Just Who Or What Is This "IRS?"
Just Who Or What Is This "IRS?"
The letter below was composed by Larry Becraft and sent by me to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service back on February 5, 1997. I have never received a response to this letter but isn't that the way this rogue operation works? As regular readers of this web site know, Larry has been defending Americans against this IRS scam for 20 years. I have spent the past nine years with my nose stuck in books at the law library, and now with the Internet to help cut down on some of those trips to the library, verifying everything he researches. When will America decide enough is enough?
February 5, 1997
Mrs. Margaret M. Richardson
Dear Mrs. Richardson,
Many years ago, I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created your agency, but I was unable to do so. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing.
In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bullet; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. On the very first page of this statement which was published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:
I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that your agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that your agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.
An act of legislative body is essential to create a public office. At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act; see Patton v. Bd. Of Health, 127 Ca. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899) ("One of the requisites is that the office must be created by the constitution of the state or it must be authorized by some statute"); First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N.W. 772, 773 (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 498 (1909); State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 74A 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279 (1923) ("a position is a public office when it is created by law"); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153, N.E. 876, 877 (1926) ("Unless the office existed there could be no officer either de facto or de jure. A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constituted law"); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146 So. 601, 602 (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62 P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P.2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A.2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Comm, 372 Ill. 560, 25 N.E.2d, 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, 391 (1940); Industrial Comm v. Arizona State Highway Comm, 61 Ariz. 59, 145 P.2d 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wash.2d 47, 145 P.2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W.2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky 75, 202 S.W.2d 992, 994 (1947); State el rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash.2d 68, 185 P.2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1948); Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J.Super. 96, 76 A.2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P.2d 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaefer v. Superior Court in and & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1951); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga.App. 340, 71 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W.2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. Of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A.2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616, 118 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. Of T.p. Of West Milford v. T.p. Council of T.p.. Of West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135, 301 A.2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cap.App. 3d 553, 111 Cap. Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm, 58 Ill.2d 234, 317 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E.2d 432, 435 (W.Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Televsion, Inc. v. Champaign-Urbana Communications, Inc., 37 Ill.App.3d 926, 347 N.E.2d 34, 38 (1976); and State v. Pickney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
The same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill"); United States v. Mount, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901)("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties"); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919)("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function...And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication"); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louiseville, 350 U.S. 264, 269 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956)("Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement"); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910)("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress:); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).
Since I have reached the conclusion that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I am asking you to provide to me the citation of any statute which really did create the IRS. Since this is a question of profound national importance, I request that you provide an answer to me within 20 days. Failing a response within that time period, I shall conclude that you cannot find any such statute and shall act accordingly.
That was February 5, 1997. Today is February 6, 2000. I have never received any response because the IRS, regardless of who warms the chair of "Commissioner," cannot provide an answer without giving away the scam being enforced by dragoons, with the full blessing of the United States Congress.
I quote the Denver Post, April 13, 1997 (two days before National Extortion Day):
Weaker IRS May Favor The Wealthy
Middle Incomers Would Suffer Most, Experts Say
by George Rodrique, The Dallas Morning News
"The chief losers, they add, would be the vast majority of middle-class wage earners who pay their taxes voluntarily."
We do? With a gun to our head we are forced to "volunteer." I would highly recommend that the grassroots members of the two "main" political parties out there ask Jr. New World Order George (Bush), McCain, Forbes, Bradley or Red Al (Gore), when they are going to stand in front of this nation and tell people the truth about the unholy alliance between the un-Federal Reserve and the IRS. In case you missed it, please read my piece about the swindle going on and where IRS funds really go.
And now for the kicker. Larry Becraft sent me a set of court papers in the case of:
Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan. Case No. CV 93-4117, Complaint for Impleader. In the District court of the Seventh Judicial District of The State of Idaho, In And For The County Of Bonneville Magistrates Court.
I was floored when I read these documents and will extract only two items from this paperwork which speak volumes:
In the Complaint for Impleader, prepared by the attorneys for plaintiff, page one, item #4:
Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan, or presumably Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.
Now let us look at the response of the Attorneys for the United States of America, prepared by Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, item #4:
Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government but admits that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action. Admits that the IRS has served a Notice of Levy on plaintiff for funds owed to defendant Steve Morgan.
Now wait just a minute! The liars, I mean lawyers, for your government state that the IRS is not an agency of the government. My letter to then Commissar of the IRS, Maggie Richardson clearly lays out the truth of the matter and yet, day in and day out, this rogue operation continues to put people in jail for not volunteering to "pay their fair share."
If anyone thinks these crooks, cowards and criminals in the Congress (with the exception of a few who are kinda, sorta letting the truth out), are going to come clean to the American people, think again. If you think Dan Blather or any of the other liars-for-hire who make millions every night on the nightly "news," will ever broadcast the truth, think again. It's up to US to broadcast the truth and I hope you will send this piece to everyone you know who has a computer and if you know someone who doesn't have a computer, make a copy and send it to them. Tell the recipient to make ten copies and keep doing that - we can reach millions of people in a short period of time using this method. You might send this over to your house member there in Congress. The big-shot won't read it but the staff might....