Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/01/2001 3:16:34 PM PST by jedi

I awoke this morning thinking about people coming in to study the Dan Meador Consulting procedure used with the Internal Revenue Service.

[My interjection: This procedure is a compilation of research done by many people throughout America.]

In order to understand procedure we've developed, and the underlying strategy, they have to come to terms with the conceptual framework. I concluded that there are two essentials:

1. When dealing with IRS personnel, you are dealing with criminals, and

2. The overall objective is to put the Internal Revenue Service out of business.

I take the admonition in Ecclesiastes 1: 15 seriously: "That which is crooked cannot be made straight..."

I'm not saying that everyone who works for IRS is consciously and knowingly a criminal. However, there is a point where those who deal with the American people in matters relating to income taxes must make a choice. Each must learn what the truth is then act accordingly.

We have a few examples of people who recognized and made that choice. Joe Banister, John Turner and Shirley Jackson are former IRS employees who attempted to unravel federal income tax law, and when they couldn't reconcile what they were doing for IRS, they resigned. Banister is the best known of the three because he constructed a reasonably detailed summary of his research then submitted it to ranking IRS officials with the request for answers. None were forthcoming. He was more or less forced to resign. Turner and Jackson didn't make themselves publicly visible to the extent Banister did, but both departed as a matter of conscience. They made moral choices.

The three examples demonstrate manifestation of the Peter Principle in the Internal Revenue Service: Once key positions in any operating system are filled with incompetents, they invariably fill all lower positions with worse incompetents. The system thereby becomes dysfunctional and eventually fails.

IRS didn't stand a chance. From 1909 through 1953, wordsmiths perverted the federal income tax system in such a manner as to perpetrate possibly the most outrageous scam ever imposed on a developed nation. To that point, assessors and collectors were appointed to administer taxes in each internal revenue district. The offices were somewhat like the office of U.S. Attorney presently is. Those offices, created by 1862 legislation, were administratively abolished through Reorganization Plan 26 of 1950 and Reorganization Plan 1 of 1952, and the pre-existing Bureau of Internal Revenue, renamed the Internal Revenue Service, was charged with administration of federal income tax via the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The chief problem here is that Congress didn't create a Bureau of Internal Revenue or an Internal Revenue Service. Article I § 8 clause 18 of the Constitution specifies that Congress must enact all legislation for any branch of government to carry constitutionally enumerated powers into operation. Additionally, the long-established internal revenue districts vanished. Via § 7621 of the Code of 1954, Congress vested the President with responsibility for establishing internal revenue districts. However, even though the President delegated authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to establish internal revenue districts via Executive Order 10289, as amended, none have been established in States of the Union.

The Chapter 1 normal tax, which everyone knows as income tax, has its roots in the corporate income tax of 1909, which was enacted to accommodate a tax convention with the British. It was further expanded in 1913 to include the "individual" income tax. However, it has never had universal application. Today we have in the neighborhood of 74 tax treaties and/or conventions that fall within the scheme. The tax is imposed on nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, foreign partnerships and the like on income from sources within the United States and on citizens and residents of the United States who have foreign income, income from insular possessions of the United States, and income from certain maritime enterprise regulated in conjunction with treaties and trade agreements.

The red herring was the Victory Tax of 1942. This particular sur tax devised to support World War II elapsed in two years and was never re-enacted. The withholding from wages scam (Chapter 24 in Subtitle C) was applicable only to government agencies (definitions at 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401(c) & (d)), not private enterprise. Today the income tax withheld from government personnel (26 U.S.C. § 3402) is applied to liability for the normal tax (see 26 U.S.C. § 31). There is no special tax on government personnel except for the nonresident alien employed by government who has United States source income or the citizen or resident who has foreign income.

Those appointed to key positions in 1954 and after had to know enough about the scheme to carry out its purpose and intent. In order to do that, they had to select lower level key personnel who shared ideological convictions. The convictions had to be predicated on the conclusion, "The end justifies the means."

>From the onset, key positions had to be filled with moral incompetents. Probably second and third level managers were functionally capable but they had to be morally incompetent. Below that, functionality had to deteriorate as it was probably more important to hoodwink rank and file IRS employees than it was to perpetrate the scam against the American people. They had to go to the street to hire pencil pushers willing to follow orders without asking too many questions.

A Murphy corollary describes what happened in IRS over time: A bureaucracy is like a septic tank. The big chunks float to the top.

Those elevated to higher management positions of necessity had to be morally incompetent.

Any given revenue agent may or may not know proper application and administrative requirements. He or she has a standard operating manual, and, if any given situation goes outside standard operating procedure, someone up line provides instructions for handling the situation. One or more IRS or Department of Justice attorneys are lurking in the background in most situations where collateral issues are raised.

Within the American system, there are always two elements in institutionalized conspiracies. There is always a perpetrator by intent and a perpetrator by accommodation and consent. The functionary normally falls into the latter category. The law, however, doesn't distinguish between the two. Once the functionary is provided notice, he is responsible for making inquiry reasonable under the circumstance. If he ignores the law and others suffer loss or injury due to his actions, he can be held personally accountable.

Unfortunately, IRS is but one system in an interlocking system of systems that for the most part share objectives. IRS did not emerge from a vacuum. Nothing comes from nothing.

We can consider Franklin Roosevelt's 1934 State of the Union address to grasp underlying mentality: Roosevelt in one breath delegated the Constitution to antiquity, and in the next warned partisans who might resist the march to social equity. Albeit an iron hand in a silk glove, Roosevelt was more than willing to use force to achieve whatever ends he and his cronies had in mind.

There were still a few on the U.S. Supreme Court who didn't buy into the New Deal socialist scheme even though justices had long before been compromised on other issues. However, that changed after 1937 when a majority capitulated in the Erie Railroad case. The federal judiciary was thereafter stacked with team players willing to stand guard at the federalism gate. Even though the judicial branch is supposed to be independent, judges are politically appointed, and unless someone has a favorable track record, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even being nominated.

The cultural side of the law of entropy speaks to the situation: All systems tend to degenerate, and eventually fail, unless infused with new energy from some outside source.

We can frame a core question to bring focus: Are we a nation under law, or are we subject to the edict of ambitious men?

The situation is at once moral and political. Where the courts are concerned, justice is incidental so corrective strategy must go beyond the judicial. We are taking complaints to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Department of Justice as these oversight and investigative entities have responsibilities relative to the Internal Revenue Service. In the meantime, strategy to reach greater numbers of people needs to be developed and deployed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.