-INS (Independent News Source): Senator Charles Grassley (R) Iowa - Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has responded to one of his constituents "back home" concerning the We The People foundations "Truth in Taxation Hearings" where irrefutable evidence was unveiled describing the fraudulent activities of the Internal Revenue Service.

  In the Senators letter, dated June 27, 2002, he starts off by making a brief mention of the "We the People Foundation and the federal income tax." Without another mention of the "irrefutable evidence" hand delivered to him and ALL the other members of Congress he goes on to mention the Senate Finance Committee's recently held hearing, coincidentally orchestrated at the same time as the dreaded tax filing deadline was bearing down on the American People, entitled "Schemes, Scams and Cons Part II: The IRS Strikes Back."

  Describing how some pansy who was duped into some kind of illegal offshore tax scam. (yes there really are victims of this sort of thing - the only thing different between this poor fella and Grassley's off-shore account is he was turned into a victim/example). The good Senator encourages his constituent to read their testimony on the Internet at http://finance.senate.gov. His constituent did. His constituent also reviewed the transcript. ad nauseum.

  He continues, without any further mention of the 'We the Peoples' Truth-in-Taxation hearings where they disclosed "irrefutable evidence" of systemic fraud and abuse by the IRS, to say that "Article I Sections 6-9 and the 16th Amendment give the Federal Government the right to tax." Without going into detail the good Senator -(R) Iowa, continues with the usual rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of people in D.C. that haven't a clue and obviously, when presented with "irrefutable evidence" simply don't want a clue.

  He continues to cite that "Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and excises. It prohibits any direct taxes that are not apportioned among the several states according to respective populations."  Improperly quoted but that's O.K., he's a lawmaker, it shouldn't be expected that he know the actual text of the Constitution he took an "oath" to support and defend. Should it?

  In examining what the good Senator -(R) Iowa has stated thus far it raises a few interesting questions. First; the entitled "Schemes, Scams, and Cons Part II:" hearings had nothing to do with the American People at large. It involved a guy who did in fact appear to have participated in a tax evasion scheme. That is illegal. Do most Americans participate in this sort of illegal activity? No. Most wouldn't have the capital to even consider it.

  Second; the good Senator states that Article I Sections 6 through 9 provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. A query is in order at this point. Does the Congress "collect" taxes? No. He started with section 6 so let's start there. Section 6 deals with "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services," and "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office...". One might be questioning what this has to do with any taxing power?

  Section 7. says; "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." This section of our Constitution outlines how Bills for raising Revenue are going to work. Does this have anything to do with taxes? Not directly or indirectly.

  Section 8. says; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" which the good Senator Grassley -(R) Iowa eluded to but with no specifics concerning the "irrefutable evidence" of the fraud going on in order to collect/extract it by the IRS' fraud and abuse machine as the "irrefutable evidence" provides.

  However, clause four of Article 8 states; "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Thus the question must be asked of the good Senator Grassley -(R) Iowa, does Congress "coin money"? What is money?

  Gold and Silver coin? What's the composition of the coin circulating in the country today? Is it gold or silver? No. According to the U.S. Mint's own website all the coins are comprised of either; Copper Plated Zinc, Cupro-Nickel, or Manganese-Brass (for the gold dollar). Cupro-Nickel is a Nickel/Copper alloy. It is made up of combinations of metals to give the appearance of its alleged counterparts. Gold Dollar, Silver half-dollar, etc... What's the value of Nickel/Copper alloy? Certainly not on par with gold and silver.

  If the value of these coins is next to nothing can Congress regulate the value of something that has little to none? The U.S.Mint is a part of the U.S. Treasury which is in the "executive" branch of our government. Congress is in the "legislative" branch. Did the Constitution authorize the delegation of Congress' power to an "executive" branch when it commands that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect"? No.

  Section 9. states; "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited...", "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...", "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.", "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration...", "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.", "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another:", "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;", "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.".

  These powers concerning taxation are few and finite. No Capitation, or other direct tax ... unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration. No Tax or Duty exported from any State. These are "restrictions" on the government, are they not?

  The next thing the good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa says in his letter to his constituent is; citing Pollack vs. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., "the Supreme Court recognized that the income tax is 'by nature' an excise tax but held that the income tax to be a direct tax ... and therefore unconstitutional. This was because it was not apportioned among the states according to their respective populations." One may be curious enough to ask why virtually every state and federal court across the land have ruled in diametrically opposed terms on this subject. It seems the courts can't even decide which 'type' of tax we're dealing with here. But the good Senator (R) -Iowa apparently has a keen understanding of all of this. After all he's the latest millionaire in the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, so he must be correct even without setting any foundation for his exertions. e.g. form letter.

  He then goes on to state that; "The Sixteenth Amendment ... removed the need for apportionment of an income tax, and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax law enacted subsequent to ratification ... in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co."

  What the good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa seems to be implying is that somehow the amendment repealed or modified the original Constitutional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8. Is this possible? Can an amendment repeal or modify that which grants them the limited powers to do their enumerated jobs and duties in the first place?

  The good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa then cites three court cases. One is supposedly from the 8th Circuit and the other two are from Tax Court. Since the Tax Court is not legally binding on any case except the one before it we can dispose of them with due haste. The one cited from the supposed 8th Circuit cannot be found doing a World Wide Web search at Findlaw or LexisONE or any of the other search engines. Curiously, if this were such an important case as the good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa claims, it should be plastered all over the World Wide Web. At least one would think so.

  The good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa then goes on a rant about all the courts having rejected the claims that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified. And it grants Congress the power to prescribe the current income tax laws. The use of the word "prescribe" is interesting. It's legal definition, which of course we must look up since this is a letter from a constituents Lawmaker, is;

Law.

  So, in essence, the good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa is implying to his constituent that based on some pretty fuzzy and contradictory conclusions from virtually every court in the country, state and federal,  (direct vs. indirect) concerning the meaning/nature of the 16th amendment and three unfounded court cases, two of which have no bearing on anything post mortem, and the other can't be found anywhere on the World Wide Web, that being from an inferior court, nevertheless, that Congress has the power to claim right and title to our hard earned money.

  As if this wasn't bad enough, the good Senator Grassley (R) -Iowa didn't utter one word concerning the "irrefutable evidence" of malice aforethought, computer fraud, mail fraud, sedition, treason, and numerous violations of the unalienable rights we seemingly enjoy (because they are una-lien-able) but have now been whittled down to what "our servant" government say they are and are not. Is this a man who should be trusted with a position in "Public Trust"? Can the pot instruct the potter?

  In fact, if he had taken the time and trouble to study the material presented to him he should be expected to do a better job of destroying the voluminous evidence placed in his lap and prove its invalidity. Instead, he chooses to send out the same "form" letter every other Congressman sends out touting this one poor sap who got caught actually evading what possibly could have been legally imposed taxes for a horse and pony show.

  To what point his so-called "Schemes, Scams, and Cons Part II" serves any purpose as it applies to the majority of the American People we can only wonder. One might suggest he go to Hollywood for the trilogy next year. Coming soon, around April 15th, to a Senate hearing near you. Schemes, Scams, and Cons Part III? I'm sure if they don't have another poor fella to put on a show for them they can just go out and arrest anyone they please with total disregard for the "oath of office" he took upon becoming a member of Congress and parade another pansy before his cameras next year around tax time for the sole purpose of making it appear he has the best interests of his constituents at heart. God knows we have enough pansies walking around this country. He need not look too far.

  In Summary: The good Senator (R) -Iowa didn't address the issues brought forth in such a clear and concise manner that a five year old could understand. He unsuccessfully evaded and avoided the issue altogether. And for this we pay him over a hundred thousand dollars a year? He is correct on the issue that Congress does in deed have the power to tax. However the question isn't what can Congress do, it is what has Congress done?

  Just one of the 535 pimps, whores, and welfare brats we now have residing in Washington D.C. tooting their own horns in effect spouting, vote for me, vote for me, look what I haven't done!