I refer of course to the fact that, in Memphis, the federal government tried a lady named Vernice Kuglin on charges of tax evasion - filing false W-4 forms - and lost. Miss Kuglin is a pilot for Federal Express. Some years ago, she began wondering what law required her to pay income tax. She couldn’t find it in the Internal Revenue Code, so, in 1995, she wrote IRS and asked them to tell her.

The Internal Revenue Service refused. They did not respond. The more she studied, the more she became convinced that the reason they failed to respond was that the law did not require her to pay. So, she put 99 allowances on her W-4, and took home (almost) all her wages.

Our friends at IRS said she had lied, and charged her with six felony counts of tax evasion on $920,000 of income, enough to put Miss Kuglin away for as long as 30 years. She is 58 now, so in effect she faced a life sentence, and could have had to pay $1.5 million in fines. It is important to note that our friends at IRS prepare these cases very carefully. They don’t take one into court unless they know they will win. In a case like this, involving serious money, they do everything they can to incite the jurors’ envy. They constantly refer to the defendant’s "fair share."

On August 8, 2003, in Memphis, despite all this, the jury acquitted Miss Kuglin of all charges. They said IRS had not proved the lady was required to pay the tax. After the verdict, frustrated prosecutor Joe Murphy asked the judge to order Miss Kuglin to pay it. The judge replied, "Sir, I don’t work for IRS." By then Murphy may have been too mentally taxed to remember that, after the verdict, there was no legal basis for the judge to issue such an order, even if he does work for IRS.

Notice that there are many taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. Our friends at IRS have no trouble citing the Code section - the law - that requires a "taxpayer" to pay each one. Except the income tax. With regard to the income tax alone, they are tongue-tied. Why? Wouldn’t they quash the controversy and kamikaze pilots like Miss Kuglin, simply by stating the Code section that applies?

Yes, they would; they don’t ‘cause there ain’t. There is no such section. That doesn’t mean the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. It doesn’t mean there is no such tax. There is, and the people it applies to need to pay it, but it applies to very few people, like most of the taxes in the Internal Revenue Code.

What the law requires you to do every year - and our friends at IRS say so themselves - is determine whether you are one of those people. You alone know that, because you alone know what you did last year. Did you make and sell liquor last year? Then you must pay the liquor tax. If you made and sold no liquor, forget it. You don’t owe the tax.

To conceal that fact, litigious prevaricators (lawyers) with advanced degrees in obfuscation have deliberately written the income tax into the Code in as confusing a manner as possible, to make it incomprehensible to the normal mind; and our dear friends at IRS use the uncertainty that confusion engenders to intimidate and literally to threaten Americans into voluntarily paying a tax the law does not require them to pay.

What does the law say? There are two kinds of federal taxes, only two: direct and indirect. There is no third kind of federal tax. The law - the Constitution - says that all federal taxes must be one or the other. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific (240 US 1), in 1915, the US Supreme Court ruled that the income tax is legal (constitutional), but that it is an indirect tax.

Indeed, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 US 103), just a year later, the same judges said the same thing and added that their previous ruling, in Brushaber, created "no new power of taxation." In other words, Brushaber limited the federal government’s power to tax rather than expand it; limited it by forcefully explaining where that power could not reach. Nothing had changed since the Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1894, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (158 US 601).

The trouble with the tax today is that our friends at IRS are administering it illegally as a direct tax, which the Supreme Court forbade. That is the secret they don’t want you to know. Because I am trying to inform, not obfuscate, I am happy to add that this explanation is necessarily quite simplified, maybe even oversimplified, because of space - but it is true.

For more information, one of many things you could look at is my book, TaxScam: How IRS Swindles You and What You Can Do About It, which your Intrepid Correspondent wrote as a guest of the federal government, all expenses paid, without the help of Matthew Lesko. Go to www.stangbooks.com and click on non-fiction.

Patriotic Americans hearing about all this for the first time, often worry. Without the income tax, would the government collapse? The answer is to ask yourself when the government began. Let’s say 1784. When did the income tax begin? Nineteen thirteen. Between 1784 and 1913, there were 129 years. For many of those years, there were no internal taxes at all! Yet, just before the illegal income tax of 1894, the big problem in Congress was the "Surplus Monster." Tax money was pouring in and Congress didn’t know what to do with it. See the cartoon from Puck, the comic weekly, in TaxScam.

Indeed, when income tax withholding took effect "temporarily" in 1942, the federal government was still collecting more in alcohol and tobacco taxes than it was in individual income taxes. Can you name a year between 1784 and 1942 when the government collapsed? I’m willing to compromise. Name a couple of months. No income tax was needed, because during most of those years the government was restricted to the few activities the Constitution allows.

Because of verdicts like Kuglin, pressure to abolish the income tax will grow. Legislators and others will devise schemes like sales taxes, guaranteed to produce the same revenue the income tax yields now. Ask yourself why the federal government should continue to receive the enormous swag it gouges from us now.

Along these lines, where did the income tax come from? Isn’t it the second step to Communism listed by Marx in the Communist Manifesto? Marx thought that the only step to Communism more important than the income tax was government control of "all property in land." Sure enough, we now can see why he thought the income tax was so crucial to Communism.

Among its purposes is the destruction of the middle class that pays it. As you will see in TaxScam from the mouth of the Conspiracy itself, the main purpose of the income tax is to reduce the destructive, inflationary effects of the funny money printed by the Federal Reserve. The income tax does that by removing purchasing power from the economy, via "temporary" withholding.

So now we know that the income tax didn’t "just happen." It isn’t just a scheme to raise funds. It’s a tool of the conspiracy for world government. Did you know all this before? If not, and if you now have a totally different take on the income tax, you now also see why it is supremely important to call it what it is: a conspiracy.

We are talking about what we can realistically do to save America. When your obedient servant went nose to nose with IRS, I was charged only with a few misdemeanors, failing to file a particular form; no big deal. Miss Kuglin laid her life on the line. She faced 30 (thirty) years in prison, plus a huge fine. Apparently she refused to take a lesser plea.

I have not yet had the honor and pleasure of meeting the lady. I am sure she is as feminine as a lady can be. So I am not talking about her when I say that to do what she did would take cojones as big as bowling balls, and I don’t know many men that brave. I certainly have nothing against Jessica Lynch. That innocent, little lady was used and abused by Iraq and the United States, which to its everlasting shame is promoting women in combat. But kamikaze pilot Vernice Kuglin is in fact the heroine the media have been trying to make poor Jessica. Banzai!

Related Articles:
Degenerate America - The Sodomite Plan (I)
Degenerate America - The Sodomite Plan (II)
Sodomite Steamroller Buggers Again - The Conspiracy Unfolds

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers.  He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Alan Stang can be reached at: feedback@stangbooks.com

We invite you to visit his website at: www.stangbooks.com

Published in the August 15, 2003 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!