Fleming and Mullins Destroy Federal Income Tax and IRS

The Federal Income Tax Is Unconstitutional

Fleming and Mullins ‘Destroy’ the IRS

A few years ago, I watched the videos on the Internet by those semi-famous anti-income-tax lecturers, such as Ms. Jackson, and I was intrigued. Also, I watched the Russo film that shows the government official saying the income tax system is “voluntary.” Problem! Problem! Right? Then, I searched for the related laws and tried reading them for myself. I was unable to make a firm conclusion at that time.

Nonetheless, I wrote the Equal Party USA Platform and pledged the end to the personal income tax for other valid reasons, as you can see.

But recently, I finally put 2 and 2 together, thanks to 2 relatively famous lecturers. They are:

1. Donald Fleming, who seems to be well-known only in anti-tax circles. Oddly, he doesn’t have a website, as far as I can tell.
2. The late great Eustace Mullins, who is featured on our Links page and credited throughout this website.

Donald Fleming was interviewed by Deanna Spingola, dated 6 May 2011. Here’s the short version. Here’s the full version, along with a list of other interviews, some worthy and some not.

Fleming was very persuasive to me because he offers a full package: caution, step-by-step advice, citations of exact court cases and other important events in history, and his personal experience.

That said, we all have to make our own personal choice whether to believe it, or how much of it to believe. I believe it because it fits with what I’ve read and heard from Mullins, too.

Fleming’s presentation is so important, I’d like to present a big portion of it here for everybody.

The bottom line, though, which I think is an excellent statement to store in longterm memory (nearly a direct quote from Fleming), is this:

The Income Tax does NOT apply to normal wage earners and salary earners. The Income Tax is only about business “gain” and “profit.”

We’ll return to that statement later and flesh it out. But in the interview, before delving into the issue of the personal income tax, Fleming wanted to make a multi-part introductory statement. The statement proves that the man has his priorities in order:

“The primary issue is what the Preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) states: It’s a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And until such time as we get control of our government back, by electing people that’ll do what we want them to do in accordance with the Constitution, nothing else is important.

That’s Number One.”

Number Two, he said, is in regard to dealing with the IRS and related government agencies. If you don’t read and truly understand the documents related to income tax and the law, “do not take these people on. They either know they’re wrong and don’t care, or they don’t know they’re wrong and still don’t care. They want the money.” And they want to preserve their jobs.

Based on his research of history, laws, Congressional intent, regulations, and court cases on the federal income tax applying only to business-related gain or profit, Fleming developed a three-prong test to determine whether you or anyone is “One Required” to pay any federal income tax.

1. Are you doing business, in a statutory sense?
2. Are you doing business for a gain or profit, in a statutory sense?
3. Are you doing business for a gain or profit that can be effectively connected to a taxable event?

Fleming says it only takes one “No” answer by us to identify us as not required to pay income tax.

People ask him, “What is a taxable event?” (as mentioned in Number 3). Basically, it’s a business event, a commerce event, for an officially defined “gain” or “profit.”

And here’s the ultimate. For all of us normal people, the following statement ought to erase any remaining doubt or confusion.

Fleming said:

The normal person’s wage or salary is an equal exchange for the work done. Thus, no “gain” and no “profit.” An equal exchange. The IRS wants people to believe their paycheck is a “gain,” but it is not. It is an equal exchange for your labor.

Ya gotta love that clarity!

Furthermore, Fleming cites a court case and historical principle to underline the above:

“You earn a wage. That’s inviolable. Butchers’ Union versus Crescent City [1884], and John Locke in his treatise on private property, clearly stated, ‘Labor is inviolable.’ It means, nobody can touch it.”

And that would explain why the government official squirms and says that the federal income tax is “voluntary.” In my opinion as informed by Fleming, Mullins, and others, it’s not only “voluntary,” it’s a system of illegal coercion by our government (and of course, the Rothschild-jew network controlling our government). It’s against We The People and in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, some well-read folks may ask: What about the Amendment to the Constitution that supposedly legalized the personal income tax? Short answer: It didn’t. At the time, there was little fuss about it because it was generally known that it only applied to business. Furthermore: That Amendment was a companion to the illegal establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank system in 1913. As Mullins reports in his book The Rape of Justice and other books, that Amendment was never properly adopted. An Amendment not properly adopted is not an Amendment — no matter which liars in government say it is.

To help show that Fleming knows what he’s talking about, let’s let him walk us through some history, as he did in the interview.

Historical steps

• “In 1894 and 1895, this Pollock case came up where they tried to pass an income tax. And they were defeated in 1895 in the re-hearing by stating ‘No direct taxation unless apportioned.’
• “In 1909, the government came forth with a Corporation Tax act — which was fair, they could tax the profits. Keep in mind, the federal government can do certain things with interstate Commerce. They passed a Corporation Tax act. From 1909 to 1913, there was a House Report 416, four pages long, 12 times they mentioned to extend the Corporation Tax act to individuals and co-partnerships doing business. They prepared a House report which was to be the law prior to the 16th Amendment. HR 21214, the House bill, 12 pages in length, 52 times they stated to extend the Corporation Tax act to individuals and co-partnerships doing business. That makes it pretty clear. Keep in mind, the statute that was finally passed, Volume 38, Page 166, says it’s a tax upon wages, salaries, and compensation for services and income. That’s why the IRS says, ‘There it is, your wages and salaries.’ But you have to understand the power that the government has, how limited and restricted. So you go to the Congressional Record. What was the intent of the lawmaker? That’s the Congressional Record. Again, ‘to extend the Corporation Tax act to individuals and co-partnerships doing business.’ “

And we, as normal citizens, are not “doing business” for the weekly or monthly paycheck we receive.

Going forward, Fleming makes a point about judges having the income tax applied to them in 1920, in the Evans vs. Gore case. It’s an interesting side issue, but a side issue nontheless.

“Let’s move a little forward.

• “In 1935, Social Security Act. It created withholding for Social Security. Along comes 1942, a Victory tax. Now, keep in mind, they still cannot tax you because it’s unconstitutional. But we have a war. How many people stand up against the government and say, ‘I’m not going to pay a Victory tax because you have no authority to do it’? Can you imagine what the government would say?
• “In 1943, they changed the name of the Victory Tax to the Extended Income Tax Act, and we’re stuck with it now by virtue of the IRS misrepresenting and misinterpreting the law, which for all intents and purposes is fraud, and here we are today with a lie that most people have no knowledge of, but they pay an income tax.”

“I don’t,” says Fleming. “Once I realized I was not One Required, I quit filing. …”

In the full video linked above, he says that the IRS sent him letters, to which he replied, and they insisted he meet them, which he did, but he always showed them that he knew he was not One Required to pay an income tax. Finally, he didn’t hear from them anymore.

Why did the IRS stop pursuing him? Fleming says it’s because he knows what the Constitution says, he knows what the law says, he knows what the Congressional Record says, and he knows he is not One Required to file nor pay an income tax. “That’s why, I’m convinced, they leave me alone,” he says.

And most of us, he says, are likewise not One Required.

Well, that felt conclusive.

Let’s take note of one more case that Fleming cites to further support his conclusion. He says, “Eisner versus Macomber [1920] clearly states doing business for a gain or profit, there must be a gain or profit. Even the IRS Code says it must be effectively connected to a taxable event.”

Dueling Duos

Two more pertinent points by Fleming describe dualities in The Law and in subsequent Regulations made by an agency such as the IRS.

In Law, we have the dueling duo of Substance and Form.

“Substance rather than Form is a controlling factor. The Form of the statute says “wages and salaries.” What is the Substance? Go to the Congressional Record, where it says it’s about business gain and profit. Not the normal person’s wages and salaries.”

Fleming adds that the Substance of a law can be found in the intent of the lawmakers. “The intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law. Again, the Congressional Record provides the intent.”

The other duo is in Regulations. In law, there are distinctly two kinds. Regulations issued by agencies of the government are either Substantive or Interpretive. Substantive regulations have force of law. Interpretive regulations generally don’t have force of law.

“Most IRS regulations are Interpretive,” says Fleming. Thus, mere IRS interpretations have no force of law, he says. “Hardly any IRS regulations are Substantive.”

Sadly for We The People who are oppressed by the IRS arm of the Rothchild-jew control of our entire money system, knowledge of all of the above doesn’t necessarily protect us. The IRS continues to illegally seize people’s assets and put people in jail for not “volunteering” full cooperation with their “voluntary” system. And the criminal judges populating our court system collude with the IRS.

Thus, the ultimate goal of the brave American who stands on the U.S. Constitution is to get a jury trial, as stipulated in the Constitution. Juries of our fellow Americans have been known to see the light when finally presented with the facts as presented by Fleming and Mullins.

Mullins and his book The Rape of Justice

Eustace Mullins published long ago, and Fleming concurs, that the government tries to make a contractual claim against us. The government says that by our “voluntary” entry in systems, such as filing tax forms or getting a Social Security number, that we contractually obligate ourselves. But that’s illegal, and it’s a fraud.

Mullins and Fleming both say that we were never formally, legally, fully, informed of any such contractual situations nor the supposed obligations associated with them. And I would add that the Social Security system is pushed on us when we are children and thus not of legal standing to enter such a contract.

Both men say that, therefore, if necessary, we can file an affidavit stating that we never knowingly, willingly, nor intentionally entered into any such “adhesion” contracts. That quoted word is from Fleming (in the long video linked above), and he says to file the information in your “county seat.” Fleming finishes with a flourish by saying that we might include the following sentence: “‘Therefore, it stands to reason that I am not One Liable.’ Period.”

Penultimately, I’d like to present two passages from Mullins’ book The Rape of Justice. It’s a supplemental view on how and why the federal income tax has been treasonously pressed upon us.

(Note: In the first passage, Mullins uses the word “reformers” sarcastically. We can understand that word to mean the complicit or ignorant people who served the Rothschild-jew “communist” or “liberal” agenda. Yes, “liberal” used to be synonymous with communist, but it has been morphed by the Rothschild-jew-owned media into, basically, “Democrat” nowadays. That bit of knowledge alone should throw a switch in many Americans’ duped minds.)

From page 453:

One cannot understand the “income tax” or what sort of tax is being laid on what type of income, without knowing the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient for the government expenditures of that period, but the reformers wanted a government which would exercise more direct control over the people. Congress imposed an income tax on all incomes above $4,000 per year on Aug. 28, 1894. This was the equivalent of $60,000 a year in today’s dollars [in the 1980s]. On May 20, 1895, the income tax law was declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 1895. The Court ruled that 1. taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate were equally direct taxes. 2. That taxes on personal property or on the income of personal property were likewise direct taxes. The whole act was declared unconstitutional and void.

And the following passage focuses on the Constitutional Amendment of 1913. (Again, it’s important to know that Mullins is being sarcastic when he says “necessary” and “required.” He means that the Rothschild-jew network needed those measures.) From page 454:

Despite this precedent, an income tax was enacted by constitutional amendment in 1913, although many scholars have noted that the amendment was never properly ratified by most states. It was a necessary measure, required to fund the financing of the First World War by the United States. The European nations were already bankrupt and had no money to finance the war. Thus the income tax was properly a “war tax,” a fact which became more obvious during the Second World War, when the withholding tax on incomes was passed by Congress as a temporary wartime measure. Forty-five years later, it is still in effect, …

The Writ

Finally, before offering a few concluding remarks, I’d like to present a passage about the Writ Of Habeas Corpus from the same Mullins book. I want to do this here because I haven’t written a separate review of his book, and this passage is of very high and general importance.

Mullins says that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be used for any kind of oppression or restraint against us by the government.

From page 178:

Thus the widespread impression that the writ of habeas corpus applies only to persons detained in prison is merely one application of the writ. It can and should be used to apply to every instance of illegal and unconstitutional oppression by any government agent against any American citizen, “whatever society determines to be intolerable restraint.” Note that it does not say “whatever the court determines.” The people have the final jurisdiction and determination in the matter of “intolerable restraint,” and they must exercise their jurisdiction in determining that restraint. It applies not only to the forcible and illegal detention of a person’s body, but it also offers an immediate legal remedy for any undue restraint upon any citizen of the United States in his pursuit of life, liberty and property. For the first time, our citizens now have a weapon which enables them to take action against any act of oppression by government agents, or power-crazed federal officials, many of whom are secretly in the pay of foreign powers.

For details on how to use the Writ, how to write up legal motions, and related advice, see Mullins’ book. It’s available for free. See our Links page for the slightly inconvenient way to read it and download it.

Conclusion

Fleming and Mullins have destroyed the IRS and the monumental scam that gave birth to the IRS. Right? Exposed. Destroyed.

Another joy that comes as a result of reading and listening to Fleming and Mullins is that we begin to get a fine education in The Law. It’s an education unavailable in our educational system.

You know, it has been said of Thomas Jefferson that he was quite a scholar in many fields. And in our major and minor media, they tell us that nobody does that nowadays, nor can. That’s BS, of course. Jefferson, quite simply, never stopped being curious, never stopped learning about whatever he wanted to know. There’s no reason why we can’t do the same, especially with the ease of access to knowledge on the Internet. The key is in choosing materials with fidelity to the truth rather than choosing books and websites purposely corrupting the truth.

Finally, a personal note.

I haven’t filed an income tax return for several years. I’ve lost track of how many. The main reason has been that my income is too low to “qualify.” I’m a low-paid teacher in Vietnam, as the About Page fully explains. However, I’ve seen the IRS forms that seem to say I’m supposed to file even though my income is from working abroad and is lower than the threshold. I defy that. I don’t accept it. And now, fortified with the knowledge as reported above, I stand on Constitutional principle. I intend never to file related to wages or salary. I am not “One Required” because normal wages and salary are not business “gain” nor business “profit.”

Dear readers, it would not be wise for me at this time to invite IRS wrath upon myself, alone, by urging you to follow the implied advice of Fleming and Mullins. But I’ll say this: If many millions of us stop bowing to them, we would have safety in numbers. Furthermore, for those who say that the government “needs” the money, I urge the rejection of such propaganda.

The entire money system, the government budgetary process, the deficit, the historic debt, and the “need” for austerity on The People while our rulers live in utter splendor IS A SCAM.

Next year could be the year our generation fixes it. But it’s going to take more than one name on the Sign Up page. It’s going to take 500. That’s only an average of 10 decent Americans per state. Fully doable.