* 16 th & 17 th Amendments + FRB *
“I love Sir Allen Greenspan!” says the Queen of England
Why was this man knighted?!
What did Greenspan do for England to obtain such an award?
Who was behind the passing of the 1 6 th Amendment?
Who was behind the passing of the 17 th Amendment?
Who was behind the passing of the Federal Reserve Bank Act?
What is the purpose of these alleged enactments?
Volume 12, December 2002
Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry
Table of Contents
An Excise Tax upon the Privilege of Doing Business 009
as an Artificial Entity
Congressional Record-Senate June 16, 1909 Oil
Senate Document No. 154 (1924) 014
The Constitution of the United States 015
Who Worded the 16 th Amendment? 019
Constitutional Income 021
Aldrich’s Scheme 026
Sixteenth Amendment 038
Who was Philander Knox 039
The Law that Never Was 044
The 17 th Amendment Scam 052
The 17 th Amendment 056
The Worlds most Exclusive Club 060
A Nation in Hock 062
The Most Secret Science 072
John L. Lewis VS. United States 087
Title 12, Sec 341 094
Chart I Ownership of the FED 095
SC Private Letter Ruling #90-1 096
31 CFR 328.5 099
31 USC Sec. 321(d) 100
31 USC Sec. 321 101
How your Local Bank Defrauds You 105
FOIA Request for 6001 Notice 107
The $100,000 bill Ill
What happened to our country in 1913 before any of us were even
bom? How do those events of 1913 effect us today? These are the subjects
of this month Dispatch.
Before we can start to understand the 1913 events, we need to go back
and review the “Administrative Equity, VIP Dispatch”. Review what we
said about Equity and how Equity was the fuel needed to power the 1 6 th and
17 th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.
The Law of Equity enabled the powers that be “International
Banksters” to get their more then equitable share of the American dream
without doing any real hard labor. They simply took control of the political
process at the time through their agents like Paul Warburg, Jacob Schriff,
and also a host of others by promising them a piece of the American dream
also along with their families.
The Supreme Court mled that the 1 6 th Amendment created no new
taxing powers. If you read the propaganda newspaper articles at the time it
was portrayed as a taxing amendment that would soak the rich and not
bother the little guy. As we now know few rich people pay any tax at all and
most large corporations pay no tax also.
The IRS admitted in the hearings of 1998 the majority of people they
went after made $25,000.00 or less. We know many people in the system
who have more taxes going out of their paychecks than they take home. We
ask them what is going to happen to them five years from now or even ten
years from now? Are you going to keep working until you owe the Feds
money for working? It’s sure nice to know that there are a lot of people who
love to pay their unfair share and will continue to do so until they have no
“share” to give at all.
We learned a long time ago that it was almost impossible for the
average American to own anything in his or her name. They only give us
the illusion of owning something. People will tell us “I own my car!” Nope,
look at the title at the top it says “State of ”. “I own my house!”
Nope, just look at your deed and if you don’t pay those property taxes, the
house is gone. Then we have people who will say that their “Drivers
License”, that they paid for, is theirs. Nope, look whose name is on it. “The
State of ”. How about your kids? They are not yours either. Did
you and your spouse get a state marriage license? Were you married by a
state official or a Title 26, 501(c) (3) corporate religious officer? Actually
you were officially married as soon as you purchased that state marriage
license or should we say as soon as you paid the tax on the privilege of you
and your spouse getting “married” to the state. Also the state can come and
take your children away through children’s services anytime they wish based
upon any pretext. As we have seen at Ruby Ridge Idaho, Waco Texas, the
Murrah building in Oklahoma City, the “Feds” can get even away with the
outright act of killing children.
Now you could say that the passage of the 1 6 Amendment did not
cause all that. We never said it did. But, let’s turn up the temperature of the
pot of boiling equity law and look at the 1 7 th Amendment.
The Senators were in the Organic Constitution of 1787 to be chosen
by the State Legislator not by the electors of the state. These senators were
chosen by the state legislators to protect state rights. The people in the states
voted for their representative to the House of Representatives in Washington
D. C. to speak for them, and to protect their substantive rights. Notice the
section that the 1 7 Amendment supposedly did away with in the
Constitution is still there. It was never removed, just bypassed. Look at
what a mess this has gotten us into, as Federal Senators are no longer
answerable to anyone. The mainstream media doesn’t cover their voting
records. So, if you ask someone how their Senator voted on a certain bill
they don’t have a clue. But, if you ask them how many swings it took Tiger
Woods to win the Open or who won the Indy 500 in a particular year, they
can tell you. “Specific indifference” or “who cares”. Equity takes over and
our substantive rights are long gone.
We see and hear all the hype by some people about the 1 6 th
Amendment, but those same people say nothing about larger issues such as
those concerning the 1 7 Amendment.
Now, at last, we get to the stake that was driven through the heart of
our Montery system that was set up in the organic constitution of 1787.
Remember the little clause in that document that talks about Gold and
Silver? Almost out of nowhere came the Federal Reserve Banking Act of
1913. What was it designed to do? What did it accomplish? For whom?
Why? Who actually wrote the Act itself? Who spoke out against the
passage of the Act but actually pushed for its passage behind the scenes.
Who was sent from Germany with lots of money to make sure it actually got
passed. Who stole our Gold in 1933 and had it deposited with the Federal
Reserve Bank? Why has there never been an accounting of the Federal
Reserve Bank? Why is your tax money deposited into the Federal Reserve
Bank? Why are all customs duties deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank?
Why under section 904 of the Social Security Act are all the moneys
deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank? Who wrote that section into the
Social Security Act of August 14 th , 1935? Why? Where did that section
come from? Who said in 1935 that the Social Security Trust Fund was a
joke on the American people and that there was to never be any money put
into that trust fund? Why did the Queen recently knight Allen Greenspan?
We hope you know it is very, very, politically incorrect to bring up these
issues, much less to discuss them openly as though you have a Fundamental
Right to free speech.
An Excise Tax upon the Privilege of Doing Business as
an artificial entity
A. Congressional Record - Senate June 16, 1909 sent to the Senate by
B. The Supreme Court struck down the prior income tax legislation so here
comes William Taft wanting a graduated inheritance tax which he says
would be easy to collect
C. On page 12, at the arrow, we see the discussion about an excise tax as
opposed to a corporation income tax.
1 . Read the next paragraph. It says “all [Federal] Corporations” and goes on to say,
“this is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity.”
2. In some of the Social Security court cases the Court states that Social Security is
an excise tax upon the privilege of working for a corporation.
a. Working for the federal government has been held to be a privilege, not a
D. We have been turned into a Nation of privileges having been induced
into giving up our substantive rights.
1 . We have known for years that we have traded our rights for privileges. We have
seen groups come and go who pop up with some new hot program dealing with
tax topics or legal issues, but they just don’t usually hang around very long
because they fail to recognize certain long held legal principles. Many of these
groups or people will, when the pressure comes down, take the money and run
leaving the people they hoodwinked in a major bind if the local, state, or Feds
don’t get them first.
2. Most of those groups and individuals have come up with a ploy to induce people
to buy into their program, whatever it is, and they usually don’t have experience
with or care about what will happen to their program as they go against the tide
E. We want to educate people so they can make their own decisions. With
this background of education, hopefully, people will not be so easily
induced to hop on board of the newest patriot hoax but instead ask
1 . We get calls weekly by those wanting us to join them in some old or new hoax
from filing a national lawsuit against the IRS, to selling a couple of silver bullet
letters, that will magically end someone’s IRS problems, for a few thousand
2. Why would we join in league with someone who has never been through our IRS
course Level I, II, and III courses, or who does not even subscribe to the
F. In all our years of study we find few people winning by fighting against
the whole system. You’ll have a hard time getting water to run up hill.
1 . So, you are in the system like everyone else who has been induced into through
ignorance or complacency. We recognize that. If you have an IRS problem why
not just take care of THAT problem and not create a whole host of other
problems that you don’t need to bring on.
2. Think twice before getting in over your head. Some of these arguments are
“designed to fail”. Now, who would promote such arguments? Perhaps the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 16, 1909
The Secretary read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to
recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address, immediately
preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited
attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and
stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be
effected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out
the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the
duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was
not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be
adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as
correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection. The House of
Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill
it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its
Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not
agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit
by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of
almost exactly the same character as. that which in the case of
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (157 U. S.. 429) was
held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax fUnconstitutonall, and
therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose
unless apportioned among the several States according to
population. This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural
address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it
appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional
recommendations. [Clarification added]
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress
will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present
deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax
cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason
of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that
Government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government
ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation's life In great
crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as
necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature
consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper
course for its establishment to its full extent . I therefore recommend to
the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose
an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to lew an
income tax upon the National Government without apportionment
among the States in proportion to population, (emphasis added)
This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of
reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional . For
the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact
legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular
confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It
is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by
amendment in due and regular course.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress
will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present
deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and
never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the
Government their possible duty to invoke litigation. If the court should
maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should
ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until
after protracted delay.
It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths
of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of
course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have
become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are
in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an
income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in
the States, if proposed to them.
Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National
Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose
as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to
the proposed income tax measure.
I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing
upon all fFederall corporations and fFederall joint stock companies
for profit , except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and
building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on
the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the
privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from
a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.
I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the
Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar
Refining Company against McClain (192 U. S., 397), seems clearly to
establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon
privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power
without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is
preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts,
because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at
the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to
pay and when collection is easy.
Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision which must be
exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and
business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a
corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is
also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which
have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by
the use of this veiy faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective
system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government
and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real
business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in
the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of
corporations which may' prevent a further abuse of power.
I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds
of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the
Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and
collect an income tax without apportionment among the States according
to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending
revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the
inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2
per cent of their net income.
Wm. H. Taft.
THE WHITE HOUSE, June 16, 1909.
Senate Document No. 154 (1924)
A. The CONSTITUTION as amended to December 1, 1924 by the 68 th
Congress, First Session.
1 . The following few sections have been extracted from the above book and is the
oldest (1924) Senate approved and printed by the GPO that we have in our
collection for this time frame.
2. We chose these pages because they contain the 16 th and 17 th amendments with
the annotated information from 1924.
3. Make sure you read these pages carefully especially page 745 of this section at
the arrow, “When applying the sixteenth amendment and income tax laws
enacted under it, the courts must regard matters of substance and not mere form.”
4. Now, all of that is gone and the substance and form have been turned into Legal
Fictions under Administrative Equity.
B. Do not miss the section on page 746 almost at the bottom about “Salary
of Federal Judges.”
1 . Salary of a Federal Judge was originally to be immune from an income tax.
2. This induced the Federal Judges to go along with the 16 th Amendment and to
hand down favorable rulings.
3. After the Federal judges had been sucked in and thought they were on easy street,
they had the rug jerked out from under them and they had to start paying. At
least they did put up a fight, but to no avail.
4. No more independent judiciary.
C. There is also a section concerning the 17 Amendment so when we refer
to the 16 th or 17 th Amendment in this “DISPATCH” you can turn back
and read it again.
Sixty-Eighth Congress, First Session
Senate Document No. 154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AS AMENDED TO DECEMBER 1, 1924
WITH CITATIONS TO THE CASES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTRUING ITS SEVERAL PROVISIONS
COLLATED UNDER EACH PROVISION
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPFICB
AMENDMENTS 16-19.— RECENT.
Amendment 16. — INCOME TAX. 1
The Congress’sliall have power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, from whatever source derived, without appor-
tionment among the several States, and without regard to
any census or enumeration.
It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to
confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an au-
thority already possessed and never questioned — or to limit and
distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but
that the whole purpose of the amendment was to relieve all in-
come taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consider-
ation of the source whence the income was derived. In Bru-
shaber v. Union Pac. R. Co. (240 U. S. 17) the court said :
There is no escape from the conclusion that the amendment was drawn
for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon
which the Pollock case was decided; that is, of determining whether a
tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on
the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into
view the burden which resulted on the property from which the Income
See also —
Pollock v. Farmers’, etc., Co., 157 U. S. 429; 15S TJ. S. 601.
Stanton v. Baltic Min. Co., 240 U. S. 103.
Tyee Realty Co. r. Anderson, 240 U. S. 115.
Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165.
Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330.
Questions of taxation must be determined by viewing what
was actually done rather than the declared purpose of the par-
ticipants. When applying the sixteenth amendment and income
tax laws enacted under it. the courts must regard matters of
substance and not of mere form.
Weiss v. Steam. 265 U. S. 242.
Burk- Waggoner Oil Assn. r. Hopkins, 296 Fed. 492.
In Smietanka v. Bank (257 U. S. 602) it was held that the
income tax act made no provision for taxing income held and
accumulated by a trustee for unborn and unascertained bene-
In De Ganav v. Lederer (250 U. S. 376) the court sustained
a Federal tax upon the income from stock, bonds, and mort-
gages owned by alien nonresidents, but in the hands of a resident
* This amendment takes income taxes oat of the apportionment provision of Art. I, sec.
2, cl. 3. For ratification, see p. 31.
jLMUHiAi 1 O -tUXC/iXA 1 .
Amend. 16. — Income Tax.
In Atlantic Coast Line v. Daughton (262 U. S. 413) it was
held that taxation of income from property, as distinguished
from income of owner is constitutional.
In U. S. v. Boss and Peake, 285 Fed. 410, it was held that
retrospective income tax law was not unconstitutional.
Taxation of Dividends
’ Congress was at liberty, under this amendment, to tax as in-
come without apportionment everything that became income in
the ordinar}- sense of the word after the adoption of the amend-
ment. including dividends received in the ordinary course by
a stockholder from a corporation, even though they were
extraordinary in amount and might appear upon analysis to be a
mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent
interest that the stockholder had in surplus of corporate assets
Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339.
The word “ income ” as used in this amendment does not in-
clude a stock dividend. Such a dividened is capital and not
income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among
the several States in accordance with Article 1, section 2,
clause 3, and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, following Towne v. Eisner,
245 U. S. 418.
U. S. v. Phellis, 257 U. S. 156.
Rockefeller v. U. S., 257 U. S. 176.
Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U. S. 247.
Property Outside the United States
Congress has power to tax the income received by a native
citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property
Cook v. Tait, 265 U. S. 47.
Proceeds of Life Insurance
A construction of a war taxing act as imposing both an income
and an estate tax on the proceeds of life insurance should be
avoided unless required in express terms.
U. S. v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U. S. 189.
Salary of Federal Judges
This amendment does not extend the taxing power to new or
excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion otherwise
existing for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid
on incomes from whatever source derived.
Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, reversing 262 Fed. 550, and holding
that the salary of a Federal judge was immune from an income
tax by virtue of Article III, section 1, prohibiting the diminishing
of a judge’s salary during his term of office.
Domestic and Foreign Corporations
Income tax not unconstitutional because of inequality as
between domestic and foreign corporations.
National Paper Co. v. Edwards, 292 Fed. 633.
AMENDMENTS — KJLUJ^rs t. , * ,
Amend. 17. — Popular Election of Senators.
Amendment 17— POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS. 1
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of
two Senators from each State, elected by the people there-
of, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the
When vacancies happen in the representation of any
State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State
shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Pro-
vided, That the legislature of any State may empower the
executive thereof to make temporary appointments until
the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect
the election or term of any Senator chosen before it be-
comes valid as part of the Constitution.
In U. S. v. Aczel (219 Fed. 917) it was said that the right
to vote for United States Senators is not derived merely from
the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen
but has its foundation in the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment 18— PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.*
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this
article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxi-
cating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the /
exportation thereof from the United States and all terri-
tory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage pur-
poses is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce this article by appro-
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it
shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Consti-
tution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided
in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of
the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
This amendment is operative throughout the entire territorial
limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts,
public officers, and individuals within those limits, and of its
own force invalidates every legislative act. whether by Congress,
1 This amendment modifies Art. I, sec. 3. For ratification, see p. 31.
* See p. 32 for ratification.
Who Worded The 16th Amendment?
by Otto Skinner
Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island was the Republican "whip" in the Senate, a business associate of
J.P. Morgan, and the maternal grandfather of Nelson A. Rockefeller and David Rockefeller. He was a
member of the Senate Committee on Finance in 1909. He was known as the Wall Street Senator; a
spokesman for big business and banking. He was wealthy in his own right. One of his "toys" for
demonstrating his wealth and power was his own private luxurious railroad car.
A close associate of Senator Aldrich was Paul Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and
the architect of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which authorized private banking firms to essentially
create money out of nothing and loan it our at interest. Paul Warburg eventually became a member of
the Federal Reserve Board. While Paul Warburg was involved with the Federal Reserve Banks in the
United States during WW1, his brother. Max Warburg, was the Director of the Reich Bank in
Germany and the financial advisor to the Kaiser. To say the least. Senator Aldrich was well
entrenched with the world banking powers.
Senator Aldrich was a strong proponent of an "income" tax amendment to the Constitution. The
congressional records show that finding the proper wording for such an amendment seemed to be a
bit difficult. Several attempts were made. On June 17, 1909, Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska
introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39 proposing that the Constitution of the United States be
amended as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without
apportionment among the several states according to population." S.J. Res. 39, as read in
the Congressional Record Senate, page 3377, June 17, 1909, by Senator Norris Brown.
The resolution was printed and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. Those masterminding
the plan knew that if the amendment authorized a direct tax, it would cause one part of the
Constitution to come into irreconcilable conflict with Article 1 , Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1 ,
Section 9, Clause 4.
Senator Aldrich controlled the discussion regarding the proposed amendment during the hearings in
the Committee on Finance. He told the committee that he would be gone for a few days and when he
came back he would tell them how to write the proposed Sixteenth Amendment. A few days later, he
returned with the new wording as promised. On June 28, 1909, he brought back this new wording to
the Senate under a new joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) which DID NOT contain the word "direct", but
which reads exactly as the sixteenth amendment reads today:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever
source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to
any census or enumeration." S J. Res. 40, as read in the Congressional Record Senate,
page 3900, June 28, 1909, by Senator Nelson Aldrich.
The sixteenth amendment was presented to the American people as a "soak-the-rich" scheme. Yet, it
was the richest of the rich who were in back of the scheme with the purported intention of supposedly
soaking the rich. They were very careful to write an amendment in a manner that would pass
constitutional muster in the United States Supreme Court, and yet lead the American people to
erroneously believe it was an amendment granting Congress some sort of new taxing power.
Senator Aldrich's connection with the so-called "income" tax and the Federal Reserve System is
extremely important. Both were designed to fool the American people for the benefit of the private
banking interests. Both were designed to bleed the hard working Americans of more and more of
their production and manipulate them, and the nation, into deeper and deeper debt. The Federal
Reserve System gave private banking interests the license to create money out of nothing (through
fractional reserve banking) and charge interests on that which was created out of nothing. In the end,
the bankers win. Senator Aldrich and his cohorts have done their job well.
Constitutional Income . Do You Have Any
A. Our good friend Phil Hart spent hundreds of hours putting this book
together and is extremely informative.
1 . Some of you have already ordered this book, but please realize that we have a
number of new people ordering the “VIP Dispatch” who have not.
a. We want to show those new people and those who failed to order this book,
number 200, on our list and why they might just want to order this book.
B. In the next few pages, we have three sections from Phil Hart’s book for
educational purposes that are quite interesting.
C. Many of you, like us, have children in school. This book contains
historical information that you can pass on to your children or
grandchildren whatever the case may be. If we don’t teach them, who
1 . As you read through these three sections we hope you appreciate all the time and
effort that Phil put into bringing this information to us.
Constitutional Income - Foreword Page 1 of 4
* Constitutional Income:
10 Kev Facts
Table of Contents
|The First Chapter]
Petition to 1
I £1—Er M M\
The Liberty Bell
"Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land
To All the Inhabitants Thereof'
— Leviticus 25:10 —
The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in
Congress since not long after the constitutional ink had
dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the
4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New
York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman
example of direct v. indirect taxation.
"History, Mr. W. said, informed them
of the annihilation of nations by
means of direct taxation. He referred
gentlemen to the situation of the
Roman Empire in its innocence, and
Constitutional Income - Foreword
Page 2 of 4
asked them whether they had any
direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and
taxes upon the luxuries and spices
from the Indies were their sources of
revenue but, as soon as they changed
their system to direct taxation, it
operated to their ruin; their children
were sold as slaves, and the Roman
Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we
then follow this system? He trusted
By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th
Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded
their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated
wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies
and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling
national politics with their vast and ever-increasing
fortunes. By reading the Congressional Record, House
and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law
journal articles of the time and the writings of the people
who were intimately involved in the development of the
16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax
the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the
net annual income from personal property. Wages and
salaries from labor were not considered income within the
original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.
Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an
"income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than
a direct tax.
Senator Norris Brown from Nebraska, the man who
wrote the 16th Amendment, defined clearly what income
was and what the income tax was intended to accomplish.
Not once did Sen. Brown mention that Congress intended
to pass an amendment that would grant the federal
government a new power to directly tax the wages or
salaries of working people.
The historical record shows that the Republicans, acting
as agents for those who had monopolized the American
economy, set the wages-are-income concept into motion
by creating a tax code after the 16th Amendment was
passed that, benevolently, would "exempt" the first
$4,000 of a person's "income." Since the average family's
earned income was about $500 a year at the time, it
wasn't until after World War II, when this nation's
economy was really booming and national pride was
Constitutional Income - Foreword
Page 3 of 4
peaking, that Americans, as a nation of millions of
working people, really began paying taxes on their wages.
Back then Americans took for granted that they could
trust the federal government, and the average person had
long since forgotten the debates of the income tax issue
and what was included in "income" and what was not.
They certainly did not see how "paying their fair share" of
taxes deducted from their labor was analogous to
conditions that contributed to the fall of the Roman
We have been conditioned since kindergarten to believe
that wages and salaries generated from our labors are
income for tax purposes when the opposite, as bome out
in the written history leading up to the passage of the 1 6th
Amendment, is actually the truth.
The government knew what it was doing then and it
knows what its doing today. The U.S. Constitution
recognizes two kinds of taxes: direct and indirect.
Congress does not have the constitutional right to lay
direct taxes against the people unless the tax burden is
equally apportioned by population among the several
States. Congress does have the right to lay indirect taxes
on privileges, events and activities. Taxes on cigarettes,
alcohol and gasoline are examples of constitutional
There is no intelligent way to argue that a tax on a
man's wages or salary is anything but a direct tax. We
work, get paid for our work and then get taxed according
to the amount of money we are paid. If you don't work,
you don't eat and you die. Whereas you can choose not to
consume cigarettes, alcohol or gasoline, you have no
choice in whether to pay the taxes that are calculated and
summarily deducted from your wages - unless you choose
to go to prison
Such a tax on wages is a tax on our right to exist. It is a
feudal system. It is a direct tax - as direct as any tax can
be. An unapportioned federal income tax on our wages is
unconstitutional and the federal government knows it.
Well, this only a half truth. If you live in Puerto Rico,
Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands an unapportioned direct
tax on your wages is constitutional; if you live in the
several States of the Union it is not.
Although the income tax statutes are constitutional,
they don't mean what you think they mean. The fraud has
Constitutional Income - Foreword
Page 4 of 4
been accomplished by clever wordsmithing. The original
intent of the 16th Amendment was to tax accumulated
wealth and not the wages of working Americans.
Through threats and coercion, and brown shirt tactics,
the federal government has by deceptive means taken
what, by now, must be in the trillions of dollars from the
American people in what has to be the most profitable
extortion scheme in world history. We are being Taxed
without Our Consent.
It is my hope as an American, as a man who has
dedicated his life to the pursuit of truth and the return of
justice and decency to our embattled Republic, and as a
man who has tremendous respect for the author of
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?, that the
American people will stand up against their servant, the
federal government, and demand to be treated in a
manner consistent with the laws of this land. It is my
hope that millions of Americans will realize that they are
paying unconstitutional taxes when they allow their
wages to be diminished by the income tax.
I have spent my journalism career encouraging
Americans, who have learned truths such as those
contained in this book to stand up for those inalienable
rights, those principles of natural law that gave birth to
this most magnificent country: the right for all good
people to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness.
Don Harkins, The Idaho Observer
Spirit Lake, Idaho, April 13, 2001
mai l@:constitutionalincome . com
All material presented at this site is
Copyright by Phil Hart, May 2000, 200 1
A. Aldrich’s Scheme:
1 . Defective Amendment
2. Ambiguous in its terms.
3. Defeat it at the State level.
4. Manipulate it.
5. Placate the people.
6. Corporate Tax Act of 1909.
7. Any income tax on corporate profits could be passed to the consumer.
8. Feudalistic system of taxation.
9. The reject Amendment.
10. Hastily drawn and mischievous effects.
1 1 . Lack of scrutiny was scandalous.
12. Most reckless bit of constitutional legislation known to our history.
13. 16 th Amendment created no new class of taxes, and that income taxes were
inherently indirect taxes.
14. The 16 th Amendment did not give Congress any new power.
15. The working people are stung again.
16. “Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
Why Was an Income Tax Necessary?
otherwise belong...” Taxes on net income are inherently indirect, 1
taxes on gross income are inherently direct. The Stanton Case
was about taxes on his net income. Adam Smith would agree.
Apportionment among the states would require any income tax
to be geared to what the average investor or businessman in Missis-
sippi could afford, while the great incomes were actually located in [
New York. Under the apportionment rule, the tax collected from
each state would be allocated according to the population of each
state with each person being responsible for the same dollar amount
of tax, on the average. If, in 1 909, ail that could be reasonably af-
forded by an investor or businessman of Mississippi was an income
tax of $50 per person annually, then this is the same amount an
investor or businessman in New York would pay, on the average.
Such a condition made the levying and collection of such a tax im-
practical, especially since the tax sought to reach unearned income —
gain and profit, not wages. There were not many people in Missis-
sippi who had the former.
Said another way, because the people of America understood
the word “income” to mean unearned income, gain and profit, a tax
on the income would inherently be an indirect tax subject only to the
rule of uniformity. As an indirect tax, it would not have to be appor-
tioned. But this was impossible because the Supreme Court had
determined that there was a linkage between an income tax on net
income and the source of the income. Unless this linkage could be
severed, what was inherently an indirect income tax would have to
be apportioned. The Pollock Decision needed to be overturned by
way of constitutional amendment to accomplish this end. The 1 6th
Amendment severed the linkage between net income and the source
of the income upon which the Pollock Decision was based. At that
time, only a minority of Americans had an “income” as most people
worked for wages.
In other words, in apportioning a tax on income, as Pollock
would have required, the quotient of total income tax paid by
each state divided by the number of people who lived in the
state would be the same in every one of the several States. Thus as
a direct tax, a tax on the income ofMr. Carnegie and Mr. Rockefeller
would be geared more to what the average investor or businessman
in Mississippi could afford than to the amount of income the wealth
of these men produced every year.
Gearing a national income tax to the lowest common de-
nominator is impractical. There would have been three alterna-
tives for Congress at this time. The first would be to do nothing,
which is what the Republicans preferred, as they liked the high
protective tariff system. The second would be to modify the direct
taxation clauses of the Constitution to provide for a “direct” tax on
incomes freed from apportionment. And the third would be to pro-
vide for an income tax of an “indirect” nature subject only to the rule
of uniformity. What was done was the latter as the American People
sought only to overturn the offensive parts of Pollock through the
constitutional amendment process.
Senator Nelson Aldrich ofRhode Island, a Republican and the
godson ofNelson A. Rockefeller, was considered the most power-
ful member of Congress. His daughter Abby married John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. He was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee
and had relationships with many of the central bankers of Europe.
Although Senator Brown of Nebraska was the one who proposed
the 1 6th Amendment , Aldrich definitely had his hand in the con-
struction of it.
Stuck with the reality that the Republicans had to endorse an
income tax amendment to the Constitution, Aldrich chose to ma-
nipulate the process. Reluctantly, he allowed the income tax amend-
ment to be approved by the Senate Finance Committee. Later he
acquiesced to its approval by Congress, and sent the amendment to
the several States for ratification. His real motive, however, was to
defeat h. The strategy employed was to write a defective amend-
Constitutional Income; Do You H ave Any?
ment, ambiguous in its terms, allow it to go out to the States for
ratification and defeat it there. Should it be defeated by the state
legislatures, the issue of an income tax amendment to the Constitu-
tion would be dead for years.
If by chance the amendment was somehow ratified, by writing
it with ambiguous terms, he could later manipulate it to the advan-
tage of the wealth class who were currently benefitting from the
protective tariff. Aldrich was very forward thinking and the Demo-
crats were fools not to have proposed their own language years
earlier as part of their party’s presidential platform.
"Mr. SULZER. Sir, let me eay, however, that I am not de-
ceived by the unanimity in which this resolution is now
being rushed through the Congress by the Republicans,
Its eleventh-hour friends. I can see through their scheme.
I know they never expect to see this resolution [the 16th
Amendment] become a part of the Constitution. It Is of-
fered now to placate the people. The ulterior purpose of
many of these Republicans Is to prevent this resolution
from ever being ratified by three-fourths of the legisla-
tures of the States, necessary for Its final adoption, and
thus nullify It most effectually...! have been here long
enough to know, and I am wise enough to believe, that
Its passage now Is only a sop to the people by the Re-
publicans, and that their ulterior purpose Is to defeat It
In the Republican state legislatures.” 44 Conn. Rec. 4418
"Mr. BACON. I particularly protest, however, that It is not
proper parliamentary procedure to endeavor to force us
to first vote on this amendment [the Corporate Tax Act of
1909] under a device which was given out to the public
as intended for the purpose of preventing a vote on the
Income tax, which was given out as a great parliamen-
tary achievement on the part of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Lodge] and the Senator of Rhode Island
[Aldrich], that they had so shaped matters that we would
be compelled to vote upon the corporation-tax amend-
Why Was an Income Tax Necessary? 81
ment [to the tariff bill] before we were allowed to vote
first on the income-tax amendment [to the Constitution].
This amendment [the Corporate Tax Act of 1909] is
avowed by the Senatorfrom Rhode Island to be intended
to defeat the income tax. If so, we should have the op-
portunity to vote first on the Income tax amendment [to
the Constitution].” 44 Cong. Rec. 4063 (1909).
What Aldrich had done was to interject the Corporate Excise
Tax Act of 1 909, which was an amendment to the tariffbill, into the
income tax debate. Through skillful parliamentary maneuvering
Aldrich managed to have the corporate income tax bill heard by
Congress before the constitutional income tax amendment. Aldrich
was hoping that once the corporate income tax legislation was in
place, the American people would be pacified and would not call
for the taxation of individual wealth. Aldrich knew that any income
tax on corporate profits could be passed to the consumer, and thus
his rich friends would continue to escape taxation This was Aldrich’s
plan “A” and he even admitted this on the floor ofthe Senate:
"Mr. ALDRICH. I do not expect the income tax to be
adopted...And if it were adopted, I do not expect to de-
stroy the protective system now...l think perhaps it would
be destructive in time. ..I shall vote for the corporation
tax as a means to defeat the Income tax...l will be per-
fectly frank with the Senate In that respect...! am willing
that the deficit shall be taken care of by a corporation
tax. That corporation tax, however, at the end of two
years, if my estimate should be correct, should be re-
duced to a nominal amount or repealed.. ..at the end of
two years.” 44 Cona. Rec. 3929 (1909).
It was through the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sena-
tor Aldrich, a Republican, that the final version of the Income Tax
Amendment came to the floor ofthe Senate. Sutherland on Statu-
tory Construction (sec. 48. 14, 5th Edition) states that additional
judicial authority may be given to the opinions of the chairman of a
committee, “The committeeman in charge has the duty of defending
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
the bill, has familiarized himself with the situation sought to be rem-
edied by the bill and his statements may be taken as the opinion of
the committee about the meaning of the bill” But our case here is a
strange one as we have the committeeman in charge of the bill Sena-
tor Aldrich, doing all he can to kill the amendment. Why is there so
much scandal around a piece of legislation of such significance?
Now, Aldrich was one unethical politician. The American people
were demanding an income tax as a way to more fairly distribute the
burdens for the support of government and all Aldrich could do was
to scheme about how to maintain the feudalists system of taxation
that was presently in place. Aldrich was extremely successful in his
evil as what we have today is still a feudalists system of taxation and
not something that belongs in a constitutional republic of limited pow-
“Mr. BYRD. It is a well known fact that the tariff law will
be the product of the brain of one Senator [Aldrich], and
however Infamous the measure may be, It will receive
the unqualified support of enough Republicans to pass
“It seems that the Republican Party has permanent con-
trol of the Government, and that Senator Aldrich abso-
lutely dominates this party. As long as it triumphs, he
will be czar of the Nation." 44 Conn, Roc. 4415 (1909).
“Mr. DANIEL. Mr. President, if this was a class of com-
petitive examination in order to show who was the most
tired man of this debate, I would expect to win the first
place In the competition. The Senator from Rhode Is-
land [Aldrich] Is a great actor, a great wizzard, and he is
also a great ventriloquist. With an activity, eagerness,
earnestness, and freshness which are unsurpassed In
this body, he comes upon the stage and says we must
adjourn right now; that he Is tired ouL That Is only one
phase of his diverse genius. He is very different from the
rest of us plain and prolix people. He does by magic
Why Was an Income Tax Necessary?
what we have to try to do by toll. He waves his wand and
utters his incantations, and so-called ‘insurgents march
with the vigor and measured tread of Roman soldiers
i following Caesar to victory. More than that, Mr. Pre*l-
dent we hear a murmur yonder; we hear a murmur here
and a murmur there. Presently the Senator rises and
i flings his voice around the Senate and the next moment
everybody Is talking Just like him, and Senators think
that right which before they had murmured was wrong.
44 Cona. Rec, 4236 (1909).
“Mr. BORAH. Take the....Senator from Rhode Island
[Aldrich]. He has been perfectly frank. He has been open
' and candid. No friend of the income-tax law now dare
go home and say to his constituents: ‘The Senator from
Rhode Island fooled me.’ He has been open and above
board. He has told you that he brought this measure
[the Corporate Tax Act of 1909] here to kill the Income
tax, and he has told you furthermore that ttta > an i enemy
of protection. He has said unhesitatingly that if it Is in
his power he will throttle it for all time to c°me.Doyou
underestimate his influence?” 44 ConaJSSfi, 3998 (1909).
During the ratification process there was a great amount of de-
bate over the 1 6th Amendment. The main point of concern was the
Amendment’s ambiguous terms. It was the Democrats’ idea with
the language drafted by specific Republicans who were strong y
opposed to it. Aldrich wanted the Amendment to be highly criti-
cized and defeated by the states. This is why it was so poorly writ-
ten; it was Aldrich’s plan “B.” The debate was so intense that Sena-
tor Borah (Idaho) proposed Senate ResolutionNo. 175 authorizing
a study to be done by the Judiciary Committee to answer the ques-
tions for which the amendment was being criticized. See the New
fr-ir TWO arti c\* The Rejected Amendment, on the next page.
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
The Rejected Amendment
"The income tax amendment failed on Tuesday to get
the necessary votes in the Assembly [New York Legisla-
ture], and that disposes of it for the present session. It
may be brought before the Legislature at the next ses-
sion, but it is not likely, in its present form, to be re-
ceived with any more favor.
“The chief objection to the amendment, we think, in the
minds of the public, as well as Its opponents In the Leg-
islature, is that It was hastily drawn, Involved a prin-
ciple of mischievous effect on the interests of the states,
and would give rise to Indefinite contention as to its
real meaning. There was, however, another objection
o relating not to the substance of the amendment, but to
the manner In which it was brought into being. It was
originally proposed to the Senate of the United States
to save Mr. Aldrich and his associates from defeat on
the revision of the tariff. To avoid this, the amendment,
together with the corporation tax, was contrived, it was
not a nice device • to use no stronger term - and in the
exigency existing it was carried out in a bungling fash-
ion. if we are to have the Constitution changed In this
matter, it certainly would be better to have it done de-
cently and in order.” The Rejected Amendment N.Y.
Times, page 10, May 5, 1910.
“H Is far from representing the considered opinion of Con-
gress. No time was spent on it apart from that necessary
for the formalities. There was no Inquiry, and no discus-
sion worthy of the name. It is a political dodge, adopted
from the most questionable of motives. It is part of the
price paid for the enactment of a tariff law which was
adopted under false pretenses.” Editorial, The Income
Tax. N.Y. Times, page 10, April 19, 1911.
Why Was an Income Tax Necessary?
In my investigation of this subject matter, I looked for Congres-
sional reports and Congressional hearings on the 1 6th Amendment
and found little or none. A congressional report would have dis-
closed the purpose of the amendment and the reasons behind its
wording. There was no report at all from the Senate Finance Com-
mittee when it voted the 1 6th Amendment out of committee. When
the House Wtys and Means Committee issued a report on the amend-
ment it amounted to only a one paragraph report known as House
Report No. 1 5 recommending approval of the 1 6th Amendment.
think this lack of scrutiny was scandalous.
One of the major issues of the War of Independence and of the
Constitutional Conventionwas taxation. Had not the compromise
been struck over apportionment and direct taxes, the country would
have likely come apart after the Articles of Confederation proved to
be a failure. Today over 80% of federal government revenue comes
from income taxes. To have so much of our federal revenue depen-
dent on such an ill-conceived amendment is outrageous.
"Mr. McCALL. Mr. Speaker, 1 imagine that nothing which
l may be able to say will defeat the prearranged
programme and prevent the passage of the Joint resolu-
tion [on the Income tax amendment], but for the House
to perform Its part in such a solemn transaction as
amending the Constitution of the United States without
having the form of the amendment seriously considered
by one of its committees strikes me as a proceeding in
extraordinary levity...l say this amendment should be
more carefully considered...The amendment has not
carefully been considered by a committee of this House
or by anyone else in the United States that I know of.
44 Conn. Rec, 4391 (1909).
I believe this also was by design. Certainly the fruit of this lack
of committee review played to Aldrich’s favor and to those of the
wealth class who sought to control everything. For Aldrich also had
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
a plan “C.” This was in the event that this poorly worded and poorly
constructed amendment were to somehow be ratified. Ambiguous
in its terms, it could be manipulated later.
“Furthermore, the adoption of the sixteenth amendment,
the 'crudest, most reckless bit ofconstitutional legisla-
tion known to our history,* removing the constitutional
limitations on the power of Congress to levy taxes on
incomes, and ‘putting all property and all human effort
at the mercy of the government’ by authorizing it 'to
take whatever It will and in any way It will,* appears
to...,ba an act fraught with grave danger to the liberties
of the people and, therefore, a step backward in our
progress..., John W. Burgess, 77ie Reconciliation of Gov-
ernment with Liberty, 369, New York, Charles Scribner’s
Sons, (1916)." 31 Political Science Quarterly 143, 144
The People’s intention in supporting the 16th Amendment was
honorable and justified . The purpose was to bring tax relief to wage-
earners by shifting some of the tax burden onto net incomes from
accumulated wealth Unfortunately, its ambiguous terms would have
offended a man like Thomas Jefferson who believed that govern-
ment should be “bound with the chains of the Constitution.” We are
blessed in that the Supreme Court did not construe the 1 6th Amend-
ment in such a way as its critics had feared and as Senator Aldrich
must have hoped. Both in the Brushaber Case and in the Stanton
Case the Supreme Court held that the 1 6th Amendment created no
new class of taxes, and that income taxes (on unearned income,
gain or profit from business activity) were inherently indirect taxes.
Thus, the 1 6th Amendment did not give Congress any new power,
nor did it create a new class of taxation, nor did it grant to Congress
power to impose any type of direct tax without apportionment.
Why Was an Income Tax Necessary? 87
This last point will be addressed again in Chapter 6. No, the
16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power, but the
IRS and the Tax Court conveniently ignore this and both are out of
harmony with the Supreme Court. In a perfect world this would not
be the case. But the world is not perfect.
In an editorial, The New York Times had this to say about the
income tax amendment:
“Senator Root’s argument only embarrasses the Repub-
licans. Either they intended to do a bad thing, or else
they designed to deceive the people into thinking they
1 were voting to do that thing, but to avoid doing it by
argument after enactment. It is bad for a party when
people say after too many of their acts, 'stung again.
The tariff should be added to the above list, and then It
may be asked how much of this can the people stand
because the Republican Party was once the party of great
ideas and acts.” Editorial, Perfectly Plain and Bad Uws,
N.Y. Times, page 8, March 2, 1910.
Well, the average man and woman have been “stung again.”
Just as the working man paid for the support of government
under the protective tariff, while the wealth of the Nation went
untaxed, so now the working man is paying for the support of
government under our current income tax system. But not only
does he support government, he also supports a myriad of “en-
titlement programs.” It is a system so complicated that those in
Congress who wrote the statutes and approved their regula-
tions cannot even understand them.
Why? Because the average American has forgotten the words
of Wendell Phillips who said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of
A. Senator Brown proposed three income tax amendments, second column.
1. Brown proposed first 16 th Amendment April 28, 1909 S.J.RNo. 25.
2. Apportionment proposition.
3. Not the intent of this amendment to tax individuals.
4. Pollock case in 1 895 held that a tax on income was a direct tax.
5. Graduating the income tax.
246 Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
to continue to intervene by injunction in purely private la-
bor disputes.” U.3. v. United Mine Workers of America.
330 U.S. 258, 277-6(1947).
Although the latter cite relates to a labor dispute, what we
have here is a rule of construction ^hereby when the congres-
sional debate is overwhelmingly uniform, that this debate will be
used in determining the intent of a statute. Read the quotes in the
appendix of this book and you won’t need to wait for the Su-
preme Court to tell you what the intent of Congress was.
There is an additional issue we must consider on the subject
of the hierarchy of legal authority. The highest legal authority in
our Nation is the Constitution, being considered “primary au-
thority.” But where do we go when we need to determine the
intent of the framers of that great document? We go to the Feder-
alist Papers and to Elliot’s Debates (Madison’s notes) for evi-
dence as to the intent of the framers. In a sense, when the issue is
clouded, the Federalist Papers and Elliot’s Debates are elevated
to a level nearly equal to the Constitution as they become the
commentary on that document, for they document the arguments
of the authors of the instrument itself.
In the case of an amendment to the organic law, the Congres-
sional Record then becomes the commentary to the organic law
in so far as that amendment is concerned. We then don’t look to
the judicial history for the meaning of the amendment as we nor-
mally would do on most other issues where “case law” is au-
thoritative. Instead we look to either the judicial history or politi-
cal history only to determine what the problem was that created
the need for the constitutional amendment, i.e., “the evils sought
to be remedied.”
“These extrinsic aide may show the circumstances under
which the statute was passed, the mischief at which it was
aimed and the object H was supposed to achieve. Although
a court may make and pronounce findings about the pur-
Income: The Meaning of the Word 247
pose of a statute, or the mischief it was to remedy, without
referring to its historical background, knowledge of cir-
cumstances and events which comprise the relevant back-
ground of a statute Is a natural basis for making such find-
ings." Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 48.03
(5th Edition 1992).
Senator Brown of Nebraska proposed the income tax amend-
ment. He actually proposed three of them. The first two versions
were rejected as these were out of harmony and in conflict with
the direct taxation clauses of the original Constitution. When
Senator Brown, on April 28, 1 909, proposed the first of his three
income tax amendments known as Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) No. 25, he had this to say about the Pollock Case, about
Supreme Court Justice Harlan’s opinion on Pollock, and the pur-
pose of his proposed amendment:
“Mr. BROWN. Now listen to the justice-
“‘When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now ad-
judge, that Congress can not impose a duty or tax upon
personal property, or upon Incomes arising either from
rents of real estate or for personal property, Including In-
vested personal property, bonds, stocks, and Investments
of all kinds (emphasis mine), except by apportioning the
sum to be so raised among the States according to popu-
lation, It practically decides that, without an amendment
of the Constitution— two-thirds of both Houses of Con-
gress and three-fourths of the States concurring— such
property and incomes can never be made to contribute to
the support of the National Government.
“‘This Is the trouble that confronts the Nation. Unless we
have a Constitution about which the courts will not dis-
agree, giving Congress the power to pass this legislation
which we favor, Congress is without power to levy the
taxes on this vast volume of property, even though Con-
gress might desire to pass such a law. Mr. President, it
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
Income: The Meaning of the Word
ought to make the blood run to our facee when we atop to
think that there Is not another enlightened nation on the
face of the earth that does not have and exercises the
power to levy taxes on this kind of property except our-
u IMr. President, I come now for a moment to the proposi-
tion raised by the Senator from Maryland. Upon that ques-
tion I simply want to demonstrate to him, as well as to the
Senate, that as construed now the power of Congress to
levy taxes on Incomes by apportioning them according to
population amounts practically to a denial of the power of
Congress to levy such taxes. In the dissenting opinion of
Mr. Justice Brown this was shown conclusively. Similar
illustrations were made in the arguments to the court.
There was shown mathematically the practical impossi-
bility, tested by any measure of approximate justice, to
apportion those taxes, and this illustration of the teamed
justice has never been impeached by word or intimation
by anybody disagreeing with him in his general conclu-
sions. On page 688, (second Pollock) the Justice makes
an application of the law according to population. He says:
u ‘By the census of 1890, the population of the United States
was 62,622,250. Suppose Congress desired to raise by an
income tax the same number of dollars, or the equivalent
of $1 from each Inhabitant Under the system of appor-
tionment Massachusetts would pay $2,238,943. South
Carolina would pay $1,151,149. Massachusetts has, how-
ever, $2,803,645,447 of property, with which to pay it, or
$1,252 per capita, while South Carolina has but
$400,911,303 of property, or $348 to each Inhabitant. As-
suming the same amount of property in each State repre-
sents a corresponding amount of Income, each Inhabitant
of South Carolina would pay in proportion to his means
three and one-half times as much as each inhabitant of
Massachusetts. By the same course of reasoning, Missis-
sippi, with a valuation of $352 per capita, would pay four
times as much as Rhode Island, with a valuation of $1,459
“Mr. President, no man In this Chamber need have any
doubt about how the apportionment proposition would
work. All we need to do to be satisfied is to recall what
would happen In our own States if the tax were to be dis-
tributed between the counties according to population. It
Is the theory of the friends of the Income-tax proposition
that property should be taxed and not Individuals [empha-
sis mine]. I do not believe the fathers ever contemplated
that income taxes must be apportioned according to popu-
lation, but the courts have said that they did. I am here
today presenting an amendment to the Constitution which
will compel the courts to announce the contrary doctrine.”
44 Cong. Rec. 1570 (1909).
Earlier that day Senator Brown said in reference to the Pol-
“It Is sufficient for the purpose that I have in mind this
morning to say on that subject that I am in full accord with
the proposition of laying some of the burdens of taxation
upon the incomes of the country, but I raise this morning
for the purpose of challenging the attention of the Senate
to the fact that the Constitution of our country stands to-
day in need of an amendment upon this subject if we are
to have an income-tax law at all about the validity of which
there can be no question.
“...Our courts [as in Pollock] have demonstrated a faculty
to change their opinions on this question, for they have
decided It at different times different ways, and while we
might hope and believe that that decision would be per-
manent, no man can justify a conclusion with any certainty
that it would be permanent.
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
Income: The Meaning of the Word
“It is for that reason, Senators, that I present to you today
the imperative and commanding necessity for an amend-
ment to the Constitution which will give the court a Con-
stitution that can not be Interpreted two ways. I undertake
to say that the people of the United States have a light to
have an opportunity to amend the Constitution and to make
it so definite and so certain that no question can ever be
raised again of the power of Congress to legislate on the
subject” 44 Cong, Rec, 1568 (1909).
We see from the very beginning, it was the purpose of Con-
gress to offer to the People the opportunity to overturn the Pol-
lock Decision so that, as this quote states, incomes from rents of
real estate and personal property including bonds, stocks and in-
vestments could be taxed. If Senator Brown wanted his income
tax amendment to be “so definite and so certain that no question
can ever be raised again,” he shouldn’t have let Senator Aldrich
get his hand in the process.
Brown also affirmed that it was not the intent of his amend-
ment to tax individuals. Nor could any such amendment without
alternative language tax the wage or salary of a man. As we know
from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, a tax on the wage or sal-
ary of person is a capitation tax. Capitation taxes are outside the
scope of the 16th Amendment. Nowhere in any of the congres-
sional debates on the 16th Amendment did anyone ever chal-
lenge the authority of Adam Smith, who was by far the most
quoted of all authorities.
Senator Brown also published a paper as to the purpose of
the 1 6th Amendment. This paper can be found in the appendix of
this book and at Senate Document No. 705, 61 Congress, 1910
and is entitled. Shall the Income-Tax Amendment be Ratified .
Sutherland on Statutory Construction tells us at section 48.12,
5th Edition: “Commentaries of persons intimately involved with
drafting of legislation are entitled to weight in interpretation of a
statute.” Senator Brown wrote in this document:
“It would not be necessary to eliminate this rule of appor-
tionment except for the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, In what is known as the Pollock case,
decided In 1895, which held that a tax on Incomes was a
“The effect, therefore, of the proposed amendment, If rati-
fied, will be to restore to the people and to the Govern-
ment a power for many years exercised by them in na-
tional emergencies to tax Income without apportionment.
“The sole question, therefore, presented by the amend-
ment, and the sole consideration involved In its ratifica-
tion or rejection, is whether of not the United States, the
foremost nation of the world, shall be clothed with this
prerogative of national sovereignty - the power to tax In-
comes according to their value and without regard to ap-
portionment among the several States according to popu-
Notice that in the previous paragraph Senator Brown said the
amendment would allow Congress to “tax incomes.” If the pur-
pose of the Amendment was to “tax people” don’t you think he
would have said so? Brown goes on to list those things that would
“The growing objection to the tax on consumption [the
protective tariff] is vitalized by the fact that such a tax dis-
criminates against those least able to pay the tax and in
favor of those whose ability to pay the tax Is unquestioned
and whose protection from the Government Is so much
greater because of their larger property requires and re-
ceives a larger measure of protection. When the govern-
ment seeks to lay a tax for its defense or support on the
incomes of the country, it should reach all Incomes. If the
income arises from an investment in lands, it should be
taxed; if It arises from investments In manufacturing en-
terprises, In railroads, In banks, In newspapers, In the mer-
cantile business, or In steamship lines, It should be taxed.
252 Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
“Why should an Income arising from an Investment in State
or municipal bonds not be taxed? Why should the holder
of these securities enjoy his incoms free from any contri-
bution to assist this Government, which protects him and
his property no less than it protects other people owning
another class of property? Why should he escape and
other people be compelled to pay?" id. at 7.
Senator Brown didn’t say a word about taxing wages or sala-
ries. His entire argument dealt with taxing income from property,
either real or personal. The totality of Senator Brown’s argument
focused on the very items that were at issue in the Pollock Case.
The entire purpose of the income tax amendment was to bring
tax relief to those who earned wages and paid a greater propor-
tion of their earning in taxes under the tariff system (tax on con-
sumption) and therefore to place a greater tax burden on the ac-
cumulated wealth and investments of the country.
At this time in our history most of the people from the wage
earning class kept what little savings they had in mutual savings
banks and building associations. These were banks that were gen-
erally owned by their depositors and that focused on providing
mortgages to the lower classes.
These banks were very popular and very profitable. Yet in
the 1 894 income tax statute, in the Corporate Excise Tax of 1 909,
and in the first income taxing statute from 1913 passed under the
authority of the 1 6th Amendment these banks were exempt from
each of these taxing statutes. In 1894, 1909 and 1913 there was
great public outcry directed at Congress to exempt these banks
as an income tax on the profits of these banks would indirectly
be an income tax on the depositors who were “wage-earners.”
(See the many quotes from the Congressional Record at the end
of this chapter and in the appendix.) This public outcry and the
resulting statutory exemptions granted over this 19 year period
Income: The Meaning of the Word 253
provides conclusive evidence that it was not the intent that in-
come taxes were to be paid (not even indirectly) by those who
only earned a wage or salary. 1
The American people were well aware that any income tax
amendment to the Constitution was a Democratic party proposi-
tion, as the Republican party had fought the income tax tooth
and nail. There was a presidential election the year before the
income tax amendment was sent out to the states for ratification.
Harry Truman said, “Platforms are contracts with the People.”
We all should remember the “Contract with America” of the Re-
publican party that resulted with the so-called “Republican Revo-
lution of 1994.” Contracts are the basis of all human relations
and even our relationship with our Creator. When contracts be-
come meaningless, organized society ceases to exist. Now in the
case of contracts, should our political leaders set the example for
us, or do we expect them to be the worst offenders?
In the presidential election of 1 908, the Republican party plat-
form was silent on the income tax issue. The Democratic party
platform had this to say:
“We favor an income tax as part of our revenue system,
and we urge the submission of a constitutional amend-
ment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect
a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end
that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the bur-
dens of the Federal Government” 44 Conn. Rec. 3309
(1909). (This text from the Democratic party platform of
1908 was quoted in the Congressional Record at least a
dozen times during the income tax debates.)
It is not the intent of this book to create a class warfare and to
beat up on the wealthy. Most of us aspire to be wealthy someday.
On the other hand, some of the wealthy, both today and in 1 909,
accuse those who support an income tax as being socialistic. There
is balance in the middle, and this is what the majority of the Ameri-
can people and those members in Congress who supported the
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
Income: The Meaning of the Word
income tax amendment were trying to achieve. The latter’s argu-
ment and purpose was to have wealth pay for its share of the
expense of supporting government in proportion to the benefit
wealth received from government. That is not socialistic. What
becomes socialistic is to graduate thp rate of the income tax. By
graduating the income tax, wealth pays more for government than
it receives in benefits.
Our world has changed dramatically in our lifetimes. But back
in 1909, their world was only just beginning to change. In 1909,
the horse and buggy was everywhere and the automobile was a
novelty. Back then the thoughts of Indian warriors, bank robbers
who hid out in the wilderness and pirates on the seas were not
only old stories in one’s memory, but were contemporary with
the people of that time. The American People understood the
primary function of government was to provide protection for
life, liberty and property. Government served to protect the citi-
zenry from these predators. What the citizen paid to government
in taxes was actually more of an insurance premium for the pro-
tection the citizen received from government. Today we pay “pro-
tection money” to government to keep government away from us
as government is now the predator.
All property therefore benefitted from the protection of gov-
ernment. Think of a fire district. Does a 100 unit apartment build-
ing receive a larger or smaller benefit from the existence of a
well equipped and well funded fire district than that of, say, a
single family dwelling? Of course the apartment building receives
a greater benefit and the owner of which should therefore pay a
greater amount for the support of the fire district than the owner
of the single family dwelling. The thinking of Congress was that
those who possessed wealth in the millions should pay more for
the greater benefit they received from government than those
whose net worth was only a few hundred dollars. Remember at
the time nearly all the revenue collected by the federal govern-
ment was from taxes on consumption.
"Mr. DIXON. ...In 1872 Senator Sherman said In the Sen-
'A few years of further experience will convince the whole
body of our people that a system of national taxes which
rests the whole burden of taxation on consumption and
not one cent on property or Income Is intrinsically unjust.
While the expense of the National Government Is largely
caused by the protection afforded to property, it is but right
to require property to contribute to the payment of those
expenses. It will not do to say that each person consumes
in proportion to his means. This is not true. Everyone must
see that the consumption of the rich does not bear the
same relation to the consumption of the poor as the in-
come of the one compares with the wages of the other. As
wealth accumulates this injustice In the fundamental ba-
sis or our system will be felt and forced upon the attention
‘The income tax is a measure of justice. The people will
pay In proportion to their financial ability to pay. It will tax
wealth In proportion to Its abundance rather than poverty
according to its necessities. Federal taxation is not levied
upon the wealthy of the country. It Is Imposed by way of
taxes, internal-revenue duties levied upon liquors and to-
bacco used, and the import duties levied upon the cloth-
ing used and articles necessary for their comfort The mil-
lionaires pay only on what they eat, drink, wear, and on
what they use, and this is true of the poorer citizens like-
The wealthy man makes no other contribution to the sup-
port of the Government; nothing for the army which pro-
tects his wealth; nothing for the judiciary which settles
his property rights; nothing to the support of the admlnls-
Sixteenth Amendment. An amendment of 1913 to the
U.S. Constitution which permits Congress to tax in-
^ comes “from whatever source derived,” thus nullify- « "
ing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pollock v. Farm-
ers’ Loan and Trust Co., which had declared that an
income tax was a direct tax, which would be constitu-
tionally valid only if apportioned among the States
according to population.
Source. That from which any act, movement, informa-
tion, or effect proceeds. A person or thing that
originates, sets in motion, or is a primary agency in
producing any course of action or result. An origi-
nator; creator; origin. A place where something is
found or whence it is taken or derived. Jackiing v.
State Tax Comm., 40 N.M. 241, 58 P.2d 1167, 1171.
The source of income. Place where, or circumstanc-
es from which, it is produced. Union Electric Co. \
Coale, 347 Mo. 175, 146 S.W.2d 631, 635.
Sources of the law. The origins from which particular
positive laws derive their authority and coercive
force. Such are constitutions, treaties, statutes, us-
ages, and customs.
In another sense, the authoritative or reliable
works, records, documents, edicts, etc., to which we
are to look for an understanding of what constitutes
the law. Such, for example, with reference to the
Roman law, are the compilations of Justinian and the
treatise of Gaius; and such, with reference to the
common law, are especially the ancient reports and
the works of such writers as Bracton, Littleton, Coke,
Fleta, Blackstone, and others.
Derive. To receive from a specified source or origin.
Crews v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.C.
A.10, 89 F.2d 412, 416. To proceed from property,
sever from capital, however invested or employed,
and to come in, receive or draw by taxpayer for his
separate use, benefit, and disposal. Staples v. United
States, D.C.Pa., 21 F.Supp. 737, 739.
— ^ Derived. Received from specified source.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE READ A SMALL SECTION FROM PHIL HARTS’
BOOK YOU CAN NOW SEE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE LEGAL
DEFINATION FROM BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, FOURTH EDITION.
WHAT IS THE SPECIFIED SOURCE THAT IS TAXABLE?
WHO WAS PHILANDER KNOX?
IS IT CREDIBLE THAT HE WOULD COMMIT FRAUD?
Understanding a crime or a misdeed involves learning not only what was done and who did it, but
also what the motivation was. With a clear motive, evidence of the "what" and "who" becomes much
more credible. Allegations that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but
committed fraud when he falsely declared the 16th amendment ratified in 1913, require us to look at
who he was to understand why he would commit such an act. The following sketch was prepared by
the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education and is condensed from Bill Benson's
research report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment, "The Law That Never Was, " Volume II
(1985), pages 122-135.
Philander Chase Knox was bom in 1853 in western Pennsylvania, son of a bank cashier. While
attending college in Ohio, he became closely acquainted with William McKinley, then the local
district attorney, who was prosecuting a local tavern owner for selling alcohol to the college students.
Knox took McKinley's advice and became a lawyer.
McKinley, having chaired the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in Congress, was elected
governor of Ohio in 1891. Although he owed his election to support from both business and labor, he
quelled the labor strike called by Eugene V. Debs against the Great Northern Railroad in 1 894 by
summoning federal troops.
McKinley won the 1896 presidential race with a great deal of support from Big Business, e.g., John
D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil contributed $250,000 to the "front porch" campaign that defeated Bryan
and his populist platform of returning to the constitutionally mandated monetary system and reform
of McKinley's high tariffs that had allowed domestic manufacturers to raise their prices to a level that
matched the artificially-induced higher prices of foreign goods, thus causing a severe depression.
Knox helped in this financial and political effort that was directed by the wealthy Ohio industrialist
Mark Hanna, who was appointed to a vacant U.S. Senate seat the following year by Ohio's governor.
McKinley had already been saved from personal financial min by help from his old friend. Philander
Knox, who had become wealthy as counsel to the very wealthy.
Knox came to be regarded as one of the ablest lawyers in the country, his repute due in no small
measure to his being counsel for Carnegie and Vanderbilt and their corporate enterprises. He was
instrumental in Carnegie's big victory in a crucial patent case in which the most important invention
for the manufacture of crude steel was at stake. In 1892, he defended Henry Frick, Carnegie's steel
plant manager, who was being sued by the steel workers who had been beaten up by Pinkertons
brought in by Frick during the infamous Homestead strike, a strike that was provoked by two of
Carnegie's presidents, one of whom was also an attorney for J.P. Morgan. Knox also deflected
prosecution and civil suit against Carnegie in 1 894 after it was shown to Congress that Carnegie had
defrauded the Navy with inferior armor plate for U.S. warships. Morgan himself had defrauded the
U.S. Army in arms sales during the Civil War. And Knox averted prosecution of Carnegie after the
president of the Morgan-controlled Pennsylvania Railroad testified that Carnegie had regularly
received illegal kickbacks from the railroad. Knox's other big client at the time, the Vanderbilt family,
was connected to Carnegie primarily through the railroad industry.
President McKinley offered Knox the post of U.S. Attorney General in 1899, but Knox had to
decline, because he was then and for two more years engaged in arranging the merger of the railroad,
oil, coal, iron and steel interests of Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and other robber barons into
the largest conglomerate in history - U.S. Steel. This immense corporation encompassed the interests
of nearly all the robber barons in what Knox's new client, J.P. Morgan, referred to as a "community of
interest." One important component of the conglomerate was Consolidated Iron Mines in the Mesabi
Range of Minnesota, which Rockefeller had fraudulently swindled from the Merritt family, who later
successfully sued John D. for fraud, but had to settle for a fraction of the award because they ran out
of money during Rockefeller's appeals.
After the U.S. Steel merger, Knox accepted McKinley's offer to make him Attorney General, an
appointment that was personally promoted by Carnegie in a letter to McKinley and by Morgan in a
personal visit to the White House. The appointment was strenuously and loudly opposed by anti-trust
forces, since it would then be up to Knox to prosecute anti-trust law violations against the very robber
barons who had been his clients for many years and who had made him a wealthy man. Sure enough,
the public outcry to investigate the big new U.S. Steel monster that Knox had created met with
Knox's response that he knew nothing and could do nothing, and nothing is what he did.
After McKinley's assassination in 1901, Knox continued as Attorney General under Theodore
Roosevelt. Even though Roosevelt labeled himself as a "trust-buster," Knox saw to it that very little
harm came to his benefactors. U.S. Steel was unscathed, and most of the actions that were taken
against the railroad companies were largely done with the urging of the railroad giants themselves,
who were the strongest advocates of federal regulation of the industry, because that regulation, with
their own agents working in the federal commissions, enabled them to gain greater control over the
industry, be protected from competition, and maintain prices. The best-known anti-trust case was
against Northern Securities, a railroad holding company formed by Morgan as a show of strength for
the benefit of Hill, Harriman, Rockefeller, and their bankers, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. The
dissolution of Northern by the Supreme Court in 1904 was deemed "inconsequential" by the financial
press, since the two major railroads it encompassed had not been competing anyway, and the
defendants ended up suffering no loss. Knox, of course, did not pursue any of the criminal sanctions
that he should have undertaken against his former allies and clients, but the case gave the appearance
that Roosevelt was doing something and was a public relations success for the president. But
Roosevelt, while touting himself as an anti-trust champion, disparaged and labeled as "muckrakers"
those journalists who actually investigated and exposed the corrupt activities of the robber barons.
Harriman's great fortune had been acquired through a series of fraudulent maneuvers, key of which
was legislation signed by Roosevelt, at that time governor of New York, allowing New York banks to
invest in railroad bonds being sold by Harriman and his partners at inflated prices. Hill profited
enormously from fraud, deceit, and outright theft involving vast amounts of public lands that were
given to the railroads and then resold, or raped and then traded to the government for new lands. The
Vanderbilt fortune had also gained greatly from fraudulent maneuvers involving railroad securities
and Cornelius's evasion of taxes. When all this was investigated after Cornelius's death, Morgan
came to the Vanderbilt's rescue (managing to take control of their New York Central Railroad in the
Knox persuaded Roosevelt that the anti-trust laws should be accompanied by increased regulation of
business. He advocated and drafted federal statutes that gave his rich and powerful friends even more
power and control over interstate commerce - setting rates and eliminating competition in restraint of
trade - all under federal authority and with agents of the conglomerates appointed to and sitting on the
governmental boards and commissions. This plan derived from and implemented a strategy set by
Morgan and the other robber barons at a meeting in 1 889. Knox continued in this vein as a U.S.
Senator from Pennsylvania, being appointed to a vacant seat by Pennsylvania's governor in 1904 at
the behest of several powerful capitalists, including Carnegie's man, former client Frick (which
showed they approved of Knox's handling of anti-trust matters as Attorney General).
Knox, by now a multi-millionaire, was in the Senate when the Morgan-controlled financial Panic of
1907 hit, which led to a congressional inquiry into the monetary and banking systems. Senator Nelson
Aldrich (father of the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and namesake and god-father of Nelson A.
Rockefeller) led the inquiry producing the 1912 report that recommended a national bank (controlled
and owned by the robber barons) and ultimately resulted in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, co-
authored by Aldrich and Robert Owens. Owens later testified to Congress that the banking industry
conspired to create financial panics like the one in 1 907 in order to rouse the people to demand
reform - reform that would be directed by, and to the benefit of, the very financial experts who had
caused the panic.
Knox resigned from the Senate and became Secretary of State under President Taft from Ohio in
1909. He was the most powerful figure in the Taft administration, and drew up the lists from which
Taft appointed his other cabinet members, many of whom were intimately concerned with the giant
corporations. He was Taft's primary confidante.
Knox became active in organizing the international court at The Hague, and fought hard for the
Rockefeller/Morgan-inspired concept of a League of Nations, although U.S. opposition to the Treaty
of Versailles forced him to temper his public views on the League. He proclaimed the era of "Dollar
Diplomacy," his legacy to U.S. foreign policy, under which the Secretary of State's office was used to
promote and protect American commercial and industrial interests in foreign countries, especially in
Latin America, but also in East Asia and even Europe. This period of U.S imperialism featured the
annexation of Hawaii in the 1890s at the request of American businesses there despite the unanimous
opposition by Hawaiians; the taking of Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish as well as from the
native rebels whom the U.S had ostensibly come to assist in gaining their liberty (this included the
massive slaughter of a hundred thousand Filipinos by the U.S Army in a war in which the news media
was censored, (even William Randolph Hearst, who had helped instigate the war with Spain, was
aghast and disgusted.) Then came the Honduras financial crisis of 1909, in which Knox brokered a
deal for J.P. Morgan & Company to make huge loans to that country, backed by the full faith and
credit of the U.S., and for American bankers to take control of the Honduras taxing authority (to
ensure adequate cash floXv to make the loan payments). Knox's diplomatic maneuvers resulted in the
U.S. Navy being sent to support and give victory to rebel forces in Nicaragua, who then made
arrangements, again devised by Knox, to give control of Nicaraguan taxing authority and tax
collection to Americans. American bankers then immediately made big loans to Nicaragua, once
again guaranteed by the U.S. government, providing a risk-free investment environment for Knox's
Knox tried to conduct the same kind of activity in the rest of Central America and much of South
America as well, and used America's claim against the Chinese from the Boxer Rebellion to coerce
China to deal with a syndicate of Harriman and his bankers Kuhn & Loeb, Morgan and his First
National Bank, and the Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank, instead of with the British,
French, and Germans, in a scheme to establish a round-the-world transportation system using
American steamship and railroad lines. There was even action by Morgan's man in that syndicate,
Henry Davidson, to supply arms to the Bolsheviks in hopes of gaining oil and commerce concessions
in Russia if they were victorious.
At the international level, Knox has been criticized for oafish and heavy-handed diplomacy that
caused ill will and damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide. His conduct was more that
of a huckster than a diplomat. Domestically, Knox's influence extended to the Supreme Court, where
he succeeded in having Taft appoint three justices who were extremely sympathetic to the big
business trusts: Devanter, Lamar, and Pitney. The first two of these had formerly had clients among
the big corporate trusts, including the railroads.
The 16th Amendment itself was given its decisive shove through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson
Aldrich of Rhode Island (co-author of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913), who spoke for the
"community of interest' of both Morgan and Rockefeller. This represented and led to an astonishing
reversal of attitudes among the old-line big-business conservatives in the Senate, who had long
staunchly opposed an income tax. Obviously, something was afoot to change their minds. It was that
the robber barons had already figured out how to avoid the proposed income tax, especially through
the establishment and use of foundations, the number of which grew from 18 in 1910 to 94 by 1920
and 267 by 1930. The super-rich have avoided the income tax ever since, leaving it to be paid instead
by the middle and lower classes.
Deceit and fraud were, for the robber barons, standard operating procedures - among the numerous
underhanded methods they typically employed to achieve their objectives. Knox had protected them
from fraud charges many times. His term as Attorney General was itself a big fraud in regard to
enforcement of the anti-trust laws, especially against former clients to whom he owed so much of his
own professional success.
Besides preying on the government with their fraudulent activities, the robber barons employed a
strategy of locking in and stabilizing their advantageous positions by using government authority and
regulations to reduce competition, keep prices at very profitable levels, control labor problems,
minimize risk, and generally make themselves quite comfortable. They also expanded their scope of
operations, including financing and extension of credit, to other countries and used government to aid
them in these adventures. Knox, of course, was a key man, perhaps the key man, in the
Administration in all of this, both as Attorney General and then as Secretary of State.
J.P. Morgan seems to have been the real genius and visionary behind much of this strategy. His
background was more oriented to finance, and his financial acumen enabled him to make inroads
against the other robber barons on their own turfs - a robber baron's robber baron. He was regarded as
more cultured and cosmopolitan than most of the others, and perhaps that is why he was able to
envision and plan on such an international scale. His financial perspective helped him to see the
benefits of making monetary loans to governments and securing them with strong and reliable
methods of tax collection.
One might wonder why Knox seemed to be in such a hurry in 1913 to declare the 16th amendment
ratified. We can see that it was because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It was important to the
banking interests that would be lending money to the U.S government that there be an assured flow of
revenue, especially since the robber barons would be removing themselves from the income tax
system. Just as an ordinary bank wants to know that a borrower who is given a mortgage has a cash
flow adequate to meet the payments, so the banks comprising the Federal Reserve System wanted to
be sure the federal government had a dependable method of tax collection in place to provide ample
money to pay its debts to them. The income tax and the Federal Reserve are inextricably tied
together; it was not mere coincidence that they happened in the same year. The robber barons, their
bankers, and Knox had developed this concept and practiced it in Latin America, and in 1913 they
were ready to apply it to the United States.
In less than a month after proclaiming the 16th amendment ratified, Knox returned to private practice
in Pittsburgh, resigning as Secretary of State so that the new president, Woodrow Wilson, could
appoint his own man to the post.* One gets the distinct impression that getting the amendment
through the ratification process had indeed been his ultimate goal; he wasn't just a disinterested public
official objectively administering the procedure. If he hadn't declared it ratified before leaving office,
there was no way to know or control what his successor would do.
The title of this piece asks whether it's credible that Knox would commit fraud in ratifying the 1 6th
amendment. We leave it to readers to decide for themselves, but for us, it seems like a "no-brainer."
He would and he did.
*Taft's brand of republicanism had upset Roosevelt enough that the latter ran again for President in
1912. His third party "Bull Moose" candidacy spoiled Taft's re-election, and Democrat Wilson won.
Copyright Chris Hansen
By: Chris Hansen
Last revision: June i 3, 2002 05:24 AM
Home About Contact
This private system is NOT subject to monitoring
THIS BOOK IS IN PRINT AND THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF PLACES ON THE INTERNET WHERE YOU CAN
The Law That Never Was
— The fraud of the 16th Amendment and personal Income Tax —
BUI Benson and M. J. ‘Red’ Beckman
Copyright © 1985 by
Bill Benson & M J. ‘Red’ Beckman
All Rights Reserved
No material in this book may be copied, or
used in any way without written permission.
Constitutional Research Assoc.
South Holland, IL 60473
• Printed in the United States of America
The narratives which follow were written to provide the basis for testimony in court.
That’s why the writing style is somewhat dry and technical, and that is also why each
narrative, whenever applicable, repeats a major principle involved in the charge of
fraud brought in this book, the principle of concurrence, which requires any State
Legislature that would presume to cast its vote in favor of the ratification of any
amendment to our Constitution must do so only in complete agreement with, and to,
the exact form of the amendment as presented to them in the certified copy of the
Congressional Joint Resolution including every punctuation mark. This principle is
mentioned in the foregoing memorandum of February 15th, 1913 written by the Solici-
tor of the United States Department of State to Philander Knox, the Secretary of State.
The office of the Solicitor of the Department of State was, and is, the office of the
general counsel for that department of the federal administration. One of its primary
functions is to provide legal advice for the benefit of the Secretary of State. Secretary
Knox, himself a lawyer and former U. S. Senator, received such legal advice, in several
memorandums, from his Solicitor concerning the status of the ratification of the
proposed Sixteenth Amendment.
The argument employed by the Solicitor to justify the discrepancies in the copies of
the resolutions purportedly ratifying the proposed Sixteenth Amendment, which were
transmitted by the States to Washington, is undergirded by the assertion that since the
Fourteenth Amendment had “been repeatedly before the courts,” and that, since, on
those occasions, the courts had enforced the provisions of that amendment, the courts
had, therefore, acceded to the “errors” made in the ratification of that amendment.
There is an obvious problem of logic in this line of reasoning. To have a statute or a
Constitutional provision before a court is not the same thing as having the method, by
which a statute or a constitutional provision came into being, before a court. Further-
more, the Solicitor, nor any of his successors, ever brought any of this nonsense before a
court The Solicitor thereby turned the acceptance of the “errors” committed in the
purported ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment into "a precedent which [might]
be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption” of the proposed Sixteenth Amend-
ment Any change in amendments proposed to the States was to now be considered an
“error” and all "errors” were acceptable. This is a hard one to swallow all by itself, but,
in addition, nowhere, in this memorandum, does the Solicitor even suggest that the
Secretary of State ought with all due diligence, to check and make sure that the duly
noted discrepancies were by mistake, and not intent Instead, the Solicitor presumes that
it was the intent of each and every Legislature, flawed ratification resolution or not, to
have passed upon the exact wording and that changes in wording were "probably
inadvertent.” The Solicitor rationalized this cavalier attitude by stating that the various
Legislatures did not intend to reject the amendment by these changes. This is an
incredible statement in light of his unequivocal pronouncement immediately preced-
ing that "a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by
Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or
disapprove the proposed amendment.” In other words, the Solicitor advised the Secre-
tary of State that, while intentional alterations were not acceptable, alterations by way
of "error” were.
How did the Solicitor know that the changes made to the proposed amendment were
"errors” as opposed to intentional changes? According to the Solicitor, it was a "neces-
sary presumption” that the Legislatures did not do something that they weren’t allowed
to do. Apparently, this presumptive attitude lead both the Solicitor and the Secretary to
ignore the evidence of not only the intent to change the wording, but of gross miscon-
duct and fraud. This was a natural outgrowth of the seemingly official policy which
undertook to label all of the evident problems in the copies of State action received in
Washington as “errors” and to accept them as such without any further investigation.
In the case of the purported ratification in the State of Kentucky, Philander Knox did
request those parts of the Kentucky journals which showed the events relating to the
purported ratification. If Secretary Knox had an inkling that there might be something
amiss in the State of Bluegrass, after he had received a copy of a paraphrased extract of
the journals and of the journals themselves, Mr. Knox could have had no doubt The
paraphrased extract showed a vote in the Senate of 27 in favor and 2 against The official
journal showed a vote of 9 in favor and 22 against. Having been presented with an
undeniably damaging situation in only the second State to ratify, Knox derided to
ignore the entire matter. This was probably due to the opinion rendered in this matter
by the Solicitor on March 21st, 1912.
After the Solicitor had an opportunity to inspect the extracts (it is not evident whether
Knox showed him the official journals), he delivered an opinion in which he made a
great show of the authenticity and acceptability of the extracts. Based strictly upon the
extracts, of course, the Senate of the State of Kentucky seemed to have voted in favor of
the ratification resolution. The official journal showed otherwise. Neither Philander
Knox nor his Solicitor further communicated with anyone from the State of Kentucky
for the duration of the ratification process.
An enormous hole in the Solicitor’s logic about presumptions of errors as opposed to
deliberate changes in the wording, capitalization and punctuation of the proposed
amendment cannot be covered up as easily as he might have liked. Thathole was created
by all those certified copies of Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 which were sent out to the
Governors of each State, sometimes more than once. Those certified copies and the
acknowledgements of their receipt by the Governors had one function — namely, to
ensure that Knox knew that each State had possession of the exact text of the proposed
amendment and that each Governor knew that he had the exact text of the proposed
amendment. Why? To eliminate any possibility that anyone could claim that the States
didn’t have the exact text of the proposed amendment The Governor of a State was the
logical, official receiver of these certified copies because —
1. he was the chief executive of his State and, thus, finally, responsible for his State’s '
handling of such matters
22 Opening Argument
2. his Secretary of State would be involved in the final certification process
S. sending a certified copy to each of the legislators would have made for a very messy
The Governor of Kentucky contended that a Legislature would not have proper
jurisdiction of the amendment if the Governor did not transmit the certified copy to his
Legislature. This transmission was an important link in the chain of evidence that the
exact text of the proposed amendment contained in the certified copy of the Congres-
sional Joint Resolution was properly passed on to the next holder in due course of that
highly important legislative material. For a Legislature, the subject matter of an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States is somewhat akin to the subject
matter in a special session of the Legislature — the only jurisdiction of subject matter
over which the Legislature may exercise legislative control is the subject matter pres-
ented to the Legislature by the Governor for that special session.
Knox did send certified copies to each Governor. Knox did receive acknowledgments
from almost every Governor. Upon receipt of an acknowledgment, Knox then knew
absolutely that that State’s Governor possessed a certified copy of the resolution from
Washington, D. C. Most Governors also acknowledged that they would transmit the
certified copy to their Legislatures. Here the presumption could reasonably be held that
those Governors would do their ministerial duty and transmit those certified copies to
their Legislatures. Knox and his Solicitor could then not presume that discrepancies in
the text of the legislative actions returned were errors. They were bound to presume that
those discrepancies were in fact deliberate changes, because each and every one of the
Legislatures had the exact text, which the Solicitor states could not be changed "in any
way,” before them for consideration. Checking through any particular Legislature’s
ratification action, letter for letter, comma for comma, did not take more than one-half
hour in any case, yet the Solicitor is more than forgiving to the States for their
"typographical” “errors” which were "incident to an attempt to make an accurate
quotation.” If these changes by the various States were attempts to make accurate
quotations, one has to wonder what they would do if they weren’t so diligently trying to
An enrolled bill is "a final copy of a bill or joint resolution which has passed both
houses of a legislature and is ready for signature.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. It is
presumed that the text in an enrolled bill is what the legislators intended to enact.
Philander Knox and his Solicitor knew this rule of legislation very well. And with a
running leap, they flew in the face of this presumption of legislative intent in an
obvious, brazen and successful attempt to jam this amendment down the throats of the
Finally, on the topic of "errors,” the Solicitor completely ignored the subject of the
preamble of Senate Joint Resolution No. 40. He did ignore the "errors” made on the
preamble of the Seventeenth Amendment (memorandum of May 10th, 1912). As the
preamble to the Constitution of the United States itself explains the intent of the framers
so does the preamble to the resolution proposing an amendment to that Constitution. It
is impossible to give assent to the wording without also having given assent to the
intent. And as the various original thirteen States had to agree to the preamble, the
statement of intent, as well as to the body of the Constitution, so do all States in any
subsequent modification of that Constitution have to agree to the statement of intent of
any proposed amendment
Another problem highlighted by the State of Kentucky which the Solicitor tried to
address, in a memorandum dated April 20th, 1911, was that of the signature of the
Governor, or rather, the lack of it. The official journals of Kentucky showed that the
Governor vetoed the only version of the Kentucky Legislature’s ratification resolution
which passed both houses. He had two reasons for the veto— one, the resolution which
the Senate had passed was not the same as the one which the House had passed, and,
two, the Legislature did not have jurisdiction of the matter until after the Governor had
transmitted the certified copy of the Congressional Joint Resolution to that body. In the
passage of the resolution which the Solicitor claims was valid, the official journal shows
that the Senate rejected the resolution. This is why the Governor’s signature was not
required in that situation. Had the resolution validly passed both houses, the Governor
may very well have signed it, but, it did not pass both houses — an excellent reason for
him not to have signed it.
The Solicitor made the statement that the situation existing at the time of the framing
of the Constitution "would seem to indicate that the framers did not contemplate that
the Governors should participate with the Legislatures in the approval of Amendments
to the Constitution. ” He then dtes with approval a statement of a previous Governor of
Massachusetts to the effect that a Governor’s signature is unnecessary to the action of the
Legislature in the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
(at 3) He also cites Mason, The Veto Power, in trying to explain veto power —
A resolution to amend the Constitution must already have received a two-
thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature. Such a resolution is therefore
beyond the reach of the veto and consequendy beyond the necessity for the
Presidential approval, (at 7)
In other words, because any Congressional resolution vetoed by the President
requires a two- thirds vote to overcome that veto, the requirement of a two-thirds vote in
the case of a Congressional resolution to amend the United States Constitution is
considered evidence that a Presidential veto would be of no effect and, in that regard,
and that regard only, relieves the President of any duty relative to such a resolution. But,
the Solicitor denied that the same situation existed in the States —
— the same reasoning does not apply in the case of the Governor of a State
because the United States Constitution does not require that the resolution of the
State Legislature approving the amendment to the Constitution must receive the
required number of votes to pass a bill over the Governor’s veto, (at 7)
The Solicitor, still arguing against the necessity for a State Governor’s approval of a
ratification resolution, then goes on to say —
. . . the Constitution of the United States does not require two-thirds vote of
the Legislature to a resolution amending the Constitution. If there is any conflict
between the State and the United States Constitutions the former must yield, (at
There is no provision in any State Constitution relative to the vote on a State
resolution in ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Under the Solicitor’s reasoning, however, the provision in the United States Constitu-
tion providing for a two- thirds vote in the Congress in passage of a resolution to amend
the United States Constitution would then also apply to the States, so that, in the
passage of a State resolution on ratification, the Governor’s veto would, in like manner
to the veto of the President, be made of none effect. The State Legislatures must, indeed,
yield to the United States Constitution in this matter of a two-thirds vote.
The Solicitor then goes on to say —
. . . the argument might be advanced that the State Constitution requires the
approval of the Governor of the laws of the State only and that neither the
resolution passed by the Legislature approving the amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States nor the amendment itself can be said to be a State law,
and, therefore, the requirement of the Governor’s signature is not necessary.
Unfortunately, for the Solicitor’s contention, in most of the States which claimed
ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the resolutions or bills which were passed,
supposedly signifying the act of ratification, made their official appearances in the
published session laws journals of each of those States. They were intended to be State
laws and the proof is in these official State publications.
Additionally, the great majority of the legislative acts in supposed ratification of the
proposed Sixteenth Amendment were joint resolutions of the State Legislatures. A few
were concurrent resolutions, some were considered joint and concurrent resolutions
and some were bills. The terms bills and joint resolutions are interchangeable. Even the
Solicitor uses the terms interchangeably in his memorandum of April 20th, 1911 (at 8,
12, 13; see also Horn Our Laws Are Made, at 7). Under virtually every State Constitution,
legislation which is to become law must be presented to the Governor for approval.
Concurrent resolutions, generally, are not accorded that treatment, but, if such resolu-
tions are treated as bills then the proper procedures apply. Thus, in that the great
majority of the State Legislatures chose to attempt to ratify the proposed Sixteenth
Amendment via the vehicle of either the joint resolution or the bill and to pass those
resolutions into law, those legislators evidenced an intention that their Governor have
veto power over their acts. Again, the proof of this is in the publishing of these acts in the
session laws of the State. They intended to pass a State law, they advanced legislation
which must be passed like a State law and they published that legislation as a State law.
The Governor’s signature did have significance. If he signed, he approved. If he did not
sign, then the following three scenarios are possible —
1. he vetoed the bill or joint resolution
2. he did not sign the bill or joint resolution and let it pass through a lapse of time as
provided in airState Constitutions
3. he was not presented the bill or joint resolution in violation of the State
The signature of the Governor, thus, has important implications. He is, after all, the
chief executive of his State and is finally liable for all the legislative errors made in his
State. As the buck stops at the President’s desk at the national level, so does the buck stop
at the Governor’s desk at the State level. It is his Secretary of State who is charged with
the responsibility of the sanctity of the original documents of legislation, and, who
ordinarily should make a final check of the ratification resolution with the certified
copy of the Congressional joint Resolution in hand.
The Solicitor makes clear, however, that his argument against the necessity of a
Governor’s signature on the ratification action is a facade. From his memorandum of
April 20th, he states relative to the failure of the Governor of the State of Washington to
sign that State’s ratification action and to the possibility that the Legislature failed to
present the resolution to the Governor —
If it can be said that the resolution has never been presented to the Governor
but the certified copy only, the resolution itself being on file in the office of the
Secretary of State, it would still be useless to request at this date the Governor’s
signature because the Legislature commenced its session January 9th, and as it
could not remain in session more than 60 days must have adjourned not later
than March 9th, (Washington Constitution 1889, Article II, Section 12: Anno-
tated Statutes of Washington, Secdon 6921). Therefore more than ten days
having expired since the adjournment of the Legislature the Governor’s signa-
ture at this time could give the resoludon no added validity.
The above discussion assumes of course that the Governor has not attempted
to veto the resoludon, and it does not appear that he has. If he has then of course
it would be useless to ask him for his signature.
In conclusion it should be observed that the consdtudons of all the states*
which give the Governor the veto power also provide a means by which an act of
the Legislature shal l become a law if the Governor fails to exercise his veto
power. By this provision the many resoludons of state legislatures approving
amendments to the consdtudon which were not signed by the Governor would
perhaps be considered valid the same as in the case explained above.
In other words, the Solicitor admits to the possibility that a Governor’s signature was
required but that, what the heck, the Washington Legislature was adjourned and it
wouldn’t be of any use to try to obtain that signature anyway. If the Governor had
attempted to veto the resolution, well, same story. The Solicitor concludes his com-
ments on why no one should bother to check whether the Washington resolution was
ever presented to the Governor for his signature with a reference to all the State
Constitutions which provide for passage of legisladon if the Governor merely fails to
veto. This universal provision, according to the Solicitor, makes it all right if the
Legislature failed to present the resolution to the Governor. Note that the Solicitor must
have had a copy of the Constitution of the State of Washington handy. He must have
also been able to read that Article III, Secdon 12 of that Consdtudon required the
Legislature to present the ratificadon resoludon to the Governor. Nevertheless, the
Solicitor, in a bald-faced deceit, counseled a knowing disregard for the truth and a
disdain for seeking any further when serious doubts as to the propriety of radficadon
acuon at the State level surfaced. If the Washington Consdtudon required a presentaton
of the legislapon to the Governor and it was not, it would go without saying that his
signature would, after such a violadon, give “no added validity” to the resoludon. The
resoludon would be a nullity.
The signatures of the Governors highlight another problem having to do with
signatures, or the lack of them. The Governor of the State of Wyoming sent a telegram to
Philander Knox claiming that the Wyoming Legislature had raufied the “income tax
amendment.” Whereupon, the Secretary of State immediately sent a telegram back to
the Governor requiring that he furnish a cerdfied copy of the acuon. The copy of the
resoludon furnished was a fraudulent document signed only by the Secretary of State of
the State of Wyoming, (see narradve for the details) There is no archival original
document showing the signatures on that resoludon and since the copy sent to
Washington, D. C. is false on its face, there is no reason to suppose that one ever existed.
Had the copy sent to Washington been completely certified by the presiding officers of
the Wyoming Legislature and by the Governor, there would have been no question. It
certainly would have been no inconvenience to sign two sets of documents instead of
one. We are, after all, talking about a momentous occasion, the modification of the
Supreme Law of the land. A similar situation occurred in California.
In this case, as in every case, the Solicitor chose the lower standard in this most solemn
and meaningful of legislation that can be passed. All manner of unsigned documents
were accepted. New Mexico is a notable exception in which the copy of the Legislature’s
action sent to Washington, D. C. is completely certified on the face of the document. For
the so-called certification of two States, the original is not referenced and, therefore,
under the rule of best evidence, such a copy is not admissible as evidence. Furthermore,
in contrast to the States of Wyoming and California, wherein each Knox insisted that a
certified copy of the ratification action was required, Minnesota was allowed to slide by
without submitting a certified copy of their Legislature’s action.
The preceding tale of woe, detailed in the succeeding pages, highlights the necessity
that the highest standards, not the lowest, be used in the ratification of a proposed
amendment to the Supreme Law of the land.
The 1 7 th Amendment Scam
A. Now you are probably like most people and have never read or paid any
attention to the 1 7 th Amendment.
1 . Well, why not? It is a wonderfully developed, intricate piece of word smithing,
deceptively and artfully constructed, behind the scene, slap in the face to the
2. We just bet that those who worked to develop and push the 1 7 th Amendment
through to passage got a big laugh out of it as they were paid for their evil deed.
B. As some of you know the United States senators in the Original
Constitution were voted upon by the State Legislators to protect State
rights in the congress.
1 . If their Senators failed in their duties they could be recalled back to the state red
the riot act or replaced by a majority vote of the State legislators.
2. The States created the Federal Government. This setup of the Senators
representing their States Rights and issues, was a very important element in
controlling their creation.
3. This control factor helped the States keep the Federal Government from “getting
too big for its britches.”
C. As some people say, “All good things eventually come to an end” and
this is what happened with the passage of the 1 7 th Amendment. The
state legislators had real authority over the Federal government. OR
D. The Federal Reserve Act of Dec. 23, 1913 was intended to over ride the
Constitution of the United States, through the 1 6 th and 1 7 th Amendments.
E. Now the 16 th Amendment to the United States Constitution did nothing
without its counterpart, the 1 7 th Amendment. WHY?
1. The 17 th Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each
senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the
senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill
such vacancies: Provided , That the legislature of any state may empower the
executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This Amendment shall not be
so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it
becomes valid as part other Constitution. (See Exhibit A, 4 of 5 from the sixty-
eight Congress, First Session, Senate Document No. 154, The Constitution of the
United States of America, As Amended to December 1, 1924).
2. Did you read anywhere in the 17 th Amendment that repealed Article 1, Section 3,
Clause 1 , of the Constitution?
F. Read article 1, section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution (Exhibit B): The
Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each
state, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each senator
shall have one vote.
1 . The 1 7 Amendment stands as a nullity.
2. The Citizens of the Several States did not create the Federal Constitution to
protect their substantive rights.
3. State Citizen could not claim any protection from the Federal Constitution unless
they are a citizen within a Federal Territory.
4. What the slick little schemers did was to use the 17 th Amendment to create a
presumption that if you were a voter you would be presumed to have voted for a
Federal Representative and therefore you are a constituent.
5. Your Federal Representative has your power of Attorney to act in your behalf.
6. Anything the Federal Representative agrees to or their predecessors set forth by
an Act, you are responsible for.
7. If the Federal Constitution was a National Constitution and applied to all citizens
within the several states then why have State Constitutions?
a. Why have State Legislatures?
b. Why have a State Judiciary?
c. Why have County Officials?
G. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the
United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the
government of the individual states.
1 . Each state established a Constitution for itself, and in that Constitution, provided
such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its
2. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States
as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote
3. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and
the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms are naturally, and we
think, necessary, applicable to the government created by the instrument.
4. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct
governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
H. As you can witness for yourself the 1 7 th Amendment never changed the
Original Constitution of 1 78 7 .
1 . What was the real deception behind the passage of the 1 7 th Amendment as well
as the 16 th Amendment?
2. Do you think repealing the 17 th Amendment and returning the selection of
Senators back to the Legislators of the States would have a major effect in not
only state government but also Federal government?
3. As we have seen in this past election, for the senate race you could chose
between Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dumb.
a. As long as those behind the scene who pull strings of power get to put up and
support both candidates, do you think they really care who gets elected as long
as the electie does their bidding?
b. As long as the electives make sure the nice, big, fat, juicy government contract
are let out to the right companies the financiers could care less as to which
party Dee or Dumb represent.
c. They also have enough power to destroy any third party.
d. We will have the same one party system, “third party”.
e. The people are told that their vote counts when, in fact, all you can do is to
vote for the “lesser of the two evils.”
I. Put the selection of the Federal Senator back into the hands of the State
legislators where it belongs so that state rights are once again protected
and your vote actually counts for something.
The seventeenth amendment reads as follows;
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each state , elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
A. Today, and for many years, much has been written about the damage this
amendment has caused to our Republican form of government, when it took
Suffrage from the State and gave it to the People.
B. Among the concerns expressed by all about the damage caused by the 17th it is
clear that the best understood harm is the fact that within the lawmaking body
of Congress the form of government has been altered from a Republican form
to a Democratic form. What is not so universally understood is that;
1 . There was no standing for this amendment at the federal level as Article V, last
clause, mandated the entire matter to the States and prohibited it to the Federal
government: "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
suffrage in the Senate."
2. By this wording in Article V each State, individually, had sole discretion over this
matter within its own borders and it was excluded to the Federal Government by the
1 Oth Amendment.
a. That many States were intimidated and coerced into ratifying this amendment,
at a time when this country was experiencing convulsions arising out of the
civil war reconstruction, by threat of contending with a Constitutional
C. It was recognized by most that a Constitutional Convention would very likely
severely alter that document to the detriment of all.
1 . The Federal Government, under its Supremacy Clause had a duty to strike down any
attempt to alter the Republican form pursuant to Article 4 Section 4 that says in
pertinent part; "Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this
union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against
invasion; " and as such had a duty to protect to each State the Republican form and to
protect each State from the invasion of other States regarding their Sovereign status
which the Fed failed to do.
2. Pursuant to Article V last clause, (as quoted above) the words "NO STATE" and
"WITHOUT ITS CONSENT" altered the amendment ratification guidelines of
Article V to force a full, 1 00%, ratification (rather than the usual 3/4's) of any
amendment concerning this matter of State Sovereignty. Only 36 ratified the 17th.
Utah rejected outright.
D. The 17th Amendment can not have been lawfully ratified.
E. The real harm that has resulted from the acquiescence to the 1 7th, by the
States, is it destroys the ability of the State to micro manage the affairs of the
Federal Government on behalf of its people. Where once a State could impact
Bills before congress, it saw to be inappropriate, by quickly mandating senators
vote in a specific way or calling them home in an effort to prevent a quorum,
after the 17th the State no longer had authority to manage Senators who now
were answerable only to the people whom could not effectively manage the
actions of Senators except once every 6 years. The total difference was
MANAGE TODAY AND EVERY DAY as opposed to MANAGE ONCE
EVERY 6 YEARS.
F. This whole idea was sold to the American people as an action that was
beneficial for them in the form of a direct say in the election. But what the
people got in a direct vote was more than countered by their loss of
manageability of the Fed by their State watchdog and the loss of teeth the 10th
amendment suffered as a result with respect to the Sovereignty of the States.
G. In light of the foregoing 4 imperfections, under the Supreme Law of the Land
and under the law of contracts the 1 7th Amendment is ripe for repudiation.
This amendment is void on its face and can have no effect in law. The
subsequent acquiescence of the Federal Government and the State
Governments to the 17th can not make what is VOID, rather than avoidable,
H. The States need to take back their representation and restore the integrity of
Congress. In so doing the State can block Bills that are unconstitutional by
regaining control of their Senators. No longer would Senators have a 6-year
"kingship". The states will once again regain control regarding their interests
by protecting the constitutionality of all Bills that pass Congress.
I. The same tight nit group of European and American Bankers all combined
their efforts into getting the:
1 . F ederal Rules of Equity 1912
2 . 1 6 th Amendment
3. 17 th Amendment
4. Federal Reserve Act 23 December 1913
5. Passed and put into full force and effect before the American people had time to
assemble opposition to their measures.
6. Then when people started to speak out these same Bankers used their front man
Woodrow Wilson who ran on the promise that he would not send American boys to fight
on foreign soil “to push through their legislation.”
7. When Wilson was going around the country making this claim they were already
American men dying on foreign soil.
J. Those same group of bankers then proceeded to do what they had done and
gotten away with for years.
1 . Start a war and fund both sides.
2. They are experts at controlling those in power with their purse strings
3. Using WWI “The war to end all wars” as a smoke screen and with all the media directed
toward reporting on the war their evil deeds went unnoticed by most of the people.
4. Ask, What are the armaments?”
a. Who is providing the money?
b. Where is the money going?
c. What armaments have been bought with the money?
d. Who supplied those armaments?
e. How were those armaments shipped?
f. Where were they shipped?
g. Why is this money being put into this area of the world?
K. We helped put a Clermont County, Ohio Judge in jail by the name of Robert
Linder who stole over a million dollars from disabled children’s trust funds.
1 . During and after the trial a number of press people wanted to interview us and to each of
them we asked?
a. Are you a true news reporter who knows how to dig up a story? They basically said
b. Then where is your story about what happened to the over one million dollars that
Robert Linder stole? Their answer was always “what do you mean?”
c. We would reply “you mean to tell me that you are a qualified news reporter who can
research a story and you haven’t even taken the time to find out what happened to one
d. They would ask us if we knew what happened to the money and we would tell them
that it was their job to find out where the money went.
e. When you can tell me exactly where the money went, then and only then will I give
you an interview.
f. Not one reporter dared to expose what happened to the money as if it was a taboo
subject matter not allowed to be revealed.
2. Always trace the money. That is what the IRS and FBI do. See number 197,
“FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS “ A Financial Approach To Detecting And
The Worlds Most Exclusive Club
A. Three issues are in the forefront of American political debate:
1 . Campaign finance reform;
2. Reducing the size of the federal government;
3. Devolving power to the states and to the people.
B. The original framers of the Constitution were smart enough to have figured out
a way to meet all three of these objectives.
1 . The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, changed the way senators were elected, thus
negating much of the brilliance which created a fair balance of powers between the
federal and state branches of government developed by the original framers.
C. Originally, the United States senators were elected — two per state — by their
state legislatures; the 17th Amendment transferred their election to statewide at
1 . This reduced the power of the states, and created another legislative body having many
of the characteristics of the House of Representatives.
D. Repealing the 1 7th Amendment to the Constitution would have immediate
1 . It would eliminate the need for the huge Senate campaigns we have today.
2. Would make the role of state legislators far more important that it is today.
3. Reduce the power and size of the federal government.
E. The long-term effects of this change have resulted in unintended consequences.
1 . The shift of political power from state legislatures to the electorate resulted in an
increase in power by the House, which has sole authority to initiate all federal revenue
F. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate no longer represented
the interests of the states, but rather those of their electorates.
1 . Voters became less concerned about the qualifications of the members of their state
2. Electing federal senators who would respond directly to their views became a major
objective of the voters and their special interest groups.
3. We can identify a number of current and former senators who would have had little if
any change of being even nominated let alone being elected by the state legislature.
G. Each senator must raise a minimum of $20,000 per day during his or her six-
year term of office to wage a competitive campaign for re-election for
membership in what has been called "the world's most exclusive club.”
H. With the restoration of this part of the Constitution to its original design, states
would once again become a more equal partner with the federal government.
1 . Governors would be transformed from begging Cabinet-level federal bureaucrats for
money into effective executives.
I. Each citizen is far closer to his or her state's elected representatives than to
Washington, politically and geographically.
J. Senators elected by state legislatures would be more responsive to their state's
1. Asa result, U.S. senators would be better insulated from the almost daily pressures of
voters' shifting interests, and, freed from constant fund — raising chores, far better able to
focus on the Nation's long — term objectives.
2. The Senate's constitutional role of being the nation's watch dog over the piping hot
legislative broth drafted by the House is allowed to cool will be restored.
3. Would a state legislature re-elect a senator to term after term, especially with term limits
for state legislators?
K. Return the Senate to the states by repealing the 17th Amendment, liked they
repealed the 1 8th (Prohibition).
L. Start campaign finance reform by repealing the 1 7 th Amendment and restore
A Nation in Hock
A. The following information comes from the book “The Most Secret
Science” by Col. Archibald Roberts from Fort Collins, Colorado.
1 . Col. Roberts wrote this book in 1 984. He also published a short newsletter for a
number of years.
a. In other words he has many years of experience in this area and one of the
first people we found years ago who has reliable information in this area.
2. We are going to take you through just a few pages out of his book concerning the
Federal Reserve Bank Act of 1913.
3. Instead of using A, B, C, etc. like we usually do we are going to use numbers,
which will match the pages in the book starting on page 51 to page 64.
B. The following numbers are coordinated with the enclosed section from
the book “The most Secret Science”
1 . Read Thomas Edison’s famous quote several times to get the full grist of what he
is expounding about. “Both are promises to pay, but the one fattens the usurer
and the other helps the people.” WHO ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE
USURER OR THE PEOPLE?
2. This report was given on 7 March 1983 by Archibald Roberts concerning the
repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to the Idaho Senate Affairs Committee.
3. Here is a statement that many people have never heard before, “the State is
superior to its creature” and “all political power flows from the people.” The
trouble is that most people have been too dumb down in this simple
understanding of their substantive rights and the power they actually possess.
4. Yes, Federal Reserve notes are created out of the air. So why do they need to
have an income tax when they can print and waste all the reserve notes they want
5. Read number 133 on our literature list about America being actually bankrupt.
6. Read Article 1, section 8 of the constitution and what amendment did away with
the Congress control of our money supply. If congress got its nose out of state
right issues and start performing the way it was supposed to, then they would
have the time to control the money supply and not the Federal Reserve Bank.
7. This means private manipulation of our economy. We still have yet to get any of
these incorporation papers of any of these twelve member banks. If you have any
of these incorporation papers let us know.
8. “These funds are expended by the Federal Reserve System without an accounting
to the Congress.” Now here is one of the keys we feel of trying to ring in is to
give the General Accounting Office authority to do a accounting of the Federal
Reserve Bank itself and the twelve member banks after all they are using the
money, that is the credit of the government of Untied States. In 1993 Congress
gave authority to the GAO to Audit the IRS and their records were so bad that the
GAO had to give up. The GAO still cannot fully audit the IRS records. Read
number 130 on our literature list concerning the 2001-2002 Audit of the IRS by
the GAO. We would sure like to read the first Audit of the Federal Reserve
Bank, now that could be very interesting. So why doesn’t Congress mandate the
GAO audit the FRB? Could it be that they would be out on the street picking up
pop cans or selling pencils on a street corner if they ever did anything to upset the
9. The Fed uses your tax money to make and break government at will. We are not
just talking about IRS taxes but also many other type of taxes are also deposited
into the Fed including Social Security taxes with no GAO accounting of these
10. How can anybody or group run around the country claiming to be a sovereign
citizen. They have good intentions but its like they are sitting on the shore of the
Atlantic Ocean watching the waves, waiting for the sun to come up over the
ocean. What is wrong with that picture? We meet people all the time who think
they are a sovereign citizen because they filled a few papers in a courthouse. We
just try and to walk softly around them so we don’t burst their bubble. But the
new catch phrase has gone from sovereign citizen to “capturing their strawman”
or “incorporating their name.” There are actually people who believe that the
Strawman or incorporation their name is going to do something for them. From
what we have seen neither one of these will keep you out of jail.
1 1 . Those who run the media make sure these issues are never brought to the
forefront. We subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for several years and we
don’t remember any article that exposed or even mentioned the real rulers of
Wall Street. With trillions going through the FRB’s fingers no one ask where is
the money going and why is there no accounting of those collected funds?
12. Garrison admits that Paul Warburg from Germany who went on to marry Jacob
Schriff s daughter to which Jacob as the richest Jew in the United States at the
time, was acting upon the orders of Alfred Rothchild of London. Jacob and Paul
bragged about writing the Federal Reserve Act in Yiddish.
13. Here we want to get into reveling who exactly put up the funds to start the
Federal Reserve Bank in America. In Europe it is called, “The Central Bank.”
The way we remember these banks is that we put them in order like this:
a. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.
b. Isreal Moses Seif Banks of Italy
c. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
d. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris
e. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
f. Rockfellers, Chase Manhatten Bank of New York
g. Rothchild Bank of Londen and Berlin
h. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.
Now a word of warning when you start revealing these names to others or asking
specific questions about these banking families you may all of a sudden be called
anti-Semitic by the media as their way of trying to shut you up. When you start
laying out the fact of who is pulling the purse strings behind the scene the media
never rebuts the facts just tries to smear you.
14. Besides these eight banking families there are also 300 more people in on that
financial rapping of the American People. If you have the Articles of
Incorporation of the Federal Reserve Bank of 1913 please send us a copy.
15. President Andrew Jackson stood up against the setting up of a Central Bank in
America and was almost murdered over it. Abraham Lincoln was murdered by
John Wilks Both who it has been proved was a agent of the Central Bankers of
Europe and actually escaped to Italy, shot Lincoln because he chose to print
United States notes instead of borrowing those funds from European Central
Bankers. America operated from 1787 until 1913 without having a formal
Central Bank. Now we have an Internationally owed Central Bank, who not only
controls our money supply but also pulls the strings in other areas. The
American BAR (British Accreted Registry) Association with all the 54 state Bar
Associations and all the Country Bar Association have but one duty and that is to
protect their bread and butter. You guessed it the Federal Reserve Bank and all
their member banks.
16. Here is the court case “Lewis vs. United States” where the Ninth Circuit Stated
that the Federal Reserve is a private banking monopoly.
17. Monetary Control Act of 1980, which of course all of you have read gave the
FED control of all U.S. depository institutions. The acting president Jimmy
Carter a product of Rockfellers Chase Manhattan Bank and a bastard son of old
man Joe Kennedy did what JFK referred to do. Yes, Jimmy turned over our
entire economic system to the FED and appointed a board of directors who were
all ex-Rockfeller employees from New York instead of from each of the twelve
regions as was set forth in the FRB Act itself. With a board of directors made up
of all New York Yes Men to David Rockfeller; The entire West, Midwest, and
South had no say what-so-ever as to what the Eastern establishment banking
cortel did. Chase Bank made Billions in profit from Jimmy Carter’s decision,
which were actually the decisions of David Rockfeller. When Billy Carter and
his two sisters started to talk too much about Jimmy’s real past history, they were
killed by using the same old cancer trick. Samatha wrote a little book exposing
just a few items of Jimmy and her mothers past and she was killed and her book
destroyed so it would never make New York’s top ten list for non-fiction. When
Jimmy’s mother said the wrong things to the press, they packed her bags and sent
her to India and stuck her in a sanctuary with Mother Teresa and we never heard
from her again. Jimmy was nothing more then a Rockfeller Yes Boy with the
head wizard of the Rockfellers standing behind him, Henry Kissinger. Henry has
been telling every American President what to do from Dwight David
Eisenhower to George W. Bush, Jr. All David Rockfeller could say is “Thank
18. The Monetary Control Act gave the green light to greatly expand into all
economic areas without having to give an accounting of enterprises. They are
also able to create a boom or bust economy in any area of America they wish.
Certain insiders get to partake in this local boom or after a bust they come in and
buy up the local business and property to get ready for the boom. Let’s not forget
all the tax abatements they get from the local government while the older local
business get creamed with higher taxes. We have seen it in our county happen as
you probably happen in yours also.
19. The biggest trick of the FED that even David Copperfield can’t perform is that
the FED can “create money out of thin air.” If you try and create money out of
thin air it is called counterfeiting. When the FED does it, it is called a Federal
Reserve note. The Chase Manhattan Bank guidelines have accomplished the
centralization of all economic entities under control of the FED. We know that
you must really feel loved to know just how much control those bankers in
Europe maintain over you. Don’t forget that every check you write is cleared by
the FRB with both sides of your check being scanned so that many people in law
enforcement and ERS employees have instant access to your checks 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week.
20. Now we get to the nitty gritty of it all concerning the Monetary Control Act
allowed the FED to take over control of the debts of foreign countries secured by
the ability of the American taxpayers to pay up. If you don’t pay they send
swarms of agents of a foreign principle to come after you. They know that they
have the BAR Association under their control, which includes the Judges. They
know that they have the media under their control. They know that they have
control over the Grand jury by putting ringers on it to make sure they get an
indictment against anyone they wish. They know they have control over public
opinion because most people are so fearful of these powerbrokers even though
many hard working people bring home a little over 50 percent of their pay check.
They know they have control over all major corporations. They know they have
control over all International Labor Unions. They know they have control over
all lending institutions. Even with all this control millions of Americans are
standing up against them and flipping them off with little more then the shear
self-determination. Like those men who marched with General Washington on
Christmas Eve to surprise the British Hessen Troops at Trenton, New Jersey,
leaving their bloody footprints in the snow. Or like those men who stood with
Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. Yes, there are those American
Men and Women with backbone who realize something is vastly wrong and in
their erenst zeal fall victim to various traps that the Government sets out there.
Or they get taken in by used car salesmen who can take “SOS” and make it sound
like a seven course meal and get you to pay big bucks that in reality is only worth
a few cents. We see the results of this hype everyday as people call us and come
to see us deeply in trouble from doing something that sounded good at the time.
If it sounds too good to be true, then be very careful. Many people want to know
why we don’t do the power of Attorney form. The answer is that if someone
doesn’t want to learn to take some control over their own life then we can’t help
them or if they don’t want to help themselves how are we going to be able to help
them. This is one reason we have put out there 12 issues of the “VIP Dispatch” is
so that you can help yourself and then help others.
21. Fact sheet on the Monetary Control Act, Public Laws 96-221. We see were the
Federal Reserve now has blanket authority to purchase the debt of any sovereign
debtor and that debt is secured by the American Taxpayer. Now do you just see
why there cannot be an accounting of the FED? We should demand the same
should we say rights. But, most Americans fail to exercise those rights and have
chosen to support the Rothchild Feudalistic system instead. It’s just like Judge
Weber said in the Summons Dispatch, if everyone claimed the Fifth Amendment
on the 1040, it’s over. It is the American people’s choice, they can support
honest government or dishonest government and continue to support the FED.
22. Lets take a look at how changing just one phrase does in all the private lending
institutions. After all they have some of the best minds doing this to us that
money can buy.
23. This is just the list from 1981 through 1983. What is it today? Who is supplying
the funds to the FED to stick their nose in another country’s business?
A ‘solution’ to the
Federal Reserve ‘problem’.
The most secret knowledge, a science which outdates history, is the
science of control over people, governments and civilizations. The
foundation of this ultimate discipline is the control of wealth.
Archibald E. Roberts, Lt. Col., AUS, ret.
"If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can
issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the
bond good makes the bill good also. The
difference between the bond and the bill is that
the bond lets the money broker collect twice
the amount of the bond and an additional
20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort
provided by the Constitution, pays nobody but
those who contribute in some useful way. It is
absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and
cannot issue currency. Both are promises to
pay, but the one fattens the usurer and the
other helps the People. ”
A NATION IN HOCK
IDAHO TESTIMONY REVEALS FEDERAL RESERVE HAS LIEN
AGAINST ALL U.S. PROPERTY
Trillion dollar national debt, money borrowed by
the Federal government from the Federal Reserve
System, a private banking cartel, is a lien against
all property in the United States, both public and
private, constitutionalist tells panel investigating
cause for bankrupt society.
Solution is citizen participation in State demand
for repeal of Federal Reserve Act, restoring to
Congress power to ‘borrow money on credit of the
United States,’ and returning control of economy
to the people, speaker says.
On 7 March 1983 Archibald Roberts, Director,
Committee to Restore the Constitution, appeared
before the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee,
Honorable Walter H. Yarbrough, Chairman, to
testify in support of House Joint Memorial #3,
calling for repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of
Introduced by Representative Frank Findlay in
response to demand by thousands of irate Idaho
citizens, HJM #3 was adopted 46 to 22 by the
House of Representatives on 4 February.
Senate hearings of 7 March resulted in passage
by voice vote on 14 March, propelling Idaho into
ranks of states challenging the constitutionality of
the Federal Reserve Act.
State legislative action on the Federal Reserve
demonstrates a national movement of enormous
potential for reversing decline of the American
Following is a transcription from a live tape
recording of address by Col. Roberts, and
questions on the issue by Senate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate State
Affairs Committee, my name is Archibald
Roberts. 1 am a resident of Fort Collins. Colorado,
and the Director of the Committee to Restore the
Constitution. The Committee is a non profit
corporation. We are a political research and public
information organization. The thrust of the
Committee to Restore the Constitution. Mr.
Chairman and members, is to encourage support
of the Articles of the Constitution within the
borders of each State. The reason for that, of
course, is that the State is the principal under the
Constitution having created the Federal
government by the first three articles of the
Constitution. Since we are dealing with Principal
and Agent, it is clearly the responsibility of the
respective States, as Principals, to correct any
excesses of their Federal agencies in Washington,
D.C. And so, in the case of the Federal Reserve
Act, which we will show later in this presentation
to be unconstitutional, it will be our purpose to
support the resolution now before this Committee,
that is House Joint Resolution No. 3, calling for
repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
During the next few minutes, Mr. Chairman, 1
would like to present to the Committee the origins
of the national economic crisis. This, of course is
at the heart of any consideration for corrective
action. We will also reveal what we consider to be
the proper solution for these excesses by Federal
agencies, namely repeal of the Federal Reserve
Act of 1913.
Because the State is superior to its creature, it is
obviously the constitutional responsibility of
elected state officials, representing their
constituencies, to take whatever action is
necessary to enforce the articles of the
Constitution within the borders of the State of
Idaho. Of course, all political power flows from
the people. It is the responsibility of the individual
citizen, therefore, to bring to the attention of
elected officials violations of the Constitution, or
abridgements thereof, which threaten any of the
freedoms of persons or property guaranteed to the
people by the Constitution.
Now the issue of economic crisis.
I believe that the magnitude of this problem.
Mr. Chairman, was revealed by an Associated
Press story out of Washington dated the 24th of
June, 1982. The Treasury financial report of this
date stated that the Federal debt was
51,070,241,000,000. The Associated Press story
stated that Congress' limitation on the national
debt is the reason the Senate had raised the ceiling
to accommodate an anticipated budget deficit in
excess of 5100,000,000.000.
Mr. Chairman, we know now that since that
date the deficit has been raised substantially.
These are very grave conditions with a national
debt of over one trillion dollars and an estimated
deficit of 170 billion. Mr. Marvin Stone, Mr.
Chairman, the editor of U.S. News and World
Report, declared on the 28th of June, 1982, that
todays interest on the national debt is over 5100
billion annually, based on the trillion dollar
national debt. 5100 billion interest paid on the
national debt. The significance here of course, is
that the so-called trillion dollar debt is money
borrowed by the Federal government from the
Federal Reserve which is. as we will show, a
private banking establishment. Therefore, the
interest of 5 100 biilion paid on the national debt is
actually paid to the private banking cartel called
the Federal Reserve, and its Class A stockholders.
I think that Americans, and particularly the
people of Idaho should know to whom this trillion
dollars is owed, and who collects the 5100 billion
dollar interest payment which we have identified.
And finally, are America’s taxpayers actually
victims of a gigantic hoax. If the later is the case,
then we of course are dealing with a criminal
A clue to these questions is found in a United
Press International release which stated, and I
quote, “Panel to Decide U.S. Monetary Course.”
Panel meaning the Federal Reserve Panel. This is
a Rocky Mountain News article Mr. Chairman,
and it revealed that the Federal Reserve Open
Market Committee is the policy making body of
the Federal Reserve System. Therefore, this
Committee sets the course of the U.S. economy. It
sets the interest rates on all money loaned by the
banks and trickles down to the other lending
agencies. It also, of course, determines the amount
of Federal Reserve notes in circulation, which are
not based on anything of value but are created out
of thin air. It determines the stock market action,
whether it will be up or down, and other factors
which have a direct bearing on whether
Americans and the citizens of Idaho will live in a
bankrupt or a prosperous society. We are now-
living in a bankrupt society directly due to the
manipulation of credit and the volume of currency-
put into circulation by the Federal Reserve
I think it would be prudent to follow this lead
which we have uncovered to deterinine how it
affects individuals involved in the lawmaking
process, and of course, their constituents living in
the State of Idaho.
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee,
1 testified on the Federal Reserve System before
the Wisconsin State Affairs Committee in
Madison, Wisconsin on 30 March 1971. The title
of my address was "The Secret Government of
Monetary Power." This address was placed in the
Congressional Record on the 19th of April, 1971,
under the title "The Most Secret Science."
Extracts of the Madison speech have a direct
bearing on today's economic ills and explain how a
secret government of monetary power did seize
control of the Federal government in 1913. Since
that time, Americans have existed at the whim of
those who control the economy through the
Federal Reserve System.
Before we examine this particular part of the
presentation Mr. Chairman, it would be well to
agree on the authority, the Law, affecting the
economic situation in the United States. Mr.
Chairman, the Constitution is very specific about
control of the economy and the fiscal process of
the United States. Article 1, section 8, directs that
the Congress is authorized to borrow money on
the credit of the United States, and to coin money
and regulate the value thereof. Federal Agents,
Mr. Chairman, are prohibited from modifying the
Constitution or to transfer these vast powers to a
private banking cartel. There is no authority in the
Constitution permitting such usurpation of power.
Later in this presentation, Mr. Chairman, we’ll
show how the State of Arizona, acting on this
authority, that is the quoted authority of the
Constitution, memorialized the President and
Congress to rescind the Federal Reserve Act, as
the resolution before this Committee proposes to
The Federal Reserve, as we have pointed out
previously, is not a government agency. It is a
private banking cartel. This is the crux of the issue.
I think it might be pertinent therefore, Mr.
Chairman, to examine the authority which the
Federal Reserve itself declares established its legal
status. This authority is quoted in a statement
submitted to Congressman Wright Patman, who
was then Banking and Currency Board Chairman,
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. This statement was made the 14th of
yfT\ April, 1952, and is as applicable today as it was
\y then. 1 quote,<"The twelve Federal Reserve Banks
of the Federal Reserve Board are corporations set
up by Federal law to operate for public purposes
and are placed under government supervision.”
The Board further advised Mr. Patman, and again
1 quote, "The Board of Governors was created by
Congress and is a part of the government of the
United States. Its members,” they said assuringly,
"are appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate and it,” that is the Fed,
"has been held by the Attorney General to be a
Mr. Patman retorted to these rather impressive
claims and exploded the myth that the Federal
Reserve acts with legality as a public servant. Mr.
Patman stated, "There is no free market that can
cope with a national debt of $272 billion dollars,
(This was in 1952. We are now well over one
trillion dollars in debt as a result of the
manipulation of the Federal Reserve) with 85
billion of it to be refunded within one year. The
free market,” he said, “means private
manipulation of private credit.”
As we have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, private
manipulation of public credit is the purpose and
objective of the Federal Reserve. I invite your
attention again, Mr. Chairman and members, to
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution which
declares that only the Congress can “borrow
money on the credit of the United States.” But in
fact, as Mr. Patman pointed out, the objective of
the private Federal System is to borrow money on
the public credit of the United States in violation
of prohibitions of the Constitution.
Then Congressman Patman revealed the
contradiction in this Federal Reserve claim of
government agency status, and explained how the
Fed generates illegitimate profits for its members. I
quote, “The Open Market Committee of the
Federal Reserve System is composed of seven
members of the Board of Governors and five
members who are presidents of Federal Reserve
banks, and who are directed by private
commercial banking interests. The Open Market
Committee has the power to obtain, and does
obtain, the printed money of the United States
(Federal Reserve Notes) (free) from the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing. The Fed exchanges these
printed notes,” the Federal Reserves notes, "which
are not, of course, interest bearing, for
government obligations which are interest
This is how interest is generated on the Federal
debt, the one trillion dollar Federal debt; $100
billion interest. And then Mr. Patman explained,
“The interest bearing obligations are retained by
the 12 Federal Reserve banks and the interest
collected annually on these government
obligations goes to the funds of the 12 Federal
Then Mr. Patman exploded the myth that the
Federal Reserve System is an instrumentality of
the Federal government. “These funds." that is
interest paid on the national debt to the Federal
Reserve banks, “these funds are expended by the
Federal Reserve System without an accounting to
the Congress. In fact, there has never been an
independent audit of any of the 12 Federal
Reserve banks or by the Federal Reserve Board
that has been made available to the Congress,
where members of the Congress would have an
opportunity to inspect it. The General Accounting
Office,” Mr. Patman pointed out, “does not have
jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve. For 40
years,” (that was in 1952), “for 40 years the
System while freely using the money, that is the
credit of the government of the United States, has
not made a proper accounting.”
An even more damning indictment of the
Federal Reserve System was made by the late
Lewis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Banking
and Currency Committee, United States Congress.
Mr. McFadden stated, “Every effort has been
made by the Fed to conceal its power, but the
truth is the Fed has usurped the government and it
controls everything here (in Congress) and it
controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and
breaks governments at will."
(jd) Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that when the
power to control money is transferred from the
people to a private banking monopoly, as it is now
proven the case in America, that the sovereignty
of the people is surrendered too. Control of wealth
confers upon those who control it final decision in
the domestic and international affairs of nations.
n/\ When an invisible government of monetary power
^ usurps the coin of the realm, the people are
disfranchised and real political authority is
transferred into the hands of a financial
aristocracy. Mr. Chairman, I believe that an
invisible government of monetary power will
continue to control the American destiny and the
lives of the people until informed citizens
dismantle the Federal Reserve System.
As I suggested at the beginning of this
presentation, Mr. Chairman and members, we do
have good news. Returning America to fiscal
sanity and political responsibility has already
begun. We believe that the first State to introduce
legislation challenging the constitutionality of the
Federal Reserve Act is Arizona. The 21st of
January. 1982 is perhaps the most significant date
of this century. On this date members of the
Arizona State Legislature, in both the House and
Senate, memorialized the President and Congress
to enact such legislation as is necessary to repeal
the Federal Reserve Act. The Arizona resolution
is identical to the proposal now before this
I quote from a statement made by
Representative D. Lee Jones, principal sponsor of
the Arizona resolution. “We are determined to
oust the Federal Reserve System out and away
from our national pocketbook.”
Asserting that only the Congress has the power
to borrow money on the credit of the United
States, and to coin money and regulate the value
thereof, Arizona lawmakers, by a booming
majority, affirmed that Congress is without
authority to delegate these powers to private
Again I quote the Arizona resolution. “The
United States,” they warned, “is facing in the
current decade an economic debacle of massive
proportions due in large measure to a continuing
erosion of our national currency and the resulting
high interest rates caused by policies of the Federal
Mr. Chairman, quick to follow the Arizona
lead, the following States also introduced
companion resolutions: Washington State, Utah,
Nebraska, Alabama, Indiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Montana. All
challenging the constitutionality of the Federal
Reserve Act. Since that time we have had
additional states join this most important
movement. The latest of these being the state of
Arkansas, where I testified before the Arkansas
State Affairs Committee on the 15th of February
and endorsed their resolution to rescind the
Federal Reserve Act.
Without quoting any of the points of the
Arkansas action I merely point out that it is the
same resolution as is before this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this very brief
presentation we have pointed out ttyree important
factors for consideration by this panel. First, the
trillion dollar national debt is not owed to
ourselves as government handouts would have
you believe. It is owed to a private banking
monopoly, the Federal Reserve System.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the national debt is a
lien against all property in the United States both
public and private. Two, interest on the national
debt, which is over S 1 00 billion for this year, S 1 1 5
billion as a matter of fact, is paid to the Class A
stockholders of the Federal Reserve System, a
private banking monopoly. Three, the Federal
Reserve Open Market Committee, that is the
policy making body of the Federal Reserve
System, determines interest rates, sets the volume
of Federal Reserve notes in circulation, controls
the stockmarket and rules on other public
economic factors which determine whether
Americans will live in a prosperous or a bankrupt
society. We have also found, Mr. Chairman, that
the Federal Reserve System, which is the source of
our economic crisis, exists outside the Law; that is,
in violation of prohibitions of the Constitution.
Being in violation of the Constitution, Mr.
Chairman, it must be put down. I believe, Mr.
Chairman, that, the issue is clearly before us.
Survival is not a spectator sport but requires the
attention and consideration of all concerned
Americans. This is the reason why 1 have been
invited by your constituency to appear and
present some of the facts behind the Federal
Reserve System for your consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I invite questions if it is your
Chairman Yarbrough: Thank you, Colonel. Is
there a question?
Q: Mr. Chairman and Colonel Roberts, I was
reading your Bulletin Committee to Restore the
Constitution on the second page it refers to a court
case, John L. Lewis v. the United States of
America. Where the U.S. Court of Appeals held
that the Reserve banks are independent, privately
owned and locally controlled corporations. That
being the case and considering the considerable
damage that is being cited as being done to the
citizens of this great State, wouldn't it be possible
within our laws to have our own Attorney
General file suit against them for reparation of
some of the damages done to the citizens?
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, members, sir: Indeed
this is one of the options available to members of
this body, and we certainly would encourage such
an investigation inasmuch as the Court has. in
fact, found that the Federal Reserve is a private
corporation, and therefore operates for the profit
of its members, its member banks and the
stockholders of these banks.
Q: Mr. Chairman. Colonel Roberts, then if 1
understand you correctly, you would view the
urging of this legislative body to reintroduce
perhaps a concurrent resolution that would ask
the Attorney General of the State of Idaho to file
suit in the appropriate court against the Federal
Reserve System, or the Reserve banks, perhaps I
should differentiate there, so that we might indeed
recover damages for what we suffer.
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, members, sir. This is,
of course, a later option in our opinion. The reason
we believe it a later option is, number one, that it is
our responsibility, first, to clarify the Law. Well,
the Law is the Constitution, therefore, we must, in
our opinion, go to the Congress with petitions
from the various states demanding repeal of the
Federal Reserve Act to clarify the Law. Once this
action is under consideration, it is very feasible to
then bring such action. However, in the case of
the State of Washington, Mr. Chairman, sir, the
action was, as you suggested, taken by one of the
senators (Senator Jack Metcalf) in the State of
Washington. However, the Attorney General of
the State of Washington recommended with-
holding action on this case until such time as
additional States entered into a supporting
movement. So this is really a first step, in our
opinion, to present, first, the clear cut statement of
the State of Idaho that there is violation of the
Constitution. Then when we have a sufficient
number of States, and we already have 16
involved, so when we have a sufficient number of
States to support such action as bringing a legal
case, then we are obviously in a much better
position. Thank you very much.
Q: Mr. Chairman, Just one more. Colonel
Roberts, I have one case before the Supreme
Court now I am in no hurry to start another one.
You spoke about the size of the deficit, are you
able to recall those, or do you have in print the
various deficits for different years?
ROBERTS: No, I don't have that list before me.
but certainly we could find it. The deficits are
obviously mounting in proportion to the increased
money borrowed by the government from the
Federal Reserve System. So it is a variable of an
ever increasing size, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarbrough: Any other questions?
Q: Mr. Chairman, Colonel Roberts, would you be
providing stockholding members of the Federal
Reserve System by name?
ROBERTS: I think first. Mr. Chairman, it would
be helpful to identify the origins of the Federal
Reserve System itself. Very briefly, without going
into a lot of historical background, we can quote
Coionel Ely Garrison who was a friend and
financial advisor to President Theodore Roosevelt
and President Woodrow Wilson, who was
President at the time the Federal Reserve Act was
passed. In his autobiographical book which is
entitled, Roosevelt. Wilson and the Federal
Reserve Act. Garrison wrote, and 1 quote, “Mr.
Paul Warburg was the man who got the Federal
Reserve Act together after the Aldrich plan
aroused such nationwide resentment and
opposition. The master mind of both plans,"
declared Garrison, “was Alfred Rothschild of
London," end of quote.
Now to identify the real owners of the Federal
Reserve which is your question sir, . . . Mr.
Chairman, I would like to quote from sources
from Switzerland and Saudi Arabia who were
queried on the real owners of the Federal Reserve.
Mr. Chairman and sir, we do not mean the
managers of the twelve Federal Reserve banks
who merely run the banks for the owners, the real
owners. Nor do we mean the members of the
Federal Reserve Board who merely make
decisions in line and in consonance with the
directions they receive from the real owners of the
Federal Reserve. We certainly don’t mean those
who sit on the Open Market Committee of the
Federal Reserve which we mentioned earlier in
this presentation. We mean the real owners of the
Federal Reserve. Mr. Chairman, this has been the
best kept secret of this century. And it is the best
kept secret because of a proviso on passage of the
Federal Reserve Act. It was agreed that no
information would be released on the Class A
stockholders of the Federal Reserve. But, a Mr.
R.E. McMaster, publisher of a newsletter. The
Reaper, asked his - Swiss and Saudi Arabian
contacts which banks hold controlling interest in
the Federal Reserve System. This was the answer
received, and I quote, “Owner number one,
/3) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Owner
' s -' / number two, Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris;
Owner number three, Israel Moses Seif Banks of
Italy; Owner number four, Warburg Bank of
Hamburg and Amsterdam; Owner number five,
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York; Owner
number six, Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York;
Owner number seven. Chase Manhattan Bank of
New York." Mr. Chairman, it is the Chase
Manhattan Bank which controls all of the other
eleven Federal Reserve Banks. Finally, "Owner
number eight, Goldman, Sachs Bank of New
Mr. Chairman, sir. there are approximately
three hundred people, all known to each other and
sometimes related to one another, who hold stock
or shares in the Federal Reserve System. They
comprise an interlocking, international banking
cartel of wealth beyond comprehension.
Q: You mentioned Class A stockholders. Now
who would they be? The same bank members?
ROBERTS; These are the three hundred, sir, Mr.
Chairman. These are the same three hundred that
I mentioned at the end of this presentation who
are Class A stockholders. We are in the process, of
course, of seeking to identify these by name and
address, but you can understand the difficulty of
such investigative process. In fact, we are still in
the process of locating the Articles of
Incorporation of the Federal Reserve at the time it
was passed in 1913. Again, we are obviously
confronted by a massive wall of silence. So it is a
difficult task. But nonetheless, we have made
some breaches in their defense.
Q; What are the names of those eight members. I
didn't get a chance to write them down.
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, sir, the listed names of
the banks which own the Federal Reserve in the
United States are in the copy of my presentation
left with your secretary.
Q: Mr. Chairman, sir, supposing we had enough
states to ratify this proposition and we stalled and
curtailed the Federal Reserve Board. Do we have
a plan where we could continue business as usual?
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the question, of
course is a very explicit one and that is that it
really asks are we able to continue operating the
economy without the Federal Reserve. I would
point out, Mr. Chairman, sir, that the United
States of America operated until 1913 without the
service of the Federal Reserve through the
existing agencies of government which still exist
and function today. But the real control has been
usurped from these agencies, authorized under the
Constitution, and their power has been limited to
merely approving what decisions are made by the
owners of the Federal Reserve. So to answer your
question, of course we'd continue the economy,
but without paying the horrendous interest rates
to the owners of the Federal Reserve. I would
point out further, Mr. Chairman, that it would be
our objective to repudiate the one trillion dollar
national debt because it is not owed to us, it is
owed to the Federal Reserve System. Since the
Federal Reserve System, Mr. Chairman, is a
criminal conspiracy, the ill-gotten gains, this
trillion dollar debt, a lien against all private
property in the United States, obviously is a
criminal act against the people of the United
Chairman Yarbrough: Any further questions? If
not Colonel. 1 believe there has always been a
question involved in a lot of minds whether or not
the Federal Reserve Board is a government agency
or a private agency. Has there not been a recent
court case to that effect.
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman and members, the
March 1983 CRC Bulletin produces in its entirety
the Court decision to which you refer. This is,
Lewis v. the United States, Court Case number
80-5905, United States Court of Appeals, Nine
Circuit Court, San Francisco, 19th of April, 1982.
The entire text is reprinted so that there would be
no question as to the finding, the ruling of the
Court. The Court specifically stated that the
Federal Reserve is a private banking monopoly.
Chairman Yarbrough: One further question along
these same lines. Has this been appealed to the
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, members, we do not
have any record of appeal. If there is to be an
appeal, and possibly there will be, then we’ll bring
that out later. I think the finding speaks for itself,
and this is really the issue we want to bring out.
With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to add one more thing to the evidence before
this body, and that_is the Monetary Control Act of
1980 which is, of course, an authority passed by
the Congress allegedly placing all economic
organizations under control of the Federal
Reserve System. First, Mr. Chairman, it brings all
U.S. depository institutions under the authority of
the Federal Reserve System which is, as we have
pointed out. an international banking cartel. Two,
it expands the definition of collateral for Federal
Reserve credit and Federal Reserve notes in
circulation. This means that any asset the Fed can
purchase on the open market can be used as an
asset against such borrowing. The cartel thus, as I
have pointed out. has a lien against all property in
the United States, because all of the banking
institutions and lending institutions under the
Federal Reserve today use their collateral as
authority to create money out of thin air. This,
then, is the means by which the internationalists
have placed their control over all real estate of the
United States, and, of course, all individuals who
own private property of any kind.
For example, the Feds can now purchase such
collateral as FHA and VA backed mortgages or
corporate debt obligations. Also, the Fed can now
bail out Chrysler, as it did, and any other
corporation, by buying all of the commercial paper
of that corporation. Therefore, the Fed controls
the American economy and American industry
through this technique. Also, the Fed can bail out
the Chase Manhattan Bank, City Bank, or any
other bank with the acception of federally backed
mortgages from such banks. That is, irresponsible
bank loans, foreign and domestic, as we have seen,
through the activity of the Federal Reserve and
the International Monetary Fund. They are able
to bail out bankrupt foreign governments, placing
the burden of repayment for those bad loans upon
the backs of the American taxpayer.
Chairman Yarbrough: One further question. 1
think history teaches us when most every
government went on paper money, off of a gold
standard or silver standard, got in trouble. And
knowing politicians pretty well, if we eliminated
the Federal Reserve and gave that authority to
Congress of the United States, unless we did go on
a gold standard or have something behind the
money to back it up, do you suppose we, in a short
time, we’d be in worse shape than we are in now?
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, of course, we are
speaking about violations of the Law, and
therefore, a criminal conspiracy. So it is not an
option of whether or not we will continue with the
Federal Reserve. It is a matter of whether we are
to enforce the Constitution. The Constitution is
not a constitution of convenience, it is not what
people may want to make it from day to day. It is
very specific and, as we quoted in the early part of
this presentation. Article 1, section 8 of the
Constitution is very clear on the responsibility of
Congress to control fiscal activity of the United
States through the apparatus established by the
Congress. Therefore, the action of returning
control of the economy to the American people
through the Congress, as is proper under the
Constitution, is a requirement. Either that, or we
abolish the Constitution. Now 1 think it is clear
that once we are in a position to control our own
destiny by controlling the economy through the
existing agencies now available, voiding and
rescinding the Federal Reserve Act. that we go
back to the same system which gave us the most
powerful and most prosperous nation in the world,
the United States of America. America is a free
economy and became a free economy because of
the Revolutionary War, which was not a war
merely against the tax on tea imports, but rather it
was a war against Thread Needle Street, the
British debit money system imposed upon the
colonists in violation of their free will. That was
the real reason for the Revolutionary War.
Q: Could you give us a little broader base in
particular on the Monetary Deregulation Act of
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, sir, the Monetary
Control Act of 1980 is available in your reference
library, 1 am sure. Its purpose was to bring
together under the authority, alleged authority, of
the Federal Reserve System, all lending agencies
of the United States, as well as the banks which
must operate in conformity with Chase
Manhattan Bank guidelines. This Act, in fact, was
responsible for a very powerful, silent revolution
in the economy, and in the banking world of the
United States. It did prepare and accomplished the
consolidation or centralization of all economic
factors in the United States under control of the
Federal Reserve itself. The Federal Reserve,
therefore, controls not only the twelve Federal
Reserve Banks, but also all of the lending
institutions in the United States. As we mentioned
earlier, the mortgages held by these lending
agencies are part and parcel of the credit controls
upon which the Federal Reserve now exercises its
alleged authority to create money out of thin air.
It is a real lien against all private property in the
United States, as well as Federal property, I might
Chairman Yarbrough: Any other questions? If
not, I have one more. You say we can't get the
stockholders in the Federal Reserve. Now if it is a
Federal institution, as we have been lead to believe
over these years, under the Freedom of
Information Act, which was passed at a later date,
should not that make all information of
stockholders and such available to any person in
the United States who wanted it?
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what
we are doing. Several months ago 1 presented a
request to several Congressmen in Washington
quoting the Freedom of Information Act and
asking, number one, for a copy of the Articles of
Incorporation of the Federal Reserve System. The
Articles of Incorporation obviously would have to
list the owners at that point. It would not
necessarily, however, have to list the foreign
owners. So we are working in both directions.
That is, we want to secure a copy of the Articles of
Incorporation to identify the domestic owners, but
at the same time we are seeking further expansion
of the identification of the owners of these eight
banks, and the three hundred stockholders who
actually own the Federal Reserve System in the
United States. So, yes, we are working 'in this
direction. As a matter of fact, it would be my
assumption, sir, that the State of Idaho, in its
highest sovereign capacity, would have a higher
authority to bring pressure upon your
representatives in Congress than does the
Committee to Restore the Constitution. This
would be an excellent avenue of investigation.
Chairman Yarbrough: Any further questions?
Q: What about bank deposits insured by a Federal
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, sir. Since all banks are
controlled or owned by the Federal Reserve
System obviously it would be very risky to permit
any independent agency of government to be
without supervision of the Federal Reserve,
because then the entire System would be at risk.
So obviously all of these agencies, including the
insurance procedure which you noted are part of
the Fed control mechanism which we have
outlined here today.
Chairman Yarbrough: I have a question. I
understand the big banks are taking money to
Mexico. Brazil, and all the developing nations. Are
they responsible in case of default, or is the United
ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, under the provisions
of the Monetary Control Act, as we pointed out.
all of the foreign debts granted by the various
banks are all based upon the ability of the
American taxpayer to pay. All of these debts,
under this alleged authority, are subject to
monetization. That is, the tremendous Mexican
debt, which you pointed out, can be monetized
and declaring that it now is a responsibility of the
Federal government to collect. Therefore, the
taxpayers become subject to paying not only the
interest on these horrendous debts, but also the
principal. This is one of the aspects of the Control
Act of 1980 which is so ominous. The
International Monetary Fund is exercising that
alleged authority to place the burden of
repayment, not on the resources of the host
company. Mexico, in this case, but on the backs of
the American taxpayers.
Chairman Yarbrough: Thank you. Any further
questions? If not. Colonel, we thank you very
ROBERTS: Thank you. sir. it's an honor.
STATE OF IDAHO
MEMORIAL TO REPEAL
FEDERAL RESERV E ACT
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
FIRST REGULAR SESSION-1983
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 3
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL
To the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the
United States in Congress assembled, and to the
Congressional Delegation representing the
State of Idaho in the Congress of the United
We, your Memorialists, the House of
Representatives and the Senate of the State of
Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of
the Forty-seventh Idaho Legislature, do hereby
respectfully represent that:
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United
States vests in the Congress of the United States
the supreme power “to coin money, regulate the
value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the
standard of weights and measures;” and
WHEREAS, Congress passed the Federal
Reserve Act in 1913 and thereby abdicated its
duty to fix a constant lawful value for United
States money; and
WHEREAS, the national debt in 1913 was less
than two billion dollars while the national debt in
1983 exceeds one trillion dollars; and
WHEREAS, the people of Idaho are suffering
from the effects of high unemployment and the
recession, which has been caused principally by
high interest rates; and
WHEREAS, the control of interest rates by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board
has led the Nation down a course toward
economic calamity: and
WHEREAS, section 19, of the Federal Reserve
Act specifically precludes the State of Idaho from
effectively legislating or enacting any lawful
ceiling for interest rates charged by the Federal
Reserve, thereby immunizing banks and bankers
from any threat of civil or criminal liability for
interest rates charged; and
WHEREAS, the United States Government
owns no stock in the Federal Reserve System, and
the Federal Reserve, as such, is not a government
agency, and is, in fact, a monopoly entirely
independent of U.S. Government control absent
direct legislative action by the Congress.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
the members of the First Regular Session of the
Forty-seventh Idaho Legislature, the House of
Representatives and the Senate concurring
therein, that the United States Congress enact
legislation providing for the immediate repeal of
the Federal Reserve Act and place back in the
Congress the power to regulate the value of
United States money.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief
Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she
is hereby authorized and directed to forward
copies of this Memorial to the President of the
United States, the President of the United States
Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of Che United States in Congress
assembled and the congressional delegation
representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of
the United States.
FACT SHEET ON THE MONETARY CONTROL ACT, PUBLIC LAW 96-221
Prepared by Dr. Ron Paul, Member of Congress, 23 March 1983
On March 31. 1980 President Carter signed the
Depository Institutions Deregulation and
Monetary Control Act, Public Law 96-221. The
Law consists of nine titles, most of which are
unobjectionable. But the first title is not, yet it is
the first title that went largely une.xamined — and
even unnoticed — when the House and the Senate
debated the final version of the Act. That title
1 . The Federal Resen e is given control over all
depository institutions, not just its own members.
Credit unions, savings and loans, savings banks,
and nonmember commercial banks are chafing
under the burdens imposed by the Monetary
Control Act. The Federal Reserve's direct control
over financial institutions expanded from
coverage of about 3000 institutions to about
2. Resene requirements are to be lowered over
several years. This means that banks will be able to
create more money out of thin air, aided and
abetted by the Federal Reserve. Also, the Federal
Reserve can now lower reserve requirements to
3. The Federal Resene can print unlimited
quantities of Federal Resene notes and store them
in their vaults. All collateral requirements for
“vault cash" were abolished. Collateral is required
only when such notes are actually issued by the
Federal Reserve banks.
4. The Federal Resene can issue more paper
money because it can now use virtually any of its
assets as collateral for circulating notes. Such
assets include debts issued by sewer commissions,
municipalities, and irrigation districts, for
5. The Federal Resen e can monetize foreign
debt by buying "obligations of. or fully guaranteed
as to principal and interest by. a foreign
government or agency thereof."
6. The Federal Resen e can further inflate by
using this foreign debt as collateral for issuing
Federal Resen e notes. In fact the Fed has done
this on at least 139 occasions, from April 1981 to
January 1983, as you will see from the tables at
the end of this paper.
Because of the vast inflationary and bailout
potential of section 105(b) (2) of Title 1 of Public
Law 96-221, 1 have introduced a bill. H.R. 876, to
repeal that section.
Under that section, the Federal Reserve is given
blanket authority to purchase the debt of any
sovereign debtor. There is no language, either in
the Act itself or in its scant legislative history, that
restricts the number of governments from which
the Federal Reserve can purchase debt.
Further, there is no restrictive language in the
Act itself or in its virtually non-existent legislative
history that restricts the Federal Reserve in what
it may use to purchase the debt of foreign
governments. The Federal Reserve has always
maintained that (1) it would never purchase the
debt of Third World nations and (2) that it would
purchase debt only with the currencies of
countries which it already holds as a result of its
foreign exchange operations. Such a position is
irrelevant: The Federal Reserve may have the best
of intentions, but intentions and legal authority
are two quite different things. It is the granting of
this power that must be rescinded, and if the
Federal Reserve really does have good intentions,
it ought to support H.R. 876, for the bill would
simply make the law conform to the Fed's good
The House Subcommittee on Domestic
Monetary Policy is circulating a memorandum on
the Monetary Control Act (MCA) that is seriously
It says, for example, that ~. . . section 1 05(b) (2)
. . . allows the Federal Reserve to purchase short
term securities of a foreign government." The
statement is true, but misleading. The MCA does
allow the Fed to purchase short-term securities.
and also medium and long-term securities. The.
actual language of section 105(b) (2) permits the
Federal Resene to buy and sell, at home or
abroad, ''obligations of. or fully guaranteed as to
principal and interest by. a foreign government or
agency thereof "
The MCA says nothing about short-term or
long-term securities. The Fed is simply empowered
to purchase all and any obligations of a foreign
government or agency without regard to their
maturities. The Subcommittee's statement is
incomplete on several counts: (1) All maturities,
not merely short-term securities, are involved:
(2) agencies of foreign governments, as well as the
governments themselves, are involved: (3)
obligations guaranteed by foreign governments or
their agencies are involved. While the Fed has
repeatedly rolled over the short-term securities it
has purchased, the purchase of long-term
securities would signal an actual attempt to use
section 105(b) as a device to bailout both foreign
governments and overextended Li.S. banks.
Second, the Subcommittee memorandum says
that section 105(b) (2) was “Inserted during the
House-Senate Conference with unanimous
consent upon the motion of Chairman Proxmire
. . But the Senator's office has repeatedly denied
that the provision was inserted on the Senator's
motion. In fact, according to the Senator’s staff, it
was the House Republican members of the
Conference Committee who offered the motion on
behalf of the Federal Reserve. The House
Committee, I was astounded to learn, has no
records of the Conference proceedings.
Third, the memorandum states that “. . . the
controversy over this section has been derived
from great misunderstanding and mischievious
(sic) intent” I do not believe that I have
misunderstood the provision — it is really quite
clear — and my only intent is to limit the broad
power conferred on the Fed by this section of the
Fourth, the memorandum reads: “Contrary to
some beliefs, this provision was not put in by
Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker since only
Representative and Senators can be conferees."
Whose beliefs are these? Chairman Volcker did
request this provisioriln his testimony before the
Senate Banking Committee in September 1979.
and, as noted above, the Representatives who
allegedly offered the motion at the Conference
Committee were acting on behalf of the Federal
Fifth, and most important, the memorandum
shifts the debate: “There is no intention to permit
the United States Government, through the
actions of its Federal Reserve System, to subsidize
any country, any central bank, or buy the debt of
any financially troubled nation.”
The central issue is not one of intent or
intentions, despite the memorandum's interest in
these things. The matter is one of authority
conferred by Congress in the Act itself, and that
authority is unlimited. Nowhere does the Act say
that subsidies to any country or bank are illegal. It
does say that the Fed may purchase the debt of
any country, or any agency of any country, with
any acceptable medium of exchange. The entire
“legislative history” of this provision is as follows:
... the Federal Reserve Act already
permits us to hold foreign bank deposits and
bills of exchange: it would be helpful to us
operationally if short-term foreign
government securities could be added to our
authorized holdings — an omission at the
time of the original Federal Reserve Act
when such securities were not widely
available. (Paul Volcker, September 26,
1979, Testimony before the Senate Banking
This paragraph is the first mention of allowing
the Fed to use foreign government assets as
collateral, and only 19 words of the paragraph
refer to the Fed’s ability to purchase foreign
government securities. There were no questions
from the Senators on the issue, and the provision
requested by Chairman Volcker was not added to
the Senate bill. Neither did it appear in the House
bill; it was added to the Conference Report, and
the House had to adopt a special rule for
consideration of the Conference Report, since the
Report contained new material and the conferees
exceeded their authority.
The next mention of the provision allowing the
Fed to purchase the securities of foreign
governments and use them as collateral for
Federal Reserve notes occurred on March 27,
1980. In his explanation of the Conference
Report. Senator Proxmire said:
It (the Monetary Control Act) also
authorizes the Federal Reserve to purchase
and sell obligations issued by foreign
Under existing statutory authority, the
Federal Reserve, in the course of its normal
activities in the foreign exchange markets
from time to time acquires balances in
foreign currencies. Under present
arrangements there is no convenient way in
which foreign currency balances held by the
Fed can be invested to earn interest.
The Monetary Control Act would amend
section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act to
provide a vehicle whereby such foreign
currency holdings could be invested in
obligations of foreign governments and
thereby earn interest. This authority would
be used only to purchase such obligations
with foreign currencies balances acquired by
the Federal Reserve in the normal course of
(By this statement, the Congress was led to
believe that this provision was needed so that the
Fed could conveniently earn interest on its foreign
exchange holdings. But the Fed could then, and
now is, earning interest on these holdings by
depositing them in interest-bearing bank accounts.
The excuse given for this provision - to earn
interest - is misleading. The Fed did and does earn
interest on the foreign currencies it holds without
buying foreign debt.)
There is no mention of section 105(b) (2) in the
Conference Report on H.R. 4986.
Those three paragraphs are the entire
“legislative history” of this provision. Nothing
appears in any House document; no testimony
was taken on the provision; and no mention of the
provision was made during the House debate on
the Conference Report. It is this scant “legislative
history” that, we are told, overrides the explicit
language of the Act itself. But intentions are not
law, and the intentions of the legislature are useful
only when the law is ambiguous. Unfortunately,
there is nothing ambiguous about section 105(b)
(2) of the Monetary Control Act.
On June 25, F981 Chairman Volcker testified
before the House Banking Committee:
Rep. Paul: "1 am concerned about the
Fed's legal ability to do it (use
foreign debt as collateral)."
Chrm. Volcker: “I think we can use it as
collateral, that is correct as
many other assets we can use
Rep. Paul: “A Brazilian bond or a Polish
bond, you could use this as
Chrm. Volcker: “We only do this when we
acquire a balance in the
ordinary course of our foreign
exchange operations. We
don't have any foreign
exchange operations with
Brazil, so the issue does not
arise in that case, and we
would not use the authority to
just go out and buy."
Rep. Paul: “I understand, you would not
use it. 1 am still back to the
long-term legal concern
whether you could or could
not if you decided to."
Chrm. Volcker: “1 guess in connection with
the legal concern there's my
recollection that there is
nothing in that provision that
would theoretically stop it
except the legislative history
which is quite clear. Whether
there is any other authority in
the Federal Reserve Act that
would authorize us to simply
buy securities of foreign
countries at random or
whatever, and I’m not quite
sure under which general
authority that approach could
come, but that provision itself
does not constrain us. ”
The law is clear, and the legislative history is
legally irrelevant. The question is not what the
present Governors of the Fed intend to do. but
what they and future Governors are empowered
to do. We might not always have such trustworthy
men at the Fed as we have now.
Finally, the memorandum states that “The
legislation nowhere makes Fed membership
mandatory." That is true, but incomplete. What
the MCA does is make Fed membership
superfluous, for it amends the original Federal
Reserve Act by striking out the phrase “ 'member
bank’ each place it appears therein and inserting in
lieu there ‘depository institution.’ "
In conclusion, the memorandum offers no
evidence to contradict the statement that the
Monetary Control Act of 1980 empowered the
Federal Reserve to purchase the obligations of
foreign governments, or obligations fully
guaranteed by foreign governments, and use those
obligations as collateral for Federal Reserve notes.
As a matter of fact, the Fed has done so on at least
139 different occasions. Below is a list provided by
the Federal Reserve:
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS PURCHASED BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
AND USED AS COLLATERAL TO ISSUE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES (1981-1983)
(Federal Reserve Bank Principal identified by asterisks!
April 21, 1981
S 11.6 million
April 24, 1981
S 38.4 million
April 28. 1981
S 17.1 million
May 5. 1981
S 18.0 million
May 7, 1981
S 36.6 million
May 12. 1981
S 64.3 million
May 13, 1981
S 96.7 million
May 27, 1981
S 9.3 million
June 9, 1981
S 44.8 million
June 10, 1981
SI 09.0 million
June 23, 1981
S 1 .0 million
June 30, 1981
S 27.0 million
July 1, 1981
S 18.1 million
July 10, 1981
S 48.8 million
July 13, 1981
S 49.0 million
July 14, 1981
S 76.4 million
October* 5, 1981
S 8.0 million
October* 6, 1981
SI 06.0 million
October 7, 1981
S 7.0 million
October* 7, 1981
SI 96.0 million
November 17, 1981
S 51.0 million
November 18, 1981
S 45.0 million
November 24, 1981
S 20.0 million
November 27, 1981
S 31.0 million
November 30, 1981
S 57.0 million
December 1, 1981
S 82.0 million
December 2, 1981
S 64.0 million
December 3, 1981
S 28.0 million
December 4, 1 98 1
S 36.0 million
December 7, 1981
S 31.0 million
December 8, 1 98 1
S 5.0 million
December 9, 1981
S 55.0 million
December 15, 1981
S 8.0 million
December 16, 1981
S 45.0 million
December 18, 1981
$ 15.0 million
December 21, 1981
SI 04.0 million
December 22, 1981
S 71.0 million
December 23, 1981
SI 06.0 million
December 24, 1981
SI 02.0 million
December 28, 1981
SI 21.0 million
December 29, 1981
S 73.0 million
December 30, 1 98 1
S 22.0 million
January 6, 1982
S 88.0 million
January 13, 1982
S 31.0 million
January 19, 1982
S 8.0 million
March* 4, 1982
SI 25.0 million
March* 5, 1982
S 86.0 million
March 8, 1982
S 9.0 million
March* 8, 1982
SI 88.0 million
March 9, 1982
S 77.0 million
March* 9, 1982
March 10, 1982
S 90.0 million
March* 10, 1982
March* 31, 1982
S 64.0 million
April* 6, 1982
April** 6, 1982
S 76.0 million
April 7, 1982
S 93.0 million
April* 7, 1982
April** 7, 1982
SI 83.0 million
April** 12, 1982
S 3 1.0 million
April 13, 1982
S 25.0 million
April* 13, 1982
S 42.0 million
April 14. 1982
S 27.0 million
April* 14, 1982
S 1.0 million
April** 14, 1982
S 5 1.0 million
June 30. 1982
S 39.0 million
July 6. 1982
S 43.0 million
Julv 7. 1982
S 81.0 million
July* 7, 1982
S 27.0 million
July 8. 1982
S 7.0 million
September** 15. 1982
S 17.0 million
September** 29. 1982
S 1 1 .0 million
October** 6. 1982
S 121.0 million
October 8, 1982
S 40.0 million
October II, 1982
S 40.0 million
October 12, 1982
S 52.0 million
October 13, 1982
S 69.0 million «
October 14, 1982
S 39.0 million
October 20, 1982
S 50.0 million
October 21, 1982
S 10.0 million
October 28, 1982
S 1 8.0 million
October 29, 1982
S 14.0 million
'Richmond Federal Reserve Bank *' Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank •"Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS PURCHASED BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
AND USED AS COLLATERAL TO ISSUE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES (1981-1983)
(Federal Reserve Bank Principal identified by asterisks)
November** 1. 1982
November 3, 1982
November 5. 1982
November 9. 1982
November** 10, 1982
November** 1 1, 1982
November**, 15, 1982
November** 16, 1982
November** 18, 1982
November** 23, 1982
November** 25, 1982
November** 29, 1982
December** 2, 1982
December** 6, 1982
December** 8, 1982
December** 9, 1982
December** 13, 1982
December** 15, 1982
December** 17, 1982
December** 22, 1982
December** 23, 1982
December** 27, 1982
December*** 28, 1982
December*** 29, 1982
December*** 30, 1982
January** 3, 1983
January** 6, 1983
January** 10, 1983
January** 12, 1983
S 30.0 million
S 66.0 million
S 91.0 million
S 75.0 million
S 60.0 million
S 60.0 million
S 47.0 million
S 2.0 million
S 5 1.0 million
S 23.0 million
S 107.0 million
S 3.0 million
S 82.0 million
S 75.0 million
5 19 1.0 million
SI 08.0 million
S 77.0 million
S 10.0 million
S 44.0 million
SI 53.0 million
5 1 33.0 million
$ 87.0 million
S 36.0 million
S 57.0 million
S 12.0 million
S 74.0 million
S 49.0 million
S 57.0 million
S 46.0 million
November 2. 1982
November 4, 1982
November 8. 1982
November 9. 1982
November 10. 1982
November 1 1. 1982
November 15. 1982
November** 16. 1982
November** 19. 1982
November** 24. 1982
November** 26. 1982
December** 1. 1982
December** 3, 1982
December** 7, 1982
December** 8, 1982
December** 10, 1982
December** 14, 1982
December** 16, 1982
December** 21, 1982
December*** 22, 1982
December** 24, 1982
December** 28, 1982
December** 29, 1982
December** 30, 1982
December** 31, 1982
January** 5, 1983
January** 7, 1983
January** II, 1983
S 25.0 million
S 38.0 million
S 42.0 million
S 15.0 million
S 18.0 million
S 1 8.0 million
S 25.0 million
S 5.0 million
S 17.0 million
S 107.0 million
S 82.0 million
S 89.0 million
S 13.0 million
S 30.0 million
S 14.0 million
S 45.0 million
S 66.0 million
S 85.0 million
S 21.0 million
$ 1 34.0 million
S 4.0 million
S 96.0 million
S 6 1 .0 million
•Richmond Federal Reserve Bank “Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank ••"Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank
John L. Lewis Vs. United States
A. This is a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case (680 f2d 1239) 1982
reveling that the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal
1 . These banks are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
2. Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations nor as
“mixed ownership” corporations.
3. Federal Reserve Bank receives no appropriated funds from congress and the
banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names.
4. The Federal Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for
purposes of immunity from state taxation.
5. Tests for determining whether an entity is Federal instrumentality for purposes of
protection from state or local action or taxation is very broad whether entity
performs important governmental function.
B. We have people tell us and believe that the FED is a government agency
and after we show them this case and other items, we simply ask what
else do you believe to be true, which in fact is not true.
1 . It’s like those people who believe that there is a law requiring everyone to have a
Social Security Number.
a. Show me the law and implementing regulation that makes having a social
security number mandatory.
C. Most Americans are so busy with their day-to-day activities they
swallow hook line and sinker whatever the official government position
D. How about auditing the Federal Reserve Bank?
1 . At least have Congress turn the GAO loose on the Fed and lets find out where all
the money the Fed takes in goes.
LEWIS v. UNITED STATES
Cite as 680 FJd 1239 <1982)
equipment has served to give Burroughs a
“lock-in” advantage over all other competi-
tors. Therefore, Sperry argues although
the City will be seeking new bids for its
computer facilities when the settlement
agreement expires in November 1982, no
other computer company will be able to
successfully bid against Burroughs.
This court is aware that the “incumbent”
will always have a slight advantage over its
competitors but in the present situation
Burroughs’ advantage may be unfair. For
example, at oral argument the City stated
that there may not be sufficient time be-
tween now and November 1982 for any
company but Burroughs to install data pro-
cessing equipment. Additionally, if the
City does not require all bidders to provide
a state of the art data base, Burroughs will
not have the additional cost of conversion
that its competitors will suffer.
We remand this case to the district court
for a review of the City's forthcoming bid
specifications to determine whether there is
an unfair advantage given to Burroughs,
above the built-in advantage Burroughs has
by reason of being the “incumbent.”
Affirmed and remanded with additional
instructions to the district court to review
the City’s bid specifications.
John L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/ Appellant,
UNITED STATES of America,
United States Court of Appeals,
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.
Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle
owned and operated by a federal reserve
bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction
under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The
United States District Court for the Central
District of California, David W. Williams,
J,, dismissed holding that federal reserve
bank was not a federal agency within
meaning of Act and that the court there-
fore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals,
Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal re-
serve banks are not federal instrumentali-
ties for purposes of the Act, but are inde-
pendent privately owned and locally con-
1. United States *=78(4)
There are no sharp criteria for deter-
mining whether an entity is a federal agen-
cy within meaning of the Federal Tort
Claims Act, but critical factor is existence
of federal government control over “de-
tailed physical performance” and “day to
day operation” of an entity. 28 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.
2. United States *=78(4)
Federal reserve banks are not federal
instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal
Tort Claims Act, but are independent, pri-
vately owned and locally controlled corpora-
tions in light of fact that direct supervision
and control of each bank is exercised by
board of directors, federal reserve banks,
though heavily regulated, are locally con-
trolled by their member banks, banks are
listed neither as “wholly owned” govern-
ment corporations nor as “mixed owner-
ship” corporations; federal reserve banks
receive no appropriated funds from Con-
gress and the banks are empowered to sue
and be sued in their own names. 28 U.S.
C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.; Federal Reserve
Act, §§ 4, 10(a, b), 13, 13a, 13b, 14, 14 (a-
g), 16, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 301, 341-360; 12
U.S.C.A. § 361; Government Corporation
Control Act, §§ 101, 201, 31 U.S.C.A. §§
3. United States <*=78(4)
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
federal liability is narrowly based on tradi-
680 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
tional agency principles and does not neces-
sarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works
for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which
performs important activities for the
government. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671
4. Taxation «=6
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be
federal instrumentalities for purposes of
immunity from state taxation.
5. States «=»4.I5
Tests for determining whether an enti-
ty is federal instrumentality for purposes of
protection from state or local action or tax-
ation, is very broad: whether entity per-
forms important governmental function.
Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for
James R. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los
Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appel-
lee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty.,
Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.
Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Cir-
cuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District
POOLE, Circuit Judge:
On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis
was injured by a vehicle owned and operat-
ed by the Los Angeles branch of the Feder-
al Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis
brought this action in district court alleging
jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The
United States moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The district
court dismissed, holding that the Federal
Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within
the meaning of the Act and that the court
therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District
Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by
In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act,
Congress provided a limited waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the United States
for certain torts of federal employees.
United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813,
96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976).
Specifically, the Act creates liability for
injuries “caused by the negligent or wrong-
ful act or omission” of an employee of any
federal agency acting within the scope of
his office or employment. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346(b), 2671. “Federal agency” is
the executive departments, the military
departments, independent establishments
of the United States, and corporations
acting primarily as instrumentalities of
the United States, but does not include
any contractors with the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2671. The liability of the Unit-
ed States for the negligence of a Federal
Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore,
on whether the Bank is a federal agency
under § 2671.
[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for
determining whether an entity is a federal
agency within the meaning of the Act, but
the critical factor is the existence of federal
government control over the “detailed phys-
ical performance” and “day to day opera-
tion” of that entity. United States v. Orle-
ans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975,
48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United
States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215,
2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973). Other factors
courts have considered include whether the
entity is an independent corporation, Pearl
v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir.
1956), Free ling v. Federal Deposit Insur-
ance Corporation, 221 F.Supp. 955 (W.D.
Okla.1962), aff’d per curiam, 326 F.2d 971
(10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is
involved in the entity’s finances. Goddard
v. District of Columbia Redevelopment
Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.
1961), cert denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct.
1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221
LEWIS v. UNITED STATES
cite as 680 FM 1238 (1982)
F.Supp. 955, and whether the mission of the
entity furthers the policy of the United
States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Re-
development Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345.
Examining the organization and function of
the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying
the relevant factors, we conclude that the
Reserve Banks are not federal instrumen-
talities for purposes of the FTCA, but are
independent, privately owned and locally
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate
corporation owned by commercial banks in
its region. The stockholding commercial
banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine
member board of directors. The remaining
three directors are appointed by the Federal
Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve
Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but di-
rect supervision and control of each Bank is
exercised by its board of directors. 12
U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws
regulating the manner of conducting gener-
al Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and ap-
point officers to implement and supervise
daily Bank activities. These activities in-
clude collecting and clearing checks, making
advances to private and commercial enti-
ties, holding reserves for member banks,
discounting the notes of member banks, and
buying and selling securities on the open
market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to
conduct these activities without day to day
direction from the federal government
Thus, for example, the interest rates on
advances to member banks, individuals,
partnerships, and corporations are set by
each Reserve Bank and their decisions re-
garding the purchase and sale of securities
are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history
of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress
did not intend to give the federal govern-
ment direction over the daily operation of
the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall
retain sufficient power over the reserve
banks to enable it to exercise a direct
authority when necessary to do so, but
that it shall in no way attempt to carry
on through its own mechanism the rou-
tine operations and banking which re-
quire detailed knowledge of local and in-
dividual credit and which determine the
funds of the community in any given
instance. In other words, the reserve-
bank plan retains to the Government
power over the exercise of the broader
banking functions, while it leaves to indi-
viduals and privately owned institutions
tiie actual direction of routine.
H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board
regulates the Reserve Banks does not make
them federal agencies under the Act. In
United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96
S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Su-
preme Court held that a community action
agency was not a federal agency or instru- ^
mentality for purposes of the Act, even
though the agency was organized under
federal regulations and heavily funded by
the federal government. Because the agen-
cy’s day to day operation was not super-
vised by the federal government, but by
local officials, the Court refused to extend
federal tort liability for the negligence of
the agency’s employees. Similarly, the
Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily reg-
ulated, are locally controlled by their mem-
ber banks. Unlike typical federal agencies,
each bank is empowered to hire and fire
employees at will. Bank employees do not
participate in the Civil Service Retirement
System. They are covered by worker’s
compensation insurance, purchased by the
Bank, rather than the Federal Employees
Compensation Act. Employees traveling on
Bank business are not subject to federal
travel regulations and do not receive
government employee discounts on lodging
The Banks are listed neither as “wholly
owned" government corporations under 31
U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” cor-
porations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor
considered in Pear! v. United States, 230
F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that
the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency
under the Act. Closely resembling the sta-
680 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
tus of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil
Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally char-
tered corporation organized to serve the
public welfare. But because Congress’ con-
trol over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and
the corporation is not designated as a whol-
ly owned or mixed ownership government
corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856,
the court concluded that the corporation is
a non-governmental, independent entity,
not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately
owned entities, receive no appropriated
funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. Dis-
trict of Columbia Redevelopment Land
Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961),
cert, denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6
L.Ed.2d 235 (1961) (court held land redevel-
opment agency was federal agency for pur-
poses of the Act in large part because agen-
cy received direct appropriated funds from
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue
and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C.
§ 341. They carry their own liability insur-
ance and typically process and handle their
own claims. In the past, the Banks have
defended against tort claims directly,
through private counsel, not government
attorneys, e.g.. Banco De Espana v. Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, 114 FJ2d 438
(2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v.
Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d
Cir. 1977); Bo! low v. Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir.
1981), and they have never been required to
settle tort claims under the administrative
procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver
of sovereign immunity contained in the Act
would therefore appear to be inapposite to
the Banks who have not historically claimed
or received general immunity from judicial
 The Reserve Banks have properly
been held to be federal instrumentalities for
some purposes. In United States v. Hoti-
ingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this
court held that a Federal Reserve Bank
employee who was responsible for recom-
mending expenditure of federal funds was
a “public official” under the Federal Brib-
ery Statute. That statute broadly defines
public official to include any person acting
“for or on behalf of the Government.” S.
Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962),
reprinted in  U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.
News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a).
The test for determining status as a public
official turns on whether there is “substan-
tial federal involvement” in the defendant’s
activities. United States v. Hollingshead,
672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the
FTC A, federal liability is narrowly based on
traditional agency principles and does not
necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply
works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks,
which perform important activities for the
[4,5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to
be federal instrumentalities for purposes of
immunity from state taxation. Federal Re-
serve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of
Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st
Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st
Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minne-
apolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120,
284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for deter-
mining whether an entity is a federal in-
strumentality for purposes of protection
from state or local action or taxation, how-
ever, is very broad: whether the entity
performs an important governmental func-
tion. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lum-
ber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S.Ct. 1, 5, 86
L.Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d
174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert, denied, 444
U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 450, 62 L.Ed.2d 376
(1979). The Reserve Banks, which further
the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an
important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmen-
tal function, however, is but a single factor
and not determinative in tort claims ac-
tions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v.
Metrocentre Improvement District, 657
F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v.
United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956).
State taxation has traditionally been
viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s
ability to perform federal functions than
exposure to judicial process; therefore tax
immunity is liberally applied. Federal
E. E. 0. C. v. LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO., INC.
Cfte as <80 F.24 1243 (IM2>
Land Bank v. Priddy, 294 U.S. 229, 235, 55
S.Ct. 705, 708, 79 L.Ed. 1408 (1955). Feder-
al tort liability, however, is based on tradi-
tional agency principles and thus depends
upon the principal’s ability to control the
actions of his agent, and not simply upon
whether the entity performs an important
governmental function. See United States
v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S.Ct. 1971,
1976, 48 L.Ed .2d 390 (1976), United States
v. Logue. 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S.Ct
2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973).
Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116
(D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve
Bank is a federal instrumentality for pur-
poses of the Servioe Contract Act, 41 U.S.C.
§ 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Min-
neapolis, the court applied the “important
governmental function” test and concluded
that the term “Federal Government” in the
Servioe Contract Act must be “liberally con-
strued to effectuate the Act’s humanitarian
purposes of providing minimum wage and
fringe benefit protection to individuals per-
forming contracts with the federal govern-
ment.” Id. 288 Mich, at 120, 284 N,W.2d
Such a liberal construction of the term
“federal agency” for purposes of the Act is
unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs
are not without a forum in which to seek a
remedy, for they may bring an appropriate
state tort claim directly against the Bank;
and if successful, their prospects of recov-
ery are bright since the institutions are
both highly solvent and amply insured.
For these reasons we hold that the Re-
serve Banks are not federal agencies for
purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act
and we affirm the judgment of the district
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI-
TY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appel-
LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE COM-
PANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals,
Argued and Submitted May 13, 1982.
Decided July 6, 1982.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied Sept. 27, 1982.
The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission charged employer with violat-
ing Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act. The United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of
California, William W. Schwarzer, J., en-
tered summary judgment in favor of em-
ployer, and EEOC appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Merrill, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) under basic principles of Title VII, ex-
clusion of pregnancy-related medical ex-
penses of spouses of male employees was
not gender-based discrimination in violation
of Title VII, and (2) the Pregnancy Discrim-
ination Act of 1978 did not change those
Eugene A. Wright, Circuit Judge, filed
a specially concurring opinion.
I. Civil Rights <*=>9.14
Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s amend-
ment of Title VII, which as read in conjunc-
tion with the Act now provides that it shall
be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to discriminate against any indi-
vidual with respect to compensation be-
cause of such individual's “pregnancy, child-
birth or related medical conditions” does
not apply to male employees but, rather, is
expressly limited tp women employees.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701(k), 703(a),
(aXl, 2), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e(k), 2000e~
2(a), (aXl, 2).
Federal Reserve Bank Exhibits
A. Exhibit A, Title 12, Chapter 3, subchapter IX, Section 341 -General
Enumeration of Powers of the FED.
1 . This section lists their powers.
B. Exhibit B, Chart I, Tracing the ties of the ownership of the Fed and their
shares of stock.
C. Exhibit C, 1 of 3, SC private Letter Ruling #90-1.
D. Exhibit D, Title 31, CFR 328.5 Forms of Endorsement.
E. Exhibit E, 3 1 USC Sec. 321 (d) (1) (2), General Authority of the
F. Exhibit F, 1 or 4, Complete text of 31 USC Sec. 321.
TITLE 12 > CHA PTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER IX > Sec. 341.
Sec. 341. - General enumeration of powers
Upon the filing of the organization certificate with the
Comptroller of the Currency a Federal reserve bank shall
become a body corporate and as such, and in the name
designated in such organization certificate, shall have
power - First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927,
until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of
franchise for violation of law. Third. To make contracts.
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in
any court of law or equity.
Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president,
vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are
not otherwise provided for in this chapter, to define their
duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty
thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or
employees. The president shall be the chief executive
officer of the bank and shall be appointed by the board of
directors, with the approval of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, for a term of five years; and
all other executive officers and all employees of the bank
shall be directly responsible to him. The first vice
president of the bank shall be appointed in the same
manner and for the same term as the president, and
shall, in the absence or disability of the president or
during a vacancy in the office of president, serve as chief
executive officer of the bank. Whenever a vacancy shall
occur in the office of the president or the first vice
president, it shall be filled in the manner provided for
original appointments; and the person so appointed shall
hold office until the expiration of the term of his
Sixth. To prescribe by its board of directors, bylaws
not inconsistent with law, regulating the manner in which
its general business may be conducted, and the privileges
granted to it by law may be exercised and enjoyed.
Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors, or duly
authorized officers or agents, all powers specifically
granted by the provisions of this chapter and such
incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the
business of banking within the limitations prescribed by
Eighth. Upon deposit with the Treasurer of the United
States of any bonds of the United States in the manner
provided by existing law relating to national banks, to
receive from the Secretary of the Treasury circulating
notes in blank, registered and countersigned as provided
by law, equal in amount to the par value of the bonds so
deposited, such notes to be issued under the same
conditions and provisions of law as relate to the issue of
circulating notes of national banks secured by bonds of
the United States bearing the circulating privilege, except
that the issue of such notes shall not be limited to the
capital stock of such Federal reserve bank.
But no Federal reserve bank shall transact any
business except such as is incidental and necessarily
preliminary to its organization until it has been authorized
by the Comptroller of the Currency to commence business
under the provisions of this chapter
N M ROTHSCHILD. LOrtOofl BANK Of ENGLAND
CHART I reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which
ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Col, and Kuhn, Loeb Co. were the firms which set up the
Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have
the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal
Advisory Council in 1914.
In 1914 a few families (blood and business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City)
caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.
From “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, by Eustace Mullins. $10.00, softcover, 198 pgs. Bankers Research Institute, P.O. Box
1 105, Staunton, VA 24401.
SC PRIVATE LETTER RULING #90-1
TO: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Columbia, S.C. 29210
SUBJECT: Federal Reserve 3ank
(Sales and Use)
REFERENCE: S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-35-510 (1976)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-35-810 (1976)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-35-550(1) (1976)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-35-550(42) (1976)
AUTHORITY: S.C. Code Section 12-3-170 (1976)
SCOPE: A Private Letter Ruling is a temporary document
issued to a taxpayer, upon request, and it
applies only to the specific facts or
circumstances related in the request. Private
Letter Rulings have no precedential value and
are not intended for general distribution.
Are sales to, or purchases by, the Columbia Office of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond exempt from sales and use tax, pursuant to Code Sections
12-35-550(1) and 12-35-550 (42) ?
The Federal Reserve Bank and its district banks were created under 12
U.S.C.A. Section 226. The district banks in turn established satellite
offices, one of which is located in Columbia.
Section 531 of Title 12 of the United States Code reads:
Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and
surplus therein and the income derived therefrom shall
be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation,
except taxes upon real estate.
Code Section 12-35-510 imposes "upon every person engaged or continuing
within this State in the business of selling at retail any tangible
personal property. .. [a sales tax in] an amount equal to [five] percent of
the gross proceeds of sales of the business’.
_Code Section 12-35-810 imposes the use tax "on the storage, use or other
consumption in this State of tangible personal property purchased at
retail for storage, use or other consumption in this State, at the rate of
[five] percent of the sales price of such property".
South Carolina Code Section 12-35-550, paragraphs (1) and (42), and
12-35-820(2) specifically exempt from the sales and use tax:
(1) The gross proceeds of the sale of tangible
personal property or the gross receipts of any
business which the State is prohibited from taxing
under the Constitution or laws of the United States
of America or under tne Constitution of this State.
(42) The gross proceeds of the sale of tangible personal
property to the federal government, including gross
proceeds subject to the tax under Sections
12-35-1140 and 12-35-1150.
The issue is whether federal reserve banks are instrumentalities of the
In Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District
#1, 657 F . 2d 183 (8th Cir. 1981), aff'd, 455 U.S. 995 (1981), the United
States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, stated that the test for
determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality is whether it
performs an "important governmental function". The court held:
In light of the important governmental functions per-
formed by the federal reserve banks and the United
States Supreme Court's willingness to hold that finan-
cial institutions performing even fewer governmental
functions are federal instrumentalities, we hold that
the federal reserve banks are instrumentalities of the
federal government. Our holding is consistent with
other circuits that have faced this question. Federal
Reserve Bank v. City of Memphis, 515 F.Supp. 63 (W.D.
Term., 1979), aff'd 649 F.2d 462 (6yh Cir. 1981);
Federal Reserve Bank v. Kalin, 77 F.2d 50, 51 (4th Cir.
1935); Raichle v. Federal Reserve Bank, 34 F.2d 910, 916
(2d Cir. 1929) .
Furthermore , in Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held:
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumen-
talities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of
Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974),
after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288
- 2 -
Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determin-
ing whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for
purposes of protection from state or local action or
taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity
performs an important governmental function. Federal
Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62
S.Ct. 1, 5, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597
F.2d 174, 78 (9th Cir. 1979), cert, denied, 444 U.S.
964, 100 S.Ct. 450, 62 L.Ed. 2d 376 (1979). The Reserve
Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly
perform an important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmental function,
however, is but a single factor and not determinative in
Exhibit c a of 3
tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185
n.2(8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d
243 (10th Cir. 1956) . State taxation has traditionally
been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability
to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial
process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied.
Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 294 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S.Ct.
705, 708, 79 L.Ed. 1408(1955)
In summary, Federal Reserve Banks are federal instrumentalities for the
purpose of immunity from state taxation.
Sales to, or purchases by, the Columbia Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Richmond are exempt from sales and use tax, pursuant to Code Section
12-35-550(1) and (42) .
SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION
S. Hunter Howard, Jr., Chairman
A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr., Commissioner
T. R. McConnell, Commissioner
Columbia, South Carolina
January 10, 1990
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 31, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 31CFR328 . 5]
TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE: TREASURY
CHAPTER II— FISCAL SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 32 8 --RESTRICTIVE ENDORSEMENTS OF U.S. BEARER SECURITIES—Table of Contents
Sec. 328.5 Forms of endorsement.
(a) When presented by banks-- (1) For payment or exchange. The
endorsement placed on a bearer security presented for payment or
exchange by a bank should be in the following form:
For presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank of ,
Fiscal Agent of
[ [Page 222] ]
the United States, for redemption or in exchange for securities of a new
issue, in accordance with written instructions submitted by
(Insert name of presenting bank)
(2) For redemption at par. The endorsement placed on a bearer
security presented for redemption at par in payment of Federal estate
taxes should be in the following form:
For presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank of , Fiscal
Agent of the United States, for redemption at par in payment of Federal
estate taxes, in accordance with written instructions submitted by
. (Insert name of presenting bank)
(b) For conversion to book-entry securities. The endorsement placed
on a bearer security presented for conversion to a book-entry security
shall be in the following form:
For presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank of ,
Fiscal Agent of the United States, for conversion to book-entry
securities by . (Insert name of presenting bank)
(c) When presented by Service Center Directors or District
Directors, Internal Revenue Service. The endorsement placed on a bearer
security by a Service Center Director or a District Director, Internal
Revenue Service, should be in the following form:
For presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank of Fiscal
Agent of the United States, for redemption, the proceeds to be credited
to the account of the Service Center Director, Internal Revenue Service,
at , for credit on the Federal (Income,
gifts, or other) taxes due from . (Name and address)
— — i .
Exhibi t D
t - r— in,,, i i
31 U.S.C. Sec. 321. - General authority of the Secretary
(1) The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of
property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the
Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds from sales of other
property received as gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and
shall be disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property accepted under this
paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as possible in accordance with the
terms of the gift or bequest.
(2) For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under
paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.
The Secretary may accept personal property (money) as gifts voluntarily donated, for the purposes of the
federal income tax, and it shall be considered as a gift for the use of the government. Since you have no
obligation pursuant to Public Law 591, August 16, 1954, you are in essence donating your hard earned
money as a gift voluntarily. If it was mandatory, it wouldn’t be called a gift, but more like an obligation.
It cannot be an obligation, because it would be considered an unconstitutional collection of an excise tax
upon you earnings.
The Secretary may accept real property (house, car, boat, airplane etc) from the proceeds of sales as gifts
(through liens) for the purposes of the federal income tax, and it shall be considered as a gift for the use of
31 USC Sec. 321
01 / 02/01
TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE I - GENERAL
CHAPTER 3 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE
Sec. 321. General authority of the Secretary
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall -
(1) prepare plans for improving and managing receipts of the
United States Government and managing the public debt;
(2) carry out services related to finances that the Secretary
is required to perform;
(3) issue warrants for money drawn on the Treasury consistent
(4) mint coins, engrave and print currency and security
documents, and refine and assay bullion, and may strike medals;
(5) prescribe regulations that the Secretary considers best
calculated to promote the public convenience and security, and to
protect the Government and individuals from fraud and loss, that
apply to anyone who may -
(A) receive for the Government, Treasury notes, United States
notes, or other Government securities; or
(B) be engaged or employed in preparing and issuing those
notes or securities;
(6) collect receipts;
(7) with a view to prosecuting persons, take steps to discover
fraud and attempted fraud involving receipts and decide on ways
to prevent and detect fraud; and
(8) maintain separate accounts of taxes received in each State,
territory, and possession of the United States, and collection
district, with each account listing -
(A) each kind of tax;
(B) the amount of each tax; and
(C) the money paid as pay and allowances to officers and
employees of the Department collecting taxes in that State,
territory, possession, or district.
(b) The Secretary may -
(1) prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and powers of
(2) delegate duties and powers of the Secretary to another
officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury;
(3) transfer within the Department the records, property,
officers, employees, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and amounts of the Department that the Secretary
considers necessary to carry out a delegation made under clause
(2) of this subsection;
(4) detail, in addition to details authorized under another
law, not more than 6 officers and employees of the Department at
any one time to enforce the laws related to the Department,
except that of those 6 officers and employees not more than 4
officers and employees -
(A) paid from the appropriations for the collection of
customs may be so detailed;
(B) paid from the appropriations for internal revenue may be
so detailed; and
(C) paid from the appropriations for suppressing
counterfeiting and other crimes may be so detailed;
Exhibit F a 0 f £
(5) authorize, at rates and under conditions prescribed by the
Secretary, the private use of telephone lines controlled by the
Department when the use does not interfere with Department
(6) buy arms and ammunition required by officers and employees
of the Department in carrying out their duties and powers; and
(7) notwithstanding any other provision of law, fulfill any
requirement to issue a report on the financial condition of any
fund on the books of the Treasury by including the required
information in a consolidated report, except that information
with respect to a specific fund shall be separately reported if
the Secretary determines that the consolidation of such
information would result in an unwarranted delay in the
availability of such information.
(c) Duties and powers of officers and employees of the Department
are vested in the Secretary except duties and powers -
(1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in
administrative law judges employed by the Secretary;
(2) of the Comptroller of the Currency; and
(3) of the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
(d) (1) The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold,
administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and
personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the
Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the
proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or bequests
shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and shall be
disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property
accepted under this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be
used as nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gift
(2) For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes,
property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift
or bequest to or for the use of the United States.
(3) The Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest the
fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the
needs of the fund and bearing interest at rates determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current
average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the
United States of comparable maturities. Income accruing from the
securities, and from any other property accepted under paragraph
(1), shall be deposited to the credit of the fund, and shall be
disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes as
nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gifts or
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not less frequently than
annually, make a public disclosure of the amount (and sources) of
the gifts and bequests received under this subsection, and the
purposes for which amounts in the separate fund established under
this subsection are expended.
(e) Certain Reorganization Prohibited. - The Secretary of the
Treasury may not merge or consolidate the Office of Thrift
Supervision, or any of the functions or responsibilities of the
Office or the Director of such office, with the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency or the Comptroller of the Currency.
(Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 880; Pub. L. 98-369,
div. A, title IV, Sec. 445, July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 816; Pub. L.
101-73, title III, Sec. 307(b), (d) , Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 353;
Pub. L. 104-66, title I, Sec. 1132(b), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat.
725 . )
Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at
Exhibit F W
How Your Local Bank Defrauds You
When you deposit your paycheck or some cash into your local bank account, you probably assume
that it will be there when you need it. That's why your account is called a 'demand deposit' account
because after you deposit it, you can demand it back. Your demand usually takes the form of a check
or a debit card transaction.
Centuries ago, early bankers realized that not everyone asked for their deposits back at the same time.
In fact, it was rare that demands for funds exceeded ten percent of the total on deposit. This amount
of cash just sitting in the vault was a powerful temptation and bankers soon succumbed to it. They
figured that they could take that ninety percent that never left the bank and loan it out and by charging
interest on the loans could make a significant amount of money from other people's money. And,
since most people do not even pretend to understand money and banking, this could be done without
the depositor's knowledge. This fraud is known by the name fractional reserve banking.
This fraud worked most of the time but, occasionally, depositor's would lose faith in the bank for one
reason or another and more than ten percent of the deposits would be demanded at the same time. But
the bank didn't have the cash because it had been lent out. As soon as it became common knowledge
that the bank could no longer honor demands for depositor's money, almost everyone wanted their
money back. This is called a 'run' on the bank and almost always resulted in the failure of the bank
and the loss of most of the depositor's money.
This situation resulted in demands by citizens for the government to do something. Now you would
think that the government would just make it a crime to loan out depositor's money. But they didn't.
They actually made the process legal. (Which makes me wonder if the government wasn’t behind
some of the bank rims in the first place.) Today, according to the Federal Reserve rules, it is legal for
member banks (and almost all banks in the United States are now members of the Federal Reserve
System) to loan out up to 80 percent of depositor's money without the depositor's knowledge. The Fed
says this is ok now because the banks belong to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which will
pay the depositors of a failed bank. This works as long as only a few banks fail but a similar
organization, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), was unable to pay off on
all the savings and loans that failed and left the bailout to the taxpayers of the United States. It
appears to me that your deposits in a US bank are still at risk.
Loaning out your money without your knowledge is bad enough but it gets worse. When the bank
loans out your money, they don't usually give cash to the borrower. In almost all cases, they will issue
a check. But let's examine where the money for the check comes from and what happens to it after it
When the bank grants a loan, they first get you to sign a mortgage agreement on some asset that you
own. Then they issue the check. The accounting department now njakes a bookeeping entry that
debits your mortgage agreement as an asset and credits cash. The bank now has reduced it's available
cash by the amount of your loan. But then you deposit the check into your account, either at that bank
or at another bank in the system. Let's say it's the same bank. Now the accounting department makes
another entry that debits cash in the amount of your check and credits your demand deposit account
with the same amount. Notice what has happened here. The bank's cash account has not changed but
they now have additional funds on deposit which they can now loan 80 percent of. They have just
increased the local money supply by the amount of your loan and at the same time created more
money that they can loan out.
The above process can continue through several transactions until the increase in the money supply is
too small for a practical loan amount. It has been calculated that a dollar deposited in a modem US
bank can be turned into ten dollars through this process.
Also notice something else about this process. Here again the loan was used to create money but there
is no process to create enough additional money to pay the interest on the loan. That means that even
at the local and personal level we cannot all pay off our debts and eventually this will result in the
bank owning most or all of the real assets in the local area.
And making this situation even worse is the fact that the Federal Reserve Notes that we are forced (by
the government) to use as currency isn't even constitutional. The Constitution For the united States
says that only gold or silver coin can be made legal tender for payment of debts. So we cannot even
discharge our debts. On a personal level, we can transfer our debt to someone else but the total
amount of debt remains the same and, in fact, continues to increase.
6001 , Books and Records
A. If the IRS has sent you a 2039 summons or they want to audit you, then
you will want to send in this FOIA.
1 . If you have been filing and self-assessing yourself then the only time you might
want to use this is if they want to do an audit of your account.
B. By 6001, we mean under IRC 6001 and 26 CFR 1.6001.
C. Exhibit A, 1 of 2, shows the 26, 6001 section and on the second half of
the page is the Parallel Authorities for 26 USC 6001.
1. Exhibit 2 of 2, is 26 CFR 1.6001-1 records and if you drop down and read the last
line it says, “of any Internal Revenue Law,” not income tax law.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A >
PART I > Sec. 6001.
Sec. 6001. - Notice or regulations requiring
records, statements, and special returns
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title,
or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records,
render such statements, make such returns, and comply
with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may
from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of
the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person,
by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to
make such returns, render such statements, or keep such
records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show
whether or not such person is liable for tax under this
title. The only records which an employer shall be
required to keep under this section in connection with
charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary
to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements
furnished by employees under section 6053(a)
Parallel authorities for 26 USC 6001 (from CFR)
P VB: because this service is automated, and the information it uses relatively volatile, this listing may
not be complete and is presented for reference only. You may -want to consult the House of
Representatives parallel table of authorities for a complete listing.]
• 26 CFR part 1
• 26 CFR part 31
• 26 CFR part 55
• 26 CFR part 156
• 27 CFR part 19
• 27 CFR part 53
• 27 CFR part 194
• 27 CFR part 250
• 27 CFR part 296
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 12]
[Revised as of April 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26CFR1. 6001-1]
TITLE 26 — INTERNAL REVENUE
CHAPTER I — INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Procedure and Administration--Table of Contents
Sec. 1.6001-1 Records.
(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,
any person subject to tax under subtitle A of the Code (including a
qualified State individual income tax which is treated pursuant to
section 6361 (a) as if it were imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A) , or
any person required to file a return of information with respect to
income, shall keep such permanent books of account or records, including
inventories, as are sufficient to establish the amount of gross income,
deductions, credits, or other matters required to be shown by such
person in any return of such tax or information.
(b) Farmers and wage-earners. Individuals deriving gross income from
the business of farming, and individuals whose gross income includes
salaries, wages, or similar compensation for personal services rendered,
are required with respect to such income to keep such records as will
enable the district director to determine the correct amount of income
subject to the tax. It is not necessary, however, that with respect to
such income individuals keep the books of account or records required by
paragraph (a) of this section. For rules with respect to the records to
be kept in substantiation of traveling and other business expenses of
employees, see Sec. 1.162-17.
(c) Exempt organizations. In addition to such permanent books and
records as are required by paragraph (a) of this section with respect to
the tax imposed by section 511 on unrelated business income of certain
exempt organizations, every organization exempt from tax under section
501(a) shall keep such permanent books of account or records, including
inventories, as are sufficient to show specifically the items of gross
income, receipts and disbursements. Such organizations shall also keep
such books and records as are required to substantiate the information
required by section 6033. See section 6033 and Secs. 1.6033-1 through
(d) Notice by district director requiring returns statements, or the
keeping of records. The district director may require any person, by
notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or
keep such specific records as will enable the district director to
determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A
of the Code, including qualified State individual income taxes, which
are treated pursuant to section 6361(a) as if they were imposed by
chapter 1 of subtitle A.
(e) Retention of records. The books or records required by this
section shall be kept at all times available for inspection by
authorized internal revenue officers or employees, and shall be retained
so long as the contents thereof may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7122, 36 FR
11025, June 8, 1971; T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59357, Dec. 20, 1978; T.D. 8308,
55 FR 35593, Aug. 31, 1990]
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Internal Revenue Service
(your local IRS district address)
(your local IRS district address)
FROM: (your name or entity name)
Account # (SS# or EIN#)
Dear Disclosure Officer:
1 . This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, or
regulations thereunder. This is my firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating
and duplicating the records requested below, ultimately determined in accordance
with 26 CFR 601.702 (f).
2. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish me with those
portions reasonable segregable. I am waiving personal inspection of the requested
3 . This request pertains to the years:
4. Please send me a copy of the “6001 Notice” which pertains to the Requester.
5. Please certify all documents with the Form 2866, certificate of official record. If
there are no specific documents pertaining to this request, certify your response
with Form 3050, certificate of lack of records.
name, Qualified Requester
EXPLANATION OF UNITED STATES PAPER MONEY
NOTICE: THE LAW STATES THAT ALL ILLUSTRATIONS OF CURRENCY MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY HXJCATtONAL. HISTORIC. OR NUMISMATIC INFORMATION.
IKE EtUfcRAL RESERVE BANKS AND CODE LETTERS
Tfct GmiwN has mAortztd toe 12 Federal tonne dbtrtcts. ta each to which i
a fader* toenw Ba*. to kM ml Each Met to donated by i m an
toeearrespontoaq M to r Htot *phabCtotoaMcttonnbita.toectoa»towtochto
G tola natocstod. and toe code letters ait:
Mtev twt— « “ t-AttMU-f
7- C*iic» 90 — c
8- Si Loutt— H
10- Kaasas C»y— J
12- San Francisco— l
sm omtam an bn mmm « ini. tick notes m tamed egm
SMOttan Mtdbb* Tramt, lor Mr redemption, later tames aeit Backed*
SM and be oMgaton id redeem bn b Sdrer Mars las Decn nmm
(ram M bee If be sobs Wna ISM.
One Jane 24. IS» ltd Iraasarj ceased be (adnapoo o a Sam Certitasej. The
are now ordmarf enabling mm.
ffefcmdtog Certoctoes were Issued under toe Adel February 26. 1879. Ttweiwe
were m tea Oer to be more a torro at G overnment Bond or Security, as trey bore in
terefl at toe me it 4% per year. The S10.00 denomtoabons made the note
atoabto to people ol moderate means. In 1907 the Merest was stopped. The
rtdempboo Okie today, with Merest. Is Cl JO
The Ira Gold CerfOcates issued tor pener* drcuUooo w ere the series at 18C
These notos were Issued against Gold Coins held by the Treasurer lor f
Son The last issues were the snaf notes 0 1 1928.
in 1933 ai Goto Ccnrfcaics were o rdered to be returned to the Treasury lor reoemc
boo in 1964 ftese rtstnebons were Hied and co icctors were pemeoed to hoi
TREASURY OR COIN NOTES
Tfasiny Matos were a uthorized to 1890. They were town as Com Notes, becaui
— redeemable m erther Siver or Goto Co*. There were only twa issue;
1890 and 1891.
The $100,000 bill, with
Woodrow Wilson’s portrait on
the front, was printed only for
use in transactions between the
Federal Reserve System and the