The Missing 13th Amendment

[NewWorldSlacker]

http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html


In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.
By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues:

What does the Amendment mean?
Was the Amendment ratified?Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.
DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."
The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)
The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.
When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks.
Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist.
Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometimes hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's unbridled growth.)
PAPER MONEY

If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.
It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.
"Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."

[samwheat]

this was discussed before

there is no missing amendment

[Enlightened]

Sure samwheat,

BTW..
who was the constitution written by, and for?

[Halophyte]

National Archives Records Missing



Now Comes The Cover-Up

Income Tax Documents Missing From National Archives




After years of government stonewalling in providing answers to basic questions about the fraudulent origin and illegal enforcement of the income tax system, another layer of the tax fraud has now been uncovered: the systemic removal of key legal and historical documents from the National Archives related to the meaning of “income” within the 1916 Income Tax Act, which was adopted by the political branches following the ratification of the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment in 1913, and the Supreme Court’s 1916 interpretation of “Income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.


From the homepage of the National Archives


Why This Is So Offensive and Tyrannical?

Some People say the 16th Amendment does not give the government the power to impose a labor tax – a direct, un-apportioned tax on an individual’s income earned from his labor, and measured by his salary, wage and compensation. Among those saying this are the United States Supreme Court, and ALL people quoted in the years just prior to and just following the adoption of the 16th Amendment, including those quoted in the Congressional Record, Law Reviews, the Journal of Political Science and the New York Times.

Other People say the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the government the power to impose a direct, un-apportioned tax on the People’s labor, as measured by salaries, wages and compensation. Among the people saying this are lower court judges, those at the IRS and DOJ, H&R Block, tax attorneys, intimidated jurors and the news reporters who quote them.

What officials from the congressional committees, the Treasury Department and the White House were saying in their written correspondence in the years 1913-1916 would prove invaluable in resolving this conflict.


1913-1917

America’s current money and tax policies have their roots in the events that occurred between 1913 and 1917. In those years the political branches of the government gave America a central bank (the Federal Reserve System) and the Income Tax. Some say the income tax provides the central bank with what is referred to in the world of finance as “lender security,” removing all risk of non-payment by the government of the principal and interest on the money the central bank lends to the government by taxing and taking the “first fruits” of the labor of all Americans.

Here, in this article, we are only interested in the income tax.

Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the taxing clauses of the Constitution gave Congress two taxing powers: 1) the power to impose uniform indirect taxes (such as the uniform excise tax on gasoline and the uniform tariff on steel; and 2) apportioned direct taxes (such as a head tax).

In 1913 the 16th Amendment was purportedly ratified. It reads, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Notice, the 16th Amendment does NOT say, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect DIRECT taxes without apportionment”. Any reasonable person would agree that the power to impose a DIRECT, UN-APPORTIONED tax would be a new power, not granted by the original taxing clauses of the Constitution, that would forever fundamentally alter and remove one of the most powerful limitations on our government.

Eventually, the Supreme Court got around to defining the word “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment -- but not before 1916.

In 1913, just months after the “ratification” of the 16th Amendment (the Income Tax Amendment), the political branches adopted the Income Tax Act of 1913, within which the political branches deliberately stretched the constrained authority of the 16th Amendment, by laying and collecting an UN-APPORTIONED tax directly on People’s labor as measured by their salaries, wages and compensation, AND by instituting withholding at the source.

However, in 1916, the Supreme Court brought the action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxing power (a direct tax on labor without apportionment would be a new taxing power, not granted by the taxing clauses of the original Constitution), and that “income” within the constitutional limitations of the 16th Amendment is corporate gain or profit, and passive and “unearned” income from real estate and investments. NOTE: The ability to tax passive income from investments and real estate (by nature an indirect, excise tax) was the only rationale given by those behind the ratification of the 16th Amendment, prior to its ratification. The publicly stated aim by those proposing the 16th Amendment was the power to tax “accumulated wealth.”

In 1916, immediately following the Brushaber decision, Congress amended the Income Tax Act, to bring the law into compliance with Brushaber. Our interpretation of the language of the 1916 Act (amended in 1917), when read together with the language of the Brushaber decision, is that the 1916 Act brought the law into compliance with Brushaber in three ways: first, by explicitly stating that the "income" being taxed under the 1913 Act is not the same as the "income" being taxed under the 1916 Act, the 1916 Act removed a tax imposed by the Act of 1913 (the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor as measured by salaries, wages and compensation); second, it outlawed the withholding of wages from the paychecks of citizens; and third, it directed the Executive Department to refund the monies withheld in 1917.

However, the political branches and the central bank were not going to give up the labor tax too easily. In Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916, Congress merely declared that the "income" subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. However, Congress did not go any further in defining what, specifically was taxable and what was NOT taxable. Why not? We believe the reason is that the political branches wanted to perpetuate the labor tax, which is what they have now been getting away with for 87 years.


The National Archives
The official, historical record of the political branches is maintained in the national archives by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Click here for NARA’s web site.

Warehoused in two separate facilities in the Washington DC area, are the historical records documenting the entire administrative and legislative history of the United States. Literally millions of documents record the process of governing this nation from the birth of our Republic and record, for all time, the inner workings of our servant government. The archive contains, (among many things), inter-office correspondence, legislative reports, inter-departmental memos, internal analyses, legal opinions, committee reports, etc.

The definition of “Income” within the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Income Tax Act would certainly be found in the correspondence of the House Ways and Means Committee and in the correspondence of Chief Counsel’s Office at the Department of Treasury for the years 1913 through 1917. For sure, the true meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Income Tax Act would be found in that correspondence. It is inconceivable that the Treasury Department and the finance committees would not have been in the thick of all these legal developments having to do with money and taxes during 1913, when the 16th Amendment and the 1913 Income Tax Act were passed, and in 1916-1917, when the Brushaber decision was handed down from the Supreme Court and the Income Tax Act of 1916 was passed and amended.



Now, A Cover-up

Last month, representatives of WTP went to the National Archives to pull the correspondence of the Office of Chief Counsel for the Treasury Department and for 1913 through 1917.

The index of records showed the records were available for 1903 through 1912 and for 1918 and after. However, the index contained the statement “No Longer Available,” for the years 1913 through 1917.

At the same time, the researchers requested the correspondence for the House Ways and Means Committee for 1916. What was received was a box with a large, but empty envelope marked “Retained.”

The researchers found additional instances of record deletions where, despite the fact the records appeared available in the Archive index – it was discovered after the record group was physically “pulled” from deep storage in the archives, that it was EMPTY.

It is inconceivable – and intolerable -- that the official records documenting the planning, strategizing and legal communications of the Department of Treasury and congressional committees during the implementation of the single most oppressive and controversial function of government known to Americans are simply “No Longer Available.”

Management level archivists at NARA were unable to explain these gaping holes of missing records

In effect, individuals, in explicit violation of federal law, have, since 1992, been systemically DELETING evidence from the official records of this nation – in an attempt to rewrite history – and to conceal the fraud that has been perpetrated by our government for almost 90 years.



http://givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update06-17-04.htm

[Veritas]

there is no missing amendment

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

I love the conviction of your statement!

Now I will give you the opportunity to prove the non-existance of something.

I'll bet you can't do it.

[FinalStrike2]

National Archives Records Missing



Now Comes The Cover-Up

Income Tax Documents Missing From National Archives




After years of government stonewalling in providing answers to basic questions about the fraudulent origin and illegal enforcement of the income tax system, another layer of the tax fraud has now been uncovered: the systemic removal of key legal and historical documents from the National Archives related to the meaning of “income” within the 1916 Income Tax Act, which was adopted by the political branches following the ratification of the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment in 1913, and the Supreme Court’s 1916 interpretation of “Income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.


From the homepage of the National Archives


Why This Is So Offensive and Tyrannical?

Some People say the 16th Amendment does not give the government the power to impose a labor tax – a direct, un-apportioned tax on an individual’s income earned from his labor, and measured by his salary, wage and compensation. Among those saying this are the United States Supreme Court, and ALL people quoted in the years just prior to and just following the adoption of the 16th Amendment, including those quoted in the Congressional Record, Law Reviews, the Journal of Political Science and the New York Times.

Other People say the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the government the power to impose a direct, un-apportioned tax on the People’s labor, as measured by salaries, wages and compensation. Among the people saying this are lower court judges, those at the IRS and DOJ, H&R Block, tax attorneys, intimidated jurors and the news reporters who quote them.

What officials from the congressional committees, the Treasury Department and the White House were saying in their written correspondence in the years 1913-1916 would prove invaluable in resolving this conflict.


1913-1917

America’s current money and tax policies have their roots in the events that occurred between 1913 and 1917. In those years the political branches of the government gave America a central bank (the Federal Reserve System) and the Income Tax. Some say the income tax provides the central bank with what is referred to in the world of finance as “lender security,” removing all risk of non-payment by the government of the principal and interest on the money the central bank lends to the government by taxing and taking the “first fruits” of the labor of all Americans.

Here, in this article, we are only interested in the income tax.

Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the taxing clauses of the Constitution gave Congress two taxing powers: 1) the power to impose uniform indirect taxes (such as the uniform excise tax on gasoline and the uniform tariff on steel; and 2) apportioned direct taxes (such as a head tax).

In 1913 the 16th Amendment was purportedly ratified. It reads, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Notice, the 16th Amendment does NOT say, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect DIRECT taxes without apportionment”. Any reasonable person would agree that the power to impose a DIRECT, UN-APPORTIONED tax would be a new power, not granted by the original taxing clauses of the Constitution, that would forever fundamentally alter and remove one of the most powerful limitations on our government.........

http://givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update06-17-04.htm

absolutely incredible- i guess this happens to all nations and civiliasations at one point or another...

i feel utterly robbed- what i want to know is if it is the money that is causing this- or is it those born to power protecting the heritage of an age old paradigm, wether by inheritince, blood or divine succession by worshippers of wealth, power and greed. (under a universal god complex)

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

I love the conviction of your statement!

Now I will give you the opportunity to prove the non-existance of something.

I'll bet you can't do it.

all hail the flying spagetti monster- :haha:


anyway is it beter to worship and live evil karma- or in a nation under god with a more balanced karma-

well in some form i'm sure the forefathers took this into consideration- if lawyers were as big as sharks back then ass they are today then keeping them out would be a natural perogative.

they have been caught (resonably suspected) of destroying documents pertaining to the definition of the term income in taxation terminology that was instituted in direct violation of the constitution- this country became void in 1917 basically.

[FinalStrike2]

There are those of us who believe it happened in 1861, when Congress adjorned sine die.

.m..must....re...research............. :thumbs up