly believe in the unquestionable authenticity of our tax system here at home, although the veneer of legitimacy wears thinner every day.

Following a plethora of toxic derailments nationwide, Montana Rail Link lucked out after one of their trains careened off the rails and onto the banks of the Clark Fork River last week. It was initially reported that an unknown substance was leaking into the river following a derailment near Paradise, Montana on the morning of Sunday, 02 April 2023. Sanders County authorities were alerted at 9:20 a.m. on Sunday morning that an incident had occurred near mile marker 19 of Montana Highway 135.

At least 18 rail cars stacked up against a tunnel entrance directly across the river from Quinn’s Hot Springs Resort. Guests of the resort staying in the waterfront cabins were temporarily evacuated as a precautionary measure. At least 2 chemical tanker cars derailed with one tipped over on the tracks and one stuck in the mouth of the tunnel. Workers struggled through the week to free the cars that went off track within the confines of the tunnel. Images show steam rising from the derailment site where heavy machinery works on the cliffs above and a crew dressed in orange floating along the river in an inflatable boat. Surveillance footage from Quinn’s Resort shows the cars piling up and falling down the steep banks toward the river at around 9 am.

While the train had been transporting hazardous materials in chemical tanker cars, only a tanker of butane came off the rails and it did not emit any of its contents into the environment. The spill was limited to powdered bentonite clay and cases of beer, in both bottles and cans. While a small amount of diesel fuel spilled onto the soil near the tracks, it wasn’t from a tanker car but from refrigerator cars with diesel-powered generators that became damaged in the pile up.

Amid a plague of toxic derailments all over the country that daily worsen an ongoing contamination nightmare, Montana Rail Link lucked out big time. The Clark Fork isn’t a small creek, and the location of this derailment happens to exist just a few miles upriver from its intersection with the Flathead River on its way to Lake Pend Oreille, the Columbia River, Portland and finally the Pacific.

History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. As reported by The Missoulian, an eerily similar scenario played out along the same segment of river over two decades ago:

“Amid sweltering temperatures on July 11, 1999, a heat-warped rail derailed an MRL freight train between Paradise and Plains, only a couple miles downstream of Sunday’s derailment. As happened Sunday, the 1999 derailment also sent thousands of Coors Light beers floating down the very same river, until a boom was deployed to contain them. The 1999 derailment also involved a tank car of liquefied petroleum gas — in that instance propane — that derailed but did not rupture. … However, unlike Sunday’s derailment, the 1999 incident sent about 20,000 gallons of scorching hot liquid asphalt into the Clark Fork. And that derailment caused a two-acre grass fire that took more than 30 firefighters to extinguish.“

Considering the liquid asphalt spill and subsequent fire that resulted from the 1999 derailment, Montana Rail Link didn’t just luck out last Sunday. They hit the proverbial jackpot, sustaining minimal damage to their reputation by inflicting zero demonstrable harm to the environment. But how long are we just going to run on luck? It seems rather pathetic that a culture with our technology doesn’t regard derailments as a rare or easily correctable phenomenon. To the contrary, the news of the day wants us all to believe that they’re not only normal, but also innocuous. The incident almost feels like a kind of sponsored content piece for beer companies to enjoy free advertising.

If that train had come off the tracks just a few cars earlier than it did, the butane tankers would likely have been damaged and begun leaking into the river. What kind of behavior could we expect from the industry at that point?

For starters, if anything toxic were ever released into the environment at this location, Quinn’s Hot Springs Resort would be forced to close their doors because nobody wants their trip to the spa to leave them feeling sick from chemical exposure. While it’s true that the Clark Fork River might already be polluted with hexavalent Chromium and other contaminants from the Butte superfund site upriver, that doesn’t justify minimizing the further poisoning of our watersheds. It should be a top priority to keep them from becoming further polluted, because it takes a lot longer to clean them up than it does to contaminate them.

Because Earth’s river systems have settled into mountains with gradual and winding curves, the modern rail system could not exist without the ancient river networks due to the navigational limitations of locomotives. Since freight trains are designed to haul gargantuan proportions of tonnage, they cannot safely climb or descend steep grades. But in this era of chemical carelessness, most of the country’s rail now directly threatens local watersheds because chemical spills are tragically becoming more and more commonplace.

How do the owners of Quinn’s Resort feel knowing that a chemical smell emanating from the river could cripple their business? How anyone feels after realizing a monopoly industry can poison entire communities and ecosystems with impunity.

Rail Link got lucky this time, but how long can they maintain their streak? It seems obvious that it’s only a matter of time before we can all expect another derailment. Since America sustains three derailments a day and a major chemical spill every other day, more chemical disasters seem like an inevitability. Even after the catastrophe in Ohio permanently contaminated a large area with forever chemicals, nobody in the industry is sincerely considering updating America’s crumbling, Civil War era rail system. We’re left asking when the next derailment will happen, where the next chemical spill might occur, and what kind of chemicals we can expect to be released next time. Because there will definitely be a next time. It’s just a matter of how long we have to wait.