Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government

From: Subject: Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:05:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government

Transcript of Dr. Edwin Vieira's Presentation at the = National=20 Press Club, June 29, 2000

[Bob Schulz introduction] Dr. Edwin Vieira is a graduate of Harvard = College,=20 the Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and Harvard Law = School. He is=20 an attorney specializing in constitutional law; he is the author of = Pieces of=20 Eight, the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States=20 Constitution, published in 1983, and a revised version of Pieces = of=20 Eight is scheduled for publication later this year. Let's welcome = Dr. Edwin=20 Vieira.

(Dr. Vieira) Thank you, Bob, ladies and gentlemen. My pleasure to be = here.=20 I'm billed, on your program, with talking about the money issue. But = I've been=20 talking about the money issue and writing about the money issue for so = long that=20 I'm thoroughly bored with it. And when this book, this revised book = comes out,=20 if you pick that up at the library, if I can somehow wangle libraries = into=20 putting it on their shelves, and you read it, you'll be mightily bored = with the=20 issue too.

So, I'm not going to talk about that, I'm going to talk, in general, = about=20 some of the problems that I see from a constitutionalist's perspective = with the=20 "16th Amendment" and the wonderful work that Bill Benson has done, and = that=20 Larry Becraft and others have followed up on.

Now, one of the things, though, that I would like to raise as an = issue, for=20 your consideration, is a peculiarity that I see between the two subject = matters;=20 one, the money issue, the Federal Reserve, if you will, on the one hand, = and the=20 income tax on the other hand. I've studied the money issue, case law, = statutory=20 law, historical descriptions of what went on, from, I don't know, the = Middle=20 1600's in England up until now. And one of the things you discover, or = at least=20 I have discovered, going through all of that, is that the powers that = be, very=20 systematically changed the laws as they went along, or they wrote the = court=20 opinions in such a way as to rationalize, perhaps not justify, but at = least to=20 rationalize, what they were doing.

So you can see a kind of logical progression or degeneration in the = statutory=20 and case law from the early days, from the Constitution, from 1789, up = until the=20 present time. And they really didn't hide any of this. It's there if = you're=20 willing to look. Fascinating thing is, most people aren't willing to = look. But,=20 it's not a deep, dark secret.

Whereas, in the area of the income tax, there seems to be, at least = to my=20 mind, an anomaly. That is, if I were in charge, politically, of this = system, and=20 I had a vast mass of people out there believing that they had to pay = these taxes=20 and they had to file these forms and keep these records and perform all = of these=20 various functions, even if I knew that the "16th Amendment" hadn't been = ratified=20 or that there was some other basic constitutional flaws in what I was = doing, it=20 really wouldn't bother me too much, to write the tax statutes and = regulations=20 consistently with what the masses of people thought those statutes and=20 regulations said. Why would I care? It's all a con game anyway, right? = I'm lying=20 left and right. I can lie in this statute as well I lie in that statute. = What=20 difference does it make? Why would I not write the tax code and the tax=20 regulations in the way everybody believes the tax code and the tax = regulations=20 are already written?

And I leave that with you, because I think that's a fascinating = psychological=20 problem.

The more interesting psychological problem, and I think it's a = problem also=20 of political philosophy, that I want to talk about today, is why we are = even=20 bothering to be here. Why Bill Benson had to bother, trudging all over = the=20 country, to collect those, what, 17,000, plus or minus -- probably plus, = probably a low estimate -- 17,000 certified pages of public records. It = seems to=20 me that, if we're all not embarked on a kind of fool's errand, that, = certainly,=20 this group has undertaken a task that, in any kind of free and rational = society,=20 it should never have been called upon to start, and certainly shouldn't = have to=20 complete.

None of the business that the various speakers this morning have laid = on the=20 table before you folks, would be necessary, if all of those foxes in = charge of=20 the henhouse in Washington and the state capitols, all of those years = since=20 1913, had been acting according to their legal duties, instead of = behaving=20 according to their political natures. Now, I know, just as everyone else = here,=20 that I really swoon with patriotic ardor, and swell with party pride, = when I=20 hear the revered names of our leaders, past and present.

Nevertheless, it seems to me, that the conclusion to which I come, = from=20 history, at least, is that all of them, to the last man and woman, minus = one or=20 two exceptions, haven't done their duty, they're not doing their duty, = they have=20 no intention of doing their duty, and no reality, no piling up of = petitions, or=20 pleas or kowtowing or begging, will ever cause them to do their duty, or = to=20 accomplish anything other than aiding their critics to establish a = record of=20 their willful and persistent derelictions of duty. Now, some of you may = blanch=20 at that, the severity and the sweep of this indictment, for lawyers are = good at=20 making indictments. But, I'll let you be the judges.

Now, I just should backtrack once, because I always tell some kind of = a story=20 about lawyers, being one, for my sins.

Plane goes down, in the Caribbean. Three survivors. Dr. Kildare, = Lawyer=20 Mouthpiece, and Father O'Flaherty. And they swim to this little island. = Get=20 there, they're completely dog tired. And there's nothing, just sand and = rock.=20 But, across a little lagoon, there's another island, and it has palm = trees, and,=20 apparently, fresh water. Well, they have to get to it. And they see that = one of=20 the rafts from the plane has washed up on that island. Now that ... but = they're=20 too tired to swim, so they say "One of us has got to go and get that = raft." But=20 the water is full of sharks. Well, Dr. Kildare, he's really the = strongest of the=20 three, says "I'll go." The other two say, "No, Doctor, no, you know if = things=20 come, bad comes to worse, we're going to need you." Father O'Flaherty = says=20 "Well, it's really my responsibility, my sons, I'll go." They say, "No, = Father,=20 if things really come worse to worse, we may need you even more than Dr. = Kildare." So that leaves, of course, the lawyer. Nobody can figure out a = reason=20 why he shouldn't go. So, he goes off and plunges into the water, and all = of a=20 sudden, instead of devouring him, the tiger sharks line up and form a = bridge and=20 he can actually walk right across to the other side. And Father = O'Flaherty looks=20 at Dr. Kildare and says, "It's a miracle, a miracle." And Dr. Kildare = turns back=20 and says, "No, just professional courtesy." (Audience laughter and=20 applause.)

Well, let me be a little shark-like in terms of analyzing this = situation,=20 historically. You know, with all deference to Bill, the question of the=20 invalidity of the "16th Amendment" wasn't broached yesterday, it wasn't = even=20 broached in 1985, really. Because all of the primary evidence has been a = matter=20 of public record since 1913. 1913, until the early 1980's, well before = Bill=20 Benson and Red Beckman ever started out on their trek, it was there. = Now, Bill=20 published that book, The Law That Never Was, 1985, (Bill, in = background=20 saying "April 4th") okay, April 4th, 1985, 15 years ago. The evidence = that was=20 catalogued and reproduced in The Law That Never Was was filed and = the=20 argument against the "16th Amendment" was presented in numerous Federal = court=20 income tax cases, or at least they tried to present it. I remember one = of those=20 was in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I was there testifying on another subject, = on the=20 money issue. Bill was there, Larry Becraft was there, and there was = Judge=20 Enslen, who was the ringmaster in that little circus. And what was = interesting=20 in that case, just as an aside, they were so afraid of having the money = issue,=20 forget the "16th Amendment", they were so afraid of having the money = issue=20 presented to the jury, that they had to have my testimony off the = record, at=20 night, in the court house, with no one present, other than the lawyers, = and the=20 court clerk and the judge, and the poor witness. That was Judge Enslen. = Fine=20 example.

Bill Benson and Larry Becraft, as I understand, sent copies of The = Law=20 That Never Was to every member of Congress. (In the background, Bill = said "I=20 did.") You did, okay, and that was when, the middle 1980's? (Bill in = background=20 "'87, and their names were embossed on the bottom of the book in gold, = just like=20 the book is [couldn't understand Bill's last word here]") Okay, 1980, = 1987. And=20 subsequently, and even to this very day, the charge that the "16th = Amendment" is=20 invalid has appeared in all sorts of publications, and you can find it = spread in=20 the global village on the Internet. People in Bangladesh know this. = Alright. And=20 of course, very recently, this group, Bob Schulz, presented the issue to = the=20 White House, right, with the results that you all know. But nothing has = been=20 done, in all these years, by all of these people in authority. And, = there is the=20 interesting question, "Why not?".

Well, to answer that question, I think you first have to investigate = how=20 these people have shirked their duties and failed their country, and, if = Shakespeare's ghost will forgive me, I would ask the question, "How do I = fault=20 thee? Let me count the ways."

First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The inferior Federal courts, = I'm not=20 saying that to be derogatory, that's the constitutional term, right? The = inferior courts ... say that the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" = raises a=20 "political question" which is not justiciable, but belongs exclusively = to=20 Congress. Well, that's rather a highly questionable, you know, or even=20 question-begging conclusion. As many as you probably know, the term = "political=20 question", or even any words or phrases that intimate that kind of a = doctrine,=20 do not appear in the Constitution. The doctrine of political questions = is=20 another of those rather imaginative patterns that the courts have cut = from whole=20 cloth in order to avoid being confronted with issues that they would = rather not=20 hear.

Now, in some very narrow context, that idea may serve a practical = purpose.=20 But in this particular context, it makes no sense at all. If you recall, = the=20 theory of judicial review, which is the basis for the Supreme Court and = the=20 other courts deciding on the constitutional questions of statutes that = come=20 before them, that was first excogitated in the case of Marbury v. = Madison=20 by John Marshall, long, long, ago [5 U.S. 137, 173, 176 (1803)], and it = says=20 that because of their oaths or affirmations of office to support this=20 Constitution, in any case or controversy that comes before the judges, = they must=20 put the Constitution ahead of any mere statute or other action by public = officials.

So, no matter what Congress or the President or the States may say = some=20 provision of the Constitution means to them, the judges must decide the = matter=20 for themselves. In fact, they have a saying, which is attributed usually = to=20 Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that encapsulates this sort of = unbridled=20 power that they have: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." = Well, of=20 course, that's nonsense! But let's take them at their word, and see = where that=20 leads. If the judges' oaths or affirmations require them to decide for=20 themselves what some provision of the Constitution means, why then do = those same=20 oaths or affirmations not equally compel them to decide the even more=20 consequential matter of whether some alleged provision of the = Constitution=20 actually exists? Alright? Existence usually precedes meaning, one would = hope. No=20 matter what Congress or the Secretary of State or the President or the = States=20 may say, or not say.

Are we supposed to believe that this doctrine of judicial review is = so=20 inconsistent in its logic, and so porous in its coverage, that, on the = one hand,=20 the courts will not suffer Congress, the President or the States, to = make the=20 least little mistake about some provision or amendment of the = Constitution, what=20 those mean, let alone to lie about it? But, on the other hand, the = courts will=20 allow Congress, the Secretary of the State, the President, the States, = whomever,=20 to lie or to make glaring mistakes about whether a particular amendment = actually=20 exists? -- is rather implausible theory.

Are we further to believe that the courts will not allow Congress to = lie or=20 to make a glaring mistake about whether an Amendment actually exists, = but then=20 will also suffer themselves to be perverted as willing tools to convict, = fine,=20 or incarcerate people, who, if the Amendment doesn't exist, are innocent = of any=20 crime? That strikes me as even less likely.

Now, it's possible that judges with straight faces, and maybe quiet=20 consciences, might refuse to hear the argument that the "16th Amendment" = was not=20 validly ratified. If Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, = and the=20 States that supposedly ratified the Amendment, had all affirmatively = passed on=20 that question in light of the evidence that has now been exposed through = Bill=20 Benson's work. But as every judge in this country knows, neither = Congress, nor=20 the Secretary of State, nor the President, nor any of the States that = supposedly=20 ratified that Amendment, have, in fact, passed on the deficiencies that = Bill has=20 cataloged. And these deficiencies quite glaringly show that the = Secretary of=20 State and the state legislatures that supposedly ratified the Amendment = knew, or=20 should have known, from the very beginning, that those ratifications = were highly=20 questionable. But they did nothing.

So, it strikes me that no judge can honestly say that this is a = matter that=20 Congress or other political branches of the government, national or = state, have=20 somehow put to rest. Neither can any judge say that this is a matter = that only=20 Congress can or should put to rest. Or at least no judge can say this, = when a=20 defendant stands before him charged with some criminal violation of a = statute,=20 the validity of which depends on the existence of the Amendment. = Self-evidently,=20 if Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, and the States, = refuse to=20 come to grips with the issue, the obligation to decide the invalidity of = the=20 "16th Amendment" necessarily falls back on each individual judge, in = each case=20 that comes before him, perforce of Marbury v. Madison. Their own = Supreme=20 Court is telling them to do this.

Now, whether the ratification of the "16th Amendment" arose out of a = fraud=20 perpetrated by Philander Knox, at least in my view, is not the = controlling issue=20 in this kind of analysis. Although, obviously, a charge of fraud renders = the=20 matter that much more serious. The Amendment would be unconstitutional = even if=20 Knox's certification of its supposed ratification, had resulted from his = merely=20 honest stupidity, insouciance, or blunders. Either the Amendment was = ratified in=20 the form required by law in 1913, or it was not. If it was not so = ratified, it=20 did not then become, and is not now, and cannot be, part of the = Constitution, no=20 matter how many mistakes office holders may have made in good faith in = saying=20 the opposite.

We the People's lives, liberty, and property cannot be held hostage = to our=20 representative's negligence. And any judicial doctrine that holds = otherwise, is=20 itself such a [sound interrupted for approximately 7 seconds ]. But I = don't=20 believe an honest mistake explains why judges so readily employ their = doctrine=20 of political questions. [sound interrupted for 13 seconds] alleged = Amendment,=20 and its invalidity would be a political question if it dealt, not with = the=20 income tax, which is a cornerstone of the modern administrative state, = but with=20 some other matter that threatened the establishment's power.

Imagine, for instance, that for ... as they used to say in Camelot, a = single=20 shining moment occurred, and We the People actually gained control of = Congress=20 and the state Legislatures and pushed through a new amendment. A new = patriotic=20 amendment, that cut back on the, for instance, the judiciary's wild=20 misinterpretations of the First Amendment. An amendment that allowed = states and=20 localities to ban pornographic writings, theatrical performances, = movies, lewd=20 displays, whatever. I don't have to specify any more. All the elements = of the=20 sexually degenerate cutting edge of the cultural revolution that the=20 Establishment is waging against this country. Would the courts interpose = the=20 doctrine of political questions to prevent the peddlers of smut from = stripping=20 that Amendment of its validity if they had the evidence that Bill Benson = produced against the "16th Amendment"?

Or imagine that this new Amendment allowed or even required the = states to ban=20 abortion. Uh! God forbid! Would the courts energize the doctrine of = political=20 questions to suction the abortions out of the courtroom doors?

Or imagine this new Amendment prohibited the national government from = owning=20 any wilderness areas, parks, or other lands or facilities, other than = those=20 specified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution, and = required=20 the government to sell what it holds to the private sector. Would the = courts=20 snarl at the radical environmentalists to stop badgering the judges and = instead=20 hunt for relief from Congress?

Or imagine that this Amendment reaffirms, in utterly clear terms, = that the=20 Second Amendment absolutely guarantees and protects the private = ownership of all=20 types of firearms suitable for people's militia, from handguns to fully=20 automatic rifles and submachine guns. Would the courts unholster the = doctrine of=20 political questions to shoot down the lawsuits of the gun control = fanatics?=20 Would Rosie O'Donnell be told to go to Congress, or some other place = where she=20 ought to go? [Audience laughter and applause]

Could anyone here believe for one minute, for one second, that in = each of=20 these situations, the Establishment's courts would not leap into the = legal fray=20 and declare any of these supposed Amendments invalid, notwithstanding = all the=20 arguments about political questions that the proponents of the = Amendments might=20 make? Well, I leave that you, that's rather self-evident.

Now, let's look at the Department of Justice, so-called. If judges = are=20 responsible for whatever injustices are being perpetrated under the = "16th=20 Amendment" because the courts serve as the venues for prosecutions, = certain=20 people of the Department of Justice, perhaps are even more culpable, = because=20 they bring those prosecutions in the first instance. Now, doubtlessly, = the=20 government attorneys involved in the initial cases in which was = introduced=20 evidence from The Law That Never Was, reported all of this back = to their=20 superiors. Then what did they, their colleagues, and their superiors do? = Well,=20 there's a division in the Department of Justice that decides whether or = not to=20 pursue each and every income tax prosecution, at least that used to be = the law.=20 In making those decisions in the cases that followed publication of = The Law=20 That Never Was, did the responsible officials or the prosecuting = attorneys=20 or anyone else in that bureaucratic rabbit warren investigate the = invalidity of=20 the "16th Amendment"? Did the Attorney General, who is ultimately = responsible=20 for everything that transpires in the Department of Justice, do = anything?

If they did, what did they do? What did they discover? What did they=20 determine? If it was that the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified, why = has=20 someone at the Department of Justice not communicated this conclusion in = eighteen point type to the American people, so the matter could finally = be=20 closed? What would cause the people in that department to keep such a = congenial=20 conclusion secret? Surely not their personal self-interests, or the=20 self-interests of the political machinery in which they are the cogs. On = the=20 other hand, if they did not investigate, why not? Did they act then? Are = they=20 acting now, in reckless disregard of what an investigation would prove? = Well=20 now, you know most of these machinskies are attorneys. They're members = of the=20 bar, and officers of the courts. As such, they have certain ethical -- = believe=20 it or not -- they have certain ethical obligations, in addition to the = legal=20 responsibilities that their bureaucratic positions impose on them.

Now, those of you who are attorneys or might have had the misfortune = to deal=20 with attorneys, should ponder the following little scenario that I've = drawn up,=20 and the questions that might be used at what we lawyers call "a = continuing legal=20 education seminar on lawyers' ethics." And here's the scenario: Attorney = Shyster=20 represents a major corporation that has a number of lawsuits being = threatened=20 and prosecuted against it. During the first of these cases that goes to = trial,=20 the CEO of Shyster's client provides him with a document that, the CEO = says,=20 will win the case. Well, dutifully Shyster introduces the document as = evidence.=20 Over the opposing party's objection, Judge Goofball accepts it. On the = basis of=20 this evidence, Shyster's client prevails. Later, information comes to = Shyster=20 showing that the supposed evidence is, or very well may be, in fact, = false, and=20 perhaps even fraudulent.

Question. Does Shyster have an ethical obligation to investigate the = matter?=20

Question. Until that investigation is completed, has been completed, = may=20 Shyster ethically introduce the document in other trials, simply because = Judge=20 Goofball was possibly deceived in the first trial by Shyster = himself?

Question. What if the CEO of Shyster's client orders Shyster not to=20 investigate, but to cover up the whole matter, and to continue to use = the phony=20 evidence in other trials? Should Shyster refuse or merely raise his fee? = [Audience laughter]

Question. Would your answer to the preceding question be different if = the CEO=20 also promises to use his political influence to see that Shyster is = appointed to=20 a Federal judgeship?

Well, one need not be an expert in legal ethics or even a lawyer to = know how=20 to answer these questions, especially the last one. But the question is = really,=20 which way should they be answered?

Well now, let's take a look at Congress. Congress's responsibility = for this=20 state of affairs is multi-fold.

Number one. Congress originally accepted Philander Knox's = certification that=20 the "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified, without, as far as we = know, any=20 legislative investigation of the accuracy or good-faith of his = certification.=20 Correct? Didn't even look at it! Well if this was culpable negligence, = at that=20 time, is open to debate. No longer arguable is that such uncritical = acceptance=20 today sinks to a level far below mere negligence.

Second. Based on its original uncritical acceptance of the "16th = Amendment",=20 since 1913 Congress has enacted numerous income tax statutes and = licensed the=20 IRS to promulgate countless regulations under color of which trillions = of=20 dollars of wealth have been extracted from the American people, and who = can say=20 how many individuals have been fined, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized = and=20 punished for violating various code provisions or regulations. This = looting and=20 persecution continues unabated, not only within Congress's view, and not = only to=20 its financial benefit, but also with its acquiescence, approval, and no = less=20 than aid and comfort.

For point three, Congress has always enjoined the constitutional = power, and=20 faced with the documentation that the "16th Amendment" was not lawfully=20 ratified, has the constitutional duty to initiate an inquiry into the = legal=20 basis for the present income tax statutes and regulations. It doesn't = need Bill=20 Benson to petition it. Doesn't need this group of people to meet here. = It's=20 always had that responsibility and that power. And not in some vaguely=20 theoretical way either. Because court after court, in the last few = years, has=20 actually held, not merely suggested, that whether the "16th Amendment" = was=20 validly ratified, is a political question for Congress alone to decide. = So the=20 judiciary has officially dumped this issue in the Legislature's lap. And = every=20 American knows how punctilious and scrupulous Congress is in following = judicial=20 decisions.

Which brings me to point four. If Congress would've determined that = officials=20 in the Judicial and Executive branches of the government have convicted = and=20 imprisoned innocent individuals under color of tax statutes, = notwithstanding=20 that those officials were on notice, and knew, or should have known, of = the=20 invalidity of the "16th Amendment", then it seems that Congress would be = at=20 least morally required to impeach and remove from office each and every = one of=20 those officials, preliminary to the imposition of more drastic = punishments.

Well, Congress has done none of those things either. That brings us = to the=20 Secretary of State. Now the present Secretary of State ... and I should=20 backtrack one step. The law has changed. The Secretary of State no = longer=20 certifies the ratification of constitutional amendments. But, in this = particular=20 case, I believe the present Secretary of State, the sitting Secretary of = State,=20 retains responsibility because her predecessor, Philander Knox, = certified the=20 "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified. And if Knox's act under = color of his=20 position of Secretary was erroneous, or worse yet, fraudulent, it would = appear=20 legally incumbent, as well as morally compulsive, upon Knox's successor = in=20 office, to correct the error or expose the fraud, because that really = was an=20 error of the Department of State. Of course, nothing's being done there = now, the=20 present Secretary of State is more interested in bombing wogs and fuzzy = wuzzys=20 in foreign countries than in dealing with issues of freedom of the = American=20 people.

Well, that brings us to the President, or as they like to say, this = President=20 [audience laughter], to distinguish him from all the other Presidents = [more=20 laughter], for whatever reason may strike your fancy, this = President.

On entering his office, even this President swore or affirmed that = he, quote=20 "will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the=20 Constitution of the United States," and it may be true that he's doing = it to the=20 best of his ability [audience laughter and applause]. Because if = Congress won't=20 call him a perjurer, I certainly don't want to. And among this = President's=20 duties is the requirement that, quote, "he shall take care that the laws = be=20 faithfully executed." No doubt depending on what he thinks "faithfully" = means=20 [audience laughter], because we know how he interprets that word in = other=20 contexts [more laughter].

How can anyone fulfill these mandates who does not know, or worse = yet, does=20 not care, what the Constitution actually prescribes? So, now that the = President=20 does know, along with everyone else in the global village, for which we = can=20 thank Al Gore, right? [audience laughter]. As long as he knows that the=20 ratification of the "16th Amendment" may have been false or fraudulent, = his=20 duties should be diligently to inquire into the matter so that he could = be sure=20 of what the laws are, that he must take care to faithfully execute. And = while=20 the investigation proceeds, he could also order the Department of = Justice not to=20 prosecute any more criminal income tax cases, let them be put on hold, = for=20 heaven's sakes. And he could even pardon those people who were convicted = while=20 the courts and everyone else in positions of authority in the Federal = apparatus=20 refused to address this issue. He could, but he isn't, and he hasn't, = and he=20 won't.

Well, that brings us to the states. Glory be, the 10th Amendment, the = states.=20 The states that claimed to Secretary of State Knox that they had = ratified the=20 "16th Amendment" obviously share an especially weighty responsibility = for=20 everything that has transpired since 1913. Partly because they, perhaps = more=20 than anyone else, are, or should be, aware of the many manifest and = arguably=20 fatal deficiencies of their supposed ratifications. So now that this = question=20 has been squarely presented, the Legislatures of those states should = conduct=20 their own investigations into the sufficiency of their ratifications. = And=20 perhaps their courts should entertain lawsuits to test that sufficiency. = Moreover, what about those three solitary states, the three musketeers = of=20 constitutionalism, that refused to ratify the 16th Amendment? = Connecticut, the=20 Constitution state. Rhode Island, where they had the first incendiary = tax=20 protest, they burned the Gatsby, British tax schooner. And Utah. Those = states=20 could bring an action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, = attacking the faulty ratification of the Amendment. And this would have = the=20 inestimable value of forcing the "gang of nine" to take a public = position, that=20 they will obviously never do because they will always deny writs of = certiorari=20 in any of these tax cases that come up through the lower courts.

So, in sum, much could be done by many doers with legal and moral=20 responsibility for doing something, who all have some power to do it. = But, in=20 fact, nothing has been done by the Judiciary, except to dodge the issue = as a=20 "political question". And nothing has been done in any way, shape, or = form, by=20 Congress, the Department of Justice, Secretary of the State, the = President, or=20 the states. Now were this a matter, not of constitutional law, which is = one of=20 my areas of interest, but of labor law, which is another of my areas of=20 interest, I might draw the conclusion that I would have to identify all = of these=20 political deadbeats as charter members of Local Number One of the = Shirkers,=20 Snivelers, Shovel-Leaners, and Standers-By International Union [audience = laughter and applause]. Any of you who have teen-age or near teen-age = children=20 know about that union because I think children sign up for that at = birth,=20 alright. Try to get them to do anything around the house.

Or, if this were a matter of criminal law, which in the fulness of = time it=20 may yet become, the conclusion would be that as government officials, = these=20 people knowingly, intentionally and wilfully have enforced an arguably = invalid=20 Amendment with reckless disregard of its invalidity and therefore should = be held=20 criminally liable as violators of American civil rights [audience = applause].=20 Title 18, United States Code, section 241, seems to have been written = with them=20 in mind. Perhaps more interestingly, though, to me at least, is to view = this=20 spectacle through the lense of political science, or political = philosophy. I=20 don't think this is much a matter of legal craft as it is of soul craft, = if you=20 know my meaning.

The failure to act on the part of all of these individuals in high = office for=20 so many decades, and especially during the last fifteen years, during = which they=20 have been on repeated notice of the documentation compiled in The Law = That=20 Never Was, must have had some reason other than mere sloth. For, = according=20 to their own press releases, and their political propaganda, these = people are=20 the very best and the brightest of all Americans. They are uniquely = qualified by=20 their intellects, their experiences, their motivations, their qualities = of=20 leadership, ad nauseam, to fill the highest offices of the land. That's = why they=20 run for office, for heaven's sakes! And surely, political psychology = tells us=20 that the most plausible reason for the inactivity of such men and women = must be=20 their own self-interest, which, no doubt, they know better than anything = else.

Now, the American people must ask themselves, "What is the = self-interest of=20 political officials sworn to support this Constitution, to preserve and = protect=20 the Constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, = what is the=20 self-interest of those individuals who would maintain this country in=20 subservience to an 'income tax amendment' they know, should know, and = have every=20 good reason to know, was never ratified, and is therefore not part of = the=20 Constitution, and not a law, to be faithfully executed or even to be = executed in=20 any way, shape or form?"

Clearly, it is not the self-interest of true and honest agents of = average=20 American men and women. For in no rational sense could such deceitful = and=20 disloyal officials, behaving in such a lawless manner, be considered the = people's representatives. Then who or what have they been representing = all of=20 these years? And more to the present purpose, who or what are they = representing=20 now?

Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and only two, = kinds=20 of government. One, is what the ancient Romans called, a res = publica, a=20 "public thing", a government for the people. Not necessarily a = democracy,=20 because ancient Rome was not a democracy. And not necessarily a = republic,=20 because the ancient Romans from time to time appointed dictators, with = good=20 reason. And one can even imagine an aristocracy or a monarchy that would = put the=20 public interest, the general welfare, the common good of every citizen, = ahead of=20 all narrow special interests. Well that's one form of government.

The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected, = self-perpetuating,=20 crew of elitists. This is not a res publica, a public thing. It = is La=20 Cosa Nostra, "our thing." [audience laughter and applause]. That is, = gangster government. And such is precisely the nature of what passes for = the=20 government today in Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and = the=20 cities. It's just a different "family", depending on where you are.

This explains what is going on with the "16th Amendment" far better = than any=20 legal mumbo jumbo such as the doctrine of "political questions". = America's=20 gangster government does not give a rotten fig what the law actually is. = Because=20 law is just a camouflage, or a cover story, for the gang's looting and=20 oppression of the rest of society [audience applause]. America's = gangster=20 government operates under what it's legal mouthpieces called a "living=20 Constitution." That is, a Constitution, the meaning of which depends on = the=20 interests of the big shots who happen to be living [audience laughter], = and who=20 pull the legislative and judicial strings.

So, America's gangster government can function perfectly well under=20 Constitutional Amendments that were never ratified. Because whether an = amendment=20 was ratified is far less important than whether it can be enforced. And = I remind=20 you of the wisdom ... the man was not a Sicilian, he was a Neopolitan, = but he=20 had tremendous wisdom in this area ... Alphonse Capone, one of the great = political philosophers in American history [audience laughter]. He said = "You can=20 go a long way in life with a smile, but you can go a lot farther with a = smile=20 and a gun." [audience laughter]. It's what you can enforce.

Now, what is the point, I might even ask what is the rationality of = asking a=20 gangster government, or particular gangsters in the government, to = investigate=20 and pass judgment on their own wrongdoing? Do you not already know what = they=20 will say? And whatever they say, will you believe them? Do you believe = what they=20 have told you about the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you believe what = they've told=20 you about Waco? About TWA flight 800? About Mena, Miny, and Mo? = [audience=20 laughter]. Well, that raises another question, though. What can common = Americans=20 do about this gangster government? After all, it is the government! And = it's=20 much more dangerous precisely because it's composed of gangsters.

Well, that's true. But also, this is a government around which hangs = the=20 smell of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials, which set the = precedent for=20 prosecution of gangster governments. Looting a whole country for = generations=20 under color of an unratified constitutional amendment, constitutes a = crime=20 against the people, if anything does. That this crime is being committed = by=20 individuals who happen to hold official positions in the government, = Nuremburg=20 and Tokyo tell us, does not attenuate its criminality or immunize its=20 perpetrators. But with all due deference to Dostoevsky, crime is one = thing, and=20 punishment is another. And these criminals will never be punished until = they are=20 first pulled from office by an educated, disgusted, and incensed = electorate=20 [audience applause]. But to strip them of their offices, they must first = be=20 tried, and that in the court of public opinion, which is the only = tribunal now=20 sitting that will give these charges a fair hearing.

So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," Investigate, = Inculpate,=20 Indict, Incarcerate, [audience laughter] the first and most important = step must=20 be investigation. The machinery of investigation should center around a=20 Citizen's Constitutional Investigatory Commission, composed of legal = scholars,=20 historians, other qualified individuals who are capable of assessing and = arriving at correct conclusions from pertinent evidence. This = Commission,=20 however, must not seek any governmental direction, assistance, or other=20 involvement. Public officials may appear before it as witnesses, and = indeed many=20 should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary evidence. But = otherwise,=20 no public official should be allowed to participate in such a = Commission's work,=20 as any such connection would raise insoluble conflicts of interest.

The Commission should be empowered to investigate at least four = issues.

First, whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified in 1913. = That will=20 require an in-depth analysis of all the materials that have been = collected in=20 The Law That Never Was and whatever else can be assembled and all = of the=20 circumstances that led to the generation of those materials.

Second, if the Commission determines that the alleged "16th = Amendment" was=20 not validly ratified, the Commission should then determine whether a tax = on=20 incomes from individual's labor, professions, wages, and salaries, is a = direct=20 tax or an excise tax, as those terms are used in Article I, Section 8, = Clause 1,=20 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, of the Constitution. That's because, = as one=20 of the speakers pointed out earlier today, there is some dispute among = the=20 government, and also among constitutional scholars, as to what kind of = tax an=20 income tax is. And we're going to cover all the bases, or this = Commission should=20 cover all the bases. So such an investigation will entail an in-depth = analysis=20 of direct and indirect taxes in English and American Colonial law in the = century=20 or so preceding the War of Independence and ratification of the = Constitution.=20 Because we want to know what those words meant in 1789, not what they = mean today=20 to somebody in the Department of Justice or the Internal Revenue = Service.

Third, if a tax on individual income from labor is held to be an = excise by=20 the Commission, then the Commission should determine an issue that was = also=20 broached earlier this morning, whether such a tax constitutes a badge or = incidence of slavery or involuntary servitude, and is therefore = unconstitutional=20 under the 13th Amendment. I won't go into this in great detail, but you = figure=20 it out. The premise of this tax is that the tax is generated by labor, = labor=20 creates this tax. And the tax is taken, in principle, directly from the = labor.=20 Which, of course, to the government, has no value except in so far as it = produces the wealth that can expropriated. This is precisely the = master-slave=20 theory of wealth generation. And I think if one went back to the = antebellum=20 American and Colonial literature, you would find a great deal of = information on=20 that subject which would verify that interpretation. In any event, that=20 particular issue has to be settled.

And, finally, if the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, if a = tax on=20 incomes from individual labor is a direct tax, or if such a tax is a = badge or=20 incident of slavery, then the Commission should determine why officials = in all=20 branches of the national government have enforced this tax since 1913, = and in=20 particular, why they have done so since publication of The Law That = Never=20 Was and all the litigation on the findings in that book brought in = public=20 view this issue.

One important aspect of such a Commission's work, would be a = comprehensive=20 search for documentary evidence, Federal and state Freedom of = Information Acts=20 could be used, national archives, state archives, Presidential = libraries,=20 compilations of papers of public figures that are maintained in = universities,=20 and so forth and so on, all of those need to be searched.

Another important aspect of the work must be public hearings, = hopefully to be=20 held in various places throughout the country, during which testimony = will be=20 taken and documentary evidence submitted. This, not only for the = Commission's=20 immediate work, but for the purpose of educating people in the various = locales=20 about what's going on and what these issues are.

And eventually the Commission should publish its findings, together = with all=20 testimony and documentary evidence suitably printed and bound, what, = forty,=20 fifty, sixty, a hundred, volumes, right? Reminds me of that wonderful = work that=20 was produced in 1945-46, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, we could = almost=20 use that title. These materials then should be presented immediately to=20 Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, the Chief Justice of = the=20 Supreme Court, the Legislatures of the several states that were involved = in the=20 ratification of the "16th Amendment". If the Commission's findings = establish the=20 tax on individual income from labor is unconstitutional, each of these=20 governmental recipients should be instructed to take appropriate action. = Now,=20 you note that the word I use is "instructed." Not, asked, petitioned, = begged, or=20 implored. For, faced with findings that the income tax is = unconstitutional,=20 theirs will be the constitutional duty to act. I presume, however, being = something of a cynic, ... you know people often call me a pessimist. And = I like=20 to ask them, you know, what's the definition of a pessimist? A pessimist = is an=20 optimist who knows the facts [audience laughter]. I've been in this = business a=20 while. And it gets dirtier the deeper you dig. So, I presume, that no = matter=20 what findings are presented to these public officials, they will not=20 disestablish the individual income tax on their own, anymore than they = would=20 disestablish the Federal Reserve system, simply because someone such as = myself=20 proves that the constitutional dollar is a silver coin, not a piece of = paper=20 [audience applause]. Or any more than they will give up their fantastic = dreams=20 for a New World Order simply because the Declaration of Independence = establishes=20 the United States as a nation among nations, not as a satrapy of some = global=20 empire [audience applause].

Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within their power = to=20 obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail entirely, the Commission's = investigation, and then to criticize, belittle, and ridicule the = Commission's=20 findings. Because, let's face the facts, the income tax is one of the = major=20 props of the power structure. Enough said! At that point, though, = finally armed=20 with the whole truth on one side, and face to face with the political = classes'=20 intransigence on the other, the American people will be forced to decide = whether=20 they are sheep or men, whether they can mount a grass-roots political = movement=20 to throw these elitists out of office once and for all and reassert=20 self-government in this country, or accept the other alternative.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Thank you, ladies = and=20 gentlemen [audience applause].