Monday, November 9, 2015

The biggest scam and how they did it. Part 2

The Office of Management and Budget and its roll in the Treasury Department. 

The office of Management and Budget assists the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal budget and in supervising its administration in Federal agencies. The OMB also oversees and coordinates the Administration's procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies.

Amongst its jobs is the issuance of OMB numbers for government agencies forms, to comply with the paperwork reduction act.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812, codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 35013521) is a United States federal law enacted in 1980 designed to reduce the total amount of paperwork burden the federal government imposes on private businesses and citizens. The Act imposes procedural requirements on agencies that wish to collect information from the public
The Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that all federal government agencies receive approval from OMB—in the form of a "control number"—before promulgating a paper form, website, survey or electronic submission that will impose an information collection burden on the general public. The term "burden" is defined as anything beyond "that necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument." No one may be penalized for refusing an information collection request that does not display a control number. Once obtained, approval must be renewed every three years.

The IRS is the only department that seems to be exempt from this act. It is not. But lack of imposed oversight by the US Congress and the Office of management and Budget allow the IRS to continue to run unchecked. All IRS forms and publications must have a valid OMB number assigned and printed on them. Yet when one cross references these numbers, one finds that the IRS is not in compliance with the Paper work reduction act.

This lack of oversight has allowed the IRS to rape the American people. IF they cannot show a liability statute in a court room, (they cannot in 99 percent of the cases) they use what is called a procedurally correct substitute return. This is a file that they create out of thin air, using procedures created by IRS workers to support what the IRS does. These procedures are based on books and pamphlets the IRS worker writes, and then publishes, and without the OMB check, the information contained in them is hearsay at best. And this is what they present to the courts claiming "we followed procedures, so our claim must be valid". This is true even though the higher courts have ruled that absent liability, there is no claim. Yet again, I emphasise that when challenged to do so in court of law, the IRS fails to produce the liability statute. This is where the courts Cheat the American people.

Article 1, section 8 clause 1 reads:

 The Congress shall have power:
    To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the UnitedStates; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Then article 1 section 9 contains a few restrictive clauses.

    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No Preference shall be given for any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound     to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

This is the taxing power of the US congress. No other entity can create tax law. Not the IRS, not the FCC, not the courts. 

The US has 2 types of taxes. Direct taxes which are apportioned amongst the several states and the state governments are then responsible for paying the tax, and indirect or excise taxes, such as duties, imposts, tariffs, and other excise taxes. 

The courts have ruled that the Income tax is an excise tax, and that as such it does not need apportionment. 

No comments: