EMPLOYER STOPS WITHHOLDING--IN 1948!

Devvy Kidd
October 28, 2000

I have a friend who is a dedicated advocate of Otto Skinner. I am greatly opposed to Mr. Skinner's methods of withdrawing from the tax system because I know of too many people who have been indicted by using them. But, I respect Del's opinion and we are good friends despite our difference of opinion on Mr. Skinner. I am a reasonable person and reasonable people can disagree and still remain civil--or at least that's the way it should be.

About three weeks ago, Del sent me a short note about a woman named Vivien Kellems and how she quit withholding taxes from her employees paychecks back in 1948! I was immediately intrigued and went to www.alibris.com and found they had about ten copies of her rare book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952. I ask Larry Becraft and several others if any of them had heard of this Vivien Kellems. I struck out all around.

I ordered the book and read it in record time. It was fascinating and I would like to recap some of this woman's heroic efforts. This lady was just too cool and what she did was becoming legendary across this nation. Unfortunately, not too long after she began her journey and ultimate victory in court, ( February 6, 1950), the first shot was fired June 25, 1950 over in Korea and America was sucked into yet another foreign war. America pretty much forgot about Vivien Kellems deliberately breaking the law and begging the government to indict her so she could take the withholding and social security tax issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Miss Kellems did not know about the fraudulent ratification of the 16thand 17th Amendments. She passed away in the '60s and Bill Benson did not do his research until 1984/85. She did not know the Jerkyll Island story, but she does name some of the conspirators in the senate at the time. Miss Kellems wasn't quite up to speed on the 861 argument, but by golly, she was something. After the introduction, Miss Kellems begins her book with her trial and then goes back and tells you exactly how she came to demand very publicly that President Truman* make her a paid tax collector because she was sick of working for free to collect their alleged owed taxes.

At the end of the description of her book, I will discuss the amazing conclusions she came to and how Larry Becraft and Miss Kellems had a great deal in common - some 50 years apart without ever knowing about each other.

[* As a side note, in the book, The Presidents, published by The Smithsonian Treasury, (copyright 1991) please read what they say under the section on Harry Truman, pg. 72: "When FDR died during the closing days of WWII, it fell to Truman to end the war and formulate policies for a new world order."]

If you can locate a copy of her book, I highly encourage you to get it and read it (only 159 pgs). You won't be disappointed. Last time I checked, www.alibris.com has now sold out and I guess I got one of their few copies. Perhaps they will acquire more if they get enough inquiries. Funny, they had 10 when I ordered one and then, poof, within a few days when I tried to order two more copies, they were sold out.

While in Washington, DC, Larry Becraft and I went over to the law library to check on copyright law. Miss Kellems died without ever being married and had no heirs. She did have a brother but we don't know if he has legal right to the copyright or not. Once we sift through this, perhaps it will be possible to scan the book up on this web site so everyone can read it.

Jacket inside cover:

"Is Income Tax destroying the American way of life? Is the Withholding Tax violating the Constitutional guaranty against involuntary servitude? In her Toil, Taxes and Trouble, Vivien Kellems answers both questions in the affirmative and marshals the facts to prove her point. She demonstrates that the very principle of taxing incomes is contrary to the provision in Section 9, article I of the Constitution which reads:

                    "No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in
                    proportion to the census or enumeration herein before
                    directed to be taken."

Miss Kellems believes that the Income Tax Amendment was slipped over on the unwary American taxpayer and is an instrument used by the followers of the Marx-Engels doctrine which advocates the use of a progressive income tax to destroy the capitalistic system.

As for the Withholding Tax, Miss Kellems believes that it commandeers every employer into involuntary servitude, assumes that every American worker is unfit to administer his own affairs, shows seeds of dissention between employer and employee and conceals the hold which the politicians have acquired on every pay envelope.

These two evils must be eradicated, Vivien Kellems says, or there will be no America as we know it.
Where would we be today, she asks, if we had not repealed the 18th Amendment? Vivien Kellems is a crusader, a scrapper and a fighter and her Toil, Taxes and Trouble is a call to arms."

Introduction to book by Rupert Hughes on Vivien Kellems

".....Throughout history taxation has ever posed the one great question. It has been the goad which has drive oppressed people to free themselves. From taxation have come the longest and bloodiest wards, including our own Revolution. By undermining the rights of private property, the foundation of civilized government, it has destroyed one civilization after another, and bids fair to finish the one in which we find ourselves.

Therefore the history of our country, as of any country, can be written in its tax bills. Everything from the construction of a huge Tennessee Valley Authority to the building of shower baths for Egyptians, is first authorized by our Congress in a revenue bill. Unfortunately, many Americans think that the solution to any problem national or international, is another appropriation by Congress.

A knowledge and appreciation of our original tax system and an abhorrence of the monstrosity which we call our present federal tax structure, are essential to an understanding of the withholding tax fight. Therefore, the only logical starting point is at the beginning of our nation.

On Lincoln's birthday in 1948, the name of Vivien Kellems was known only to the limited circle of her own friends and acquaintances. On Washington's birthday nearly everybody in the united States was talking about her.

While visiting her brother in Los Angeles, Miss Kellems made a speech at the Rotary Club on February 13th, and announced that, on February 20th, her factory in Westport, Connecticut, would defy the Government and refuse to deduct and pay the Withholding tax from the pay envelopes of her employees.

She said that the law itself was "illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional." She asked the government to prosecute her and thus bring a test case before the courts.

Like other martyrs to a high and highly-held principle she offered herself as a sacrifice for a cause she believed sacred.

Though this proclamation by Miss Kellems won nation-wide applause and approval, most of the public though of her as a cantankerous female hunting notoriety and emboldened by a womanly ignorance of the law, and the mysteries of taxation.

The Government refused her February challenge to a test case, but in May it send four Internal Revenue agents to her factory to demand the payment of the taxes she had not withheld. She replied that the money should be sought from her employees, to whom she had paid it as their earnings agreed upon. Though she knew, and the agents knew, that this tax had been already and promptly paid by her employees, the agents claimed the full amount as a 100% penalty for failure to deduct. When she still refused to pay, the agents, carrying no court order at all, went to her bank and intimidated it into surrendering the full amount, $1,685.40.

There was great public indignation at this highhanded procedure.

[Let me depart for just a moment here. Today, this kind of thievery, sanctioned by the cowards in the United States Congress, goes on with nary a whimper from the people. Why? It's called incrementalism. It's called wearing down the people and making such events commonplace. I strongly encourage you to read the short piece on Geoff Metcalf's site that will blow your wits and bludgeon home the point about incrementalism:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/incremental_20000928.html

Resuming the introduction:

Miss Kellems continued her policy; but the agents did not reappear for over a year. Then in August, 1949, they returned, now demanding $6,100.00

Having already paid that amount to her employees, and having positive proof that they had paid it to the Government, Miss Kellems once more refused to knuckle down. Whereupon the agents went to her bank and seized the $6,100 from her funds there.

When Miss Kellems demanded a refund, it was refused. And, now it was she who sued. She filed her claim with the Federal District Court in New Haven in January, 1950. But it was not until February, 1951, that she succeeded in securing a trial. Even then she was not allowed to test the constitutionality of the law, though she did win a refund of the money the Government had torn from her bank without even the pretense of giving her her day in court.

By this time Miss Kellems' name had become a household word, and she was winning multitudes of ardent supporters by her speeches and writings. In this conquest she was greatly aided by her personal beauty, her magnetism, her wit and her fiery eloquence.

But still, even those of us who cheered her and wished he well, thought of her as sort of Joan of Arc, who had flashed out of obscurity. We were sure she knew no more about the law than Joan of Arc did.

I myself was so surprised when I learned the truth about her and her profound knowledge of the law that I felt it important to place the facts before the public in a brief sketch of her life - a life that has already had an important effect on our national thinking. And will undoubtedly have more.

It is a striking fact that we Americans, though we boast of our individual independence and equality with anybody on earth, are peculiarly meek and sheep like before the authorities that we ourselves have elected and may dismiss.

Riots and rebellions against oppressive laws and police work are left to the subject of monarchies and tyrannies, while we dauntless Yankees do as we are told.

But there are exceptions; and the spirit that moved Miss Kellems to her one-woman crusade was built up by her remarkable ancestry and education.

Richard Kellam in 1636 settled on the eastern shores of Virginia, having come over from Allington, in Nottinghamshire, England. The spelling of his name, as usual, was later changed. His descendants intermarried with some of the best-known families in Virginia: The Wyatts, Randolphs, Jeffersons, Savages, Garlands, and Custises.

Miss Kellems is directly descended from the Randolphs of Virginia; and collaterally from Thomas Jefferson.

Eleven of her ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War, and members of her family served in every war since then. Her brother, Kenneth Kellems, was the first boy from Oregon to be killed in world War I. Her brother, Homer F. Kellems, came out of WWII a colonel.

As if the glorious traditions of their Virginia heritage were not enough, her people took an early part in the great Westward "On to Oregon" hegira. Her maternal grandfather, John Lewis Flint, drove a covered wagon across the plains.

Miss Kellems' father entered the church. He married a student at the University of Oregon, and then determined to complete his own education. He went to Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, and not only worked his way through college but supported his wife and a growing family.

Vivien Kellems was born in Des Moines, June 7, 1896, while her father was still a student. She was the only daughter, but in time she had six brothers, to whom she gives the credit for most of her fighting spirit.

After graduating at Drake, her father settled in Eugene, Oregon, where he taught in a small theological college while preaching every Sunday. And he sent all of his children to the State University in Eugene.

His eyesight was so bad that his wife read all his lessons to him while he was going through college. Later, she was of vital help in preparing his sermons. She had given up her own university studies to marry him; but when her daughter, Vivien, reached her junior year at the university, the mother resumed her studies, and mother and daughter graduated together in the class of 1918.

The children of such remarkable people do not always inherit the best traits of their parents. But Vivien Kellems was not content with the degree of Bachelor of Arts. She not only returned to the University and earned the degree of Master of Arts, but went to New York and spent a year at Columbia University studying for a Ph.D.

And she earned it. But she never got it, because of the requirements that a thesis must be not only prepared but published. This would have cost only a thousand dollars in those days, but Vivien could not raise the amount.

It would be more than justice if this present book, with its scholarly exposition of the history, theory, and practice of taxation, and its thrilling life story, should be accepted as that thesis. For Columbia University to vote the author her belated Ph.D. now, would be both a deed of justice and a handsome gesture.

It is a striking, significant and important fact that, as a college girl, Vivien Kellems majored in Economics during both her undergraduate and graduate courses. Her teacher in this field was Dean James Gilbert, himself a Ph.D. from Columbia. She pays high tribute, not only to his knowledge of economics, but also to his aptness in Biblical references, "his rapier-like wit, and his beautiful, flexible English."

Dean Gilbert encouraged Miss Kellems to go on to Columbia, where her brother, the Reverend Doctor Jesse Randolph Kellems of the Westwood Hills Christian Church in California, paid her expenses, for which she was deeply grateful.

In Columbia Miss Kellems specialized in taxation, of all subject for a girl! Her special teacher was Dr. Edwin R.A. Seligman, a world-authority on public finance. She studied also labor problems under Professor Seager, and Marxian socialism under Professor Simkovitch, but she found strange fascination in the dreadful field of taxation.

When, therefore, the Internal Revenue Department sent four of its roughest and toughest agents to teach this crazy woman in a Connecticut village the rudiments of taxation, they were as startled as the hunter who goes out to inspect his squirrel trap and finds a grizzly bear there.

And thereby hangs another tale. One of Miss Kellems' remarkable brothers was Edgar, who was an inventor among other things. He devised a cable grip that was a great improvement on anything developed up to 1927. A cable grip is not only used for pulling electrical cable cars through underground conduits, but it has countless other important uses.

The poet Tennyson has a Vivien who outwitted the ancient magician Merlin, and Vivien Kellems was well-named. Now that her gifted brother had invented a cable grip, he told his sister, Vivien, all about it. Up to then she had never heard of a cable grip. When Edgar explained it to her she thought it an excellent idea.

So this amazing and unpredictable woman decided to manufacture it! She not only opened a factory, but she traveled all over the United States, Central and south America and Europe. She even went to Australia.

The factory is comparatively small, employing only seventy-five people; but its cable grips pulled the high-tension cables in the famous English Grid System, the equally important 1808 miles of cables that bring power from the Hoover Dam to Los Angeles, as well as underground cables in Barcelona, Shanghai and other far-off places....

You can imagine the dazed consternation of those Government revenue agents, their lawyers and several judges, when they planned to explain taxation in words of one syllable to a silly woman, only to find themselves confronted with this charming monster of information, this joyous yet grim master of lore that they had never even dreamed of.

The crusade she began so modestly, though so fearlessly, has spread until she has become a figure of national and historic importance.

Her first defiance of the Withholding Tax Law was based on a woman's practical common sense. She maintained that she had no right to withhold from her employees the tax the Government dictated. Then she put the Government in the ridiculous position of demanding that she be punished for not paying it every week, other people's taxes, while still other people paid their taxes only twice a year. She jockeyed the Government into trying to punish her for not paying it moneys which it had already received long before.

From such a position, so bravely and unbudgeably upheld, she has gone on to the high position that the whole Income Tax is un-American and should be repealed.

And she has organized a movement that is sweeping the nation in demanding that repeal. She calls the crusaders the Liberty Belles and Boys, using as an emblem the famous old Liberty Bell, which proclaimed the Liberty that the income Tax is stifling.

To many people there is something hopeless about undertaking to repeal the Income Tax Amendment.

But the Prohibition Amendment was repealed in spite of even more determined upholders of it. Conceived as a "noble experiment" to end the infinite evils of alcoholism, the Amendment, by a tragic irony, multiplied the evils it attacked. It undoubtedly taught the younger generation a new sin, and made drunkenness common among boys and girls. It also built up empires of murder and terrorism, ruled by gangsters who collected millions of dollars while assassinating hundreds, corrupting the courts and the police, and turning the majority of the citizens into lawbreakers and bootleggers.

So the Income Tax, conceived in the charitable view that those who have the highest income should pay the highest taxes, has not only made perjury and subterfuge almost universal, but has, like the Prohibition Amendment, opened a new world for wholesale fraud with billion-dollar profits.

The whole nation is now reeling from the exposures crowding the newspapers with more and more shocking evidences of corruptions in and out of the Internal Revenue Department. As usual in our country, when a scandal grows unbearable we lighten it with laughter.

Miss Kellems tells how she wore a wink coat when she went down a manhole in wintry Chicago to show the value of her cable grip.

But recently this very term "mink coat" has taken on a tragic-farcical connotation from the mink coats that were given to the secretaries and wives of important people with Internal Revenue influence.

To those who still believe that the Income Tax law serves a good purpose; and to those who dislike it but think its repeal impossible, I commend the reading of this book.

The author is one of the most brilliant and noble of American women, and I am convinced that the reader of this book will not only be sadder and wiser, but will be captivated and thrilled by it. Written by a woman, it should appeal especially to women, as well as to men.

The first chapter in this book gives Miss Kellems' speech in Los Angeles, which announced her epochal program.

Now that women have the vote and an enormous majority over the votes of the men who put the nefarious amendment into the Constitution, it is the duty of the women to take it out. This will restore the Constitution to its once-majestic dignity, return the American people to sanity, and integrity, and throw back one more example of the progress here of a creeping socialism whose gradual victories are appalling to contemplate.

Before the Income Tax was foisted upon us, it was accepted without question that "a man's home is his castle." Now he and his home and his offices have "the privacy of a goldfish bowl." End

Miss Kellems' begins her story with her trial and then leads up to why she defied the criminal cabal out in Washington, DC, trying to pass themselves off as lawmakers when in fact, to this day, they are nothing more than lawbreakers.

When I said earlier that Larry Becraft and Vivien Kellems' had much in common, even fifty years after her defiance of tyranny, I think you'll see what I mean. There are detractors out there who sell books and methods of "untaxing" or "detaxing" who have made a crusade of pontificating all over the Internet that Larry is wrong about his legal training and interpretation of why it is so critical to get the 16th Amendment declared fraudulently ratified and a law that never was. Larry has covered this quite thoroughly at:

http://www.devvy.com/wnl.html - Available on Devvy's Archives CD

http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/Links16th.htm

It is our contention that the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment wiped out the apportionment provision specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution. This, of course, was the intention of the evil-doers because without apportionment, there can be no direct tax. It is for this reason that The Wallace Institute will challenge the ratification of the 16th Amendment at the state level. It is the last forum left to the American people on this issue.

There is no where left to go since the federal judges (parasites) have destroyed every single argument in court to protect their host (the Congress), without which, they would cease to exist. Despite the desperate hope of tens of millions of party faithful out there, Congress will not do it and with vote fraud, the shadow government will ensure only those who support that position will get "re-elected" to Congress to talk about "We're for lower taxes." To me, and others with far more education than I have, this issue is clear cut and we enjoy a broad support from the American people.

Let me give you some of the text from Miss Kellems' book, pgs. 41-46:

        "Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes
        doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation
        that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census
        and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the
        Constitution that is stated twice."

The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years, the only reason was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington's, business.There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.

This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

The census was to count the people - that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states....

For a long time I asked myself, "Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?" It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

I read again: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers..." "No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."

And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted by must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily......

The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.

Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it's too bad we changed that provision (Note: We didn't. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud--it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. Hat is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people

But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in Accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called "Democrats" of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

[Note: Just last week on CNN I watched a short segment with a startling admission: Today 1 in 3 Americans live paycheck to paycheck. In other words, they are one day and one paycheck away from financial disaster. Certainly not the rosy picture being painted by Socialist party A and Socialist party B who are running this scam on America about a "prosperous economy."]

And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away."

I would quote one more section from this remarkable little book by a remarkable gal. This section of the book, page 137 is during her long, arduous journey called a trial. The judge is in a snit because he felt Miss Kellems needed a lawyer...no chuckles, please!

    "Then came the clincher and I quote the exact words of Judge Hincks:

    "As to that, isn't this so, that if Miss Kellems had consulted a lawyer, and a thoroughly competent lawyer, he would have said to her something like this: 'The question of the constitutionality of this particular provision of the Withholding Act has never been passed upon by any court, and if it were raised and pushed through to the Supreme Court it is utterly impossible for me or any honest lawyer to tell you what the decision would be, because in recent years in the field of constitutional law generally the Court has overruled earlier decisions, and especially in the field of civil rights the Supreme Court has departed from earlier decisions. And not only that, but time and again its decisions in these fields have been by a divided Court so that even Solomon himself couldn't tell you in advance which branch of the Court would support the statute and which branch would oppose it.' If she had consulted a lawyer could a lawyer have given her anything more definite substantially than that?

    "And with that question of the eminent judge, I rest my case. For the answer to that question is the key to the complete demoralization of our courts and the usurpation of the Constitutional rights of the American people. In the nineteen long years that the New Deal Party has held undisputed sway of our Government, the courts have become a political arm of the frenzied zealots and tyrants who are ruling us. Many people will remember the brazen boast of ex-Senator "Red" Pepper of Florida, when the Republicans did actually elect a majority in the House of Representatives in 1946, that "we still control the courts."

    "Yes, the control the courts. For all those nineteen years judges have been appointed because they would give decisions, not in accordance with the law, but as needed by political expediency. What President Roosevelt could not force from the American people when he tried to pack the Supreme Court, time gave him, and you can look at it today - his handiwork, with one or two notable contributions by Mr. Truman." End

Miss Kellems closes her book with these profound words, pg. 159:

    "Return to the States and to the people their own money. They've earned it and they can spend it far better than corrupt politicians, entrenched in bureaus and agencies, 99% of which are illegal and unconstitutional. There isn't a function, outside of the ones specifically delegated to the Federal Government in our Constitution, that can't be handled better by the people, acting through their municipal and state governments.

    "And with this return of money, and power will go to the return to the American people of their innate decency and integrity. Representative Payne prophesied truly, back in 1909, that the income tax would make of us a nation of liars, and the moral degeneration of our nation is directly traceable to the income tax. How many self-righteous citizens, shocked at the cribbing of a few West Point cadets, were lying and cheating on their income tax?

    "The right to own something, so carefully insured to us by our forefathers, endows the owner with dignity and self-respect, and of these are born national integrity and morality." End.

Miss Kellems must surely have had a stroke when that smarmy, slimy Lyndon Baines Johnson took another giant step towards breeding Americans to government dependency with his "Great Society" nonsense. He succeeded. Today we have a nation full of non-producers who think it's their right to have us and our children support their worthless backsides. Shame. Shame, America.

Do we smell the same rotten haul of fish today, only the stench is multiplied a million times since Miss Kellems took these scoundrels to task?

The fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment wiped out apportionment without that section of the Constitution ever being amended. Unconstitutional. The fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment stripped the states of their suffrage rights. The "Federal" Reserve Act hoax was also passed in 1913 along with the fraud regarding the aforementioned amendments. A nice neat package for the Masters of the New World Order: strip America blind, feed themselves billions and break the backs of the America people with a communist, progressive income tax. It's not real complicated. If you'd like more information on the "Fed," please go to:

http://www.devvy.com/money0.html - Available on Devvy's Archives CD

http://www.devvy.com/newbook_20000710.html

Remember: Vivien Kellems' wrote this book in 1951, it was released in 1952. Do we see similarities here with regards to the census? How much more will the thinking, patriotic people of this country put up with from this criminal cabal in Washington, DC and the parasites who sit on the federal bench allowing this lawlessness to continue? How many more will lose their lives, their homes and their businesses before the American people join the growing list of sponsors of The Wallace Institute so that we can methodically and step-by-step correct these injustices?

In the movie Braveheart, when there is no recourse left to the patriots of Scotland, William Wallace yells,

                                                    "Are you ready for a war?"

I'm not, but we are at war with this criminal government in Washington, DC and the state legislatures. Right now it's a paper war, or a cold war, if you will. Most sane, rational peopledo not want a violent altercation with this government but don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. It's there, we just need to get on the same sheet of music so that we can fight effectively and without violence. Right now a fellow by the name of Larry Maxwell is collecting big bucks (I was told $1,500) for people to become co-plaintiffs in a class action suit against the IRS. Sorry, folks. Old news. Been tried. Thrown out of court. Larry Becraft has been in this movement more than 20 years. Apparently this Mr. Maxwell likes to do things that don't work.

Not only are we at war with this government, those of us serious about curing the cancer instead of treating the symptoms for profit, are attacked at every opportunity by people who make their living selling various untaxing or "getting out of the system" programs. I do not make a penny for what I do; I have not had a single penny in income since 1991 with the exception of a small amount of royalties for my children's book about one of our doggies. I am not a patriot for profit. My project runs on a shoestring; I set it up at the beginning to simply be self-funding to keep it going and that's the way it has operated for almost eight long years.

In all these years I have been in this movement, no one has ever asked me if there's something I would like to do with my life. People just assume I like working for free the past nine years and that this is some kind of hobby. Well, it isn't. My daughter will live free of this tyrannical government if it's the last thing I do before I take my dying breath. Getting paid or going fishing will just have to wait. I value my freedom and my daughter's freedom far more than an afternoon in front of a ball game or going to some restaurant and hogging out. There's things to get done but we won't get anywhere unless and until the people unite.

I have never sold any kind of de-taxing or un-taxing program. I can refer individuals to Bill Benson, Joe Banister or the Free Enterprise Society, but that's about it. You see, over the past nine years, I have read all the books by all these legal guru's and, even with no formal legal training, I didn't buy their arguments and still don't. Remember what Miss Kellems pointed out about the courts flip- flopping? We have the same problem today and it's called a problem with due process. It's not bad enough that we have this sickening and horrendous problems with the court, but let me give you one example of what you don't get told about one favorite patriot tax argument:
 

From the desk of Larry Becraft
August 20, 2000

Hey Patrick,

I am sorry that you have been mislead by people like Otto Skinner who promote the argument that the "16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation," and therefore the question of the ratification of the amendment means nothing. The reason that Otto makes this contention is simply to save his own excise tax argument which completely depends on the existence of the amendment. Let me explain.

Under the constitution, Congress has two powers of taxation. Direct taxes must be apportioned and indirect taxes must be uniform. A direct tax simply cannot be imposed via the rule of uniformity. Imposition of direct taxes from the federal level is difficult because of the apportionment requirement. Imposing indirect taxes is easy because they only need to be uniform. But constitutional challenges will arise in situations where Congress attempts to impose a direct tax without apportionment and this happened in 1894.

In 1894, Congress adopted an income tax which became the subject of the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. There, the question involved whether Congress could tax the income from real or personal property via an uniform tax. The Supreme Court determined in that case that income

from real or personal property was a part of the property itself. The Supreme Court further concluded that Congress could tax property only via an apportioned tax and since the tax in that case was uniform rather than apportioned, it was held unconstitutional.

In the Pollock case, the Supreme Court noted that Congress has possessed from the beginning the power to tax incomes. However, to impose such a tax requires compliance with the constitutional rules for imposing taxes. If any given income tax should be found to be a direct tax, it has to be apportioned. Thus, the 16th amendment issue does not involve a question of power but of compliance with the constitutional rules for imposition of taxes.

In 1909, Congress proposed the 16th amendment and it was allegedly ratified in 1913. Its meaning became the subject of the Brushaber case. In that case, the Court determined the effect of the amendment: it converts those income taxes which are direct taxes into excises. Without the amendment, the "law" regarding imposition of income taxes would be that found in the Pollock case. Otto's contention that this argument regarding the 16th amendment is meaningless because it conferred no new powers of taxation thus utterly fails to address the real question. What the 16th amendment does is change direct income taxes into excises; thus Otto's whole excise tax argument rides on the 16th amendment and without the amendment, Otto would be out of business.

But Otto is completely incorrect regarding his argument about the definition of excise taxes. Otto completely relies upon the definition of this tax found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Company for his position that excise taxes are privilege taxes. Otto fails to inform his students of the definition of "excise taxes" found in the Steward Machine Company case involving social security. This case may be read on FindLaw:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=301&invol=548

There, you will find the Court providing the following definition of excise taxes:

"The historical prop failing, the prop or fancied prop of principle remains.
We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or
'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called,
are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. An excise
is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether.

It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends
to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. What the
individual does in the operation of a business is amenable to taxation
just as much as what he owns, at all events if the classification is not
tyrannical or arbitrary."

Otto is fully aware of this case because he mentions it on his web site. Clearly, Otto is misleading people and not telling his students the complete story.

Another lie promoted by Otto is his contention that the courts uniformly consider the income tax an excise. I address this question in a file posted to my web site:

http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/UNCERTAIN.html

If you read the brief posted here, you will learn that the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, have made inconsistent statements regarding the purpose and function of the 16th amendment.

Some hold that the amendment makes income taxes excises while others declare that the amendment eliminates the requirement to apportion the direct income tax. I have made this knowledge available since publication of Vern Holland's book in 1987, and Otto ignores this fact. Otto harms people by failing to tell them of this inconsistency. But in any event, the 16th amendment is the basis for these varying conclusions of the courts. Further, Otto ignores the fact that the Supreme Court, in the Sims case, held that income ("wages and salaries") is property. You may read Sims on FindLaw:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=359&page=108

It is unfortunate that you have fallen for the bad information distributed by Otto Skinner. Relying upon bad information gets people into deep trouble.

                                                                                * * *

Speaking of Vern Holland, this is the latest from his efforts:
 

Subject: Another Win! Collective Entity Rule
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
From: "Vern Holland" <vholland@busprod.com>

Just won ... in the Tax Court no less ... on the Collective Entity Rule.

This issue applies to trusts, corporations, limited and general partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, etc., and it relates to the Fifth Amendment. I have not been able to find any favorable lower court decisions on this specific issue, and it is important enough to distribute to your respective lists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the mandate of the Fifth Amendment, which protects "persons" from compulsory self-incrimination, applies only to "natural people" and not to "fictitious" ones. Therefore, corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, and other kinds of business organizations are treated differently from individuals for Fifth Amendment purposes. This concept is known as the "Collective Entity Rule."

Most individuals are aware that the IRS has an ongoing national project attacking trusts. It is critical to understand how to penetrate the Collective Entity Rule. The Collective Entity Rule was first articulated in Hale v. Henkel:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=201&invol=43

The Tax Court case involved a motion to compel production of documents and interrogatories. The Tax Court ruled in our favor on the application of the Fifth Amendment to the interrogatories and denied the government's motion to compel. We argued, inter alia, that the Collective Entity

Rule did not apply to interrogatories and prevailed. We partially prevailed on the request for production of documents, but the Tax Court held that some documents were not protected under the Rule. The Tax Court stated that the petition would be dismissed and a decision entered in favor of the government if we did not produce. We did not produce. The Tax Court nevertheless held a trial and has ordered post-trial briefs. Surprise ...surprise!

The case authority is very sparse on these issues, but the key cases are Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361; Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957).

Most recently, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Hubbell, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000) (Justices Thomas and Scalia, concurring), that broadly worded requests for production of documents are tantamount to a series of interrogatories or oral questions at a deposition. The Fifth Amendment applies to interrogatories & depositions even under the Collective Entity Rule, and it should also apply is the request for production of documents under Hubbell. Thomas & Scalia have also invited the Supreme Court to revisit the act of production issue explained in Larry Becraft's memorandum below.

There were several other issues generated that cannot be released at this time (i.e., why the Collective Entity Rule does not apply to "pure trust"), but they certainly choked the Tax Court judge when we did not produce and a trial was nevertheless held. We kept the burden of proof on the government. Some of the cases cited herein are located below.

Take care ... Vern Holland vholland@busprod.com

Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=221&page=361

Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=487&page=99

United States v. Hubbell, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000)

Syllabus: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZS.html

Opinion: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZO.html

Concurring Opinion:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZC.html

Also read Larry Becraft's memorandum on the 5th Amendment, which addresses the act of production issue in relation to the Fifth Amendment.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Compulsory.htm

                                                                        * * *

I believe we are a nation of laws, not lies. If you're going to solve a problem, you go right to where the problem started and in this case, the problem is the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment which wiped out apportionment. Quit fooling around with selling books and holding seminars or begging Congress to "repeal the 16th Amendment" (it wasn't ratified so repealing it is just another new lie to cover an old lie) or "lower taxes." It's time to once and for all drive a stake through the heart of this fraud. The window of opportunity is here and now, let's not waste it.

Larry Becraft is a lawyer who has made his living defending people against criminal indictments. People who have used these various methods from Irwin Schiff, Lynn Meredith, Otto Skinner and others. Personally, I tell people if they want to fork out big bucks, spend 4-6 hours a day studying the income tax code and a thousand court cases, have at it. The Wallace Institute is working to represent every American regardless of political party, race, age or religion in a court of law and go after the Achilles Heel of this monumental lie called the IRS and income tax. This piece-meal effort may work for a few thousand, for a while, but that doesn't help America as a whole nor will it stop the machine raging against US and our God-given rights.

Larry and I get phone calls every day from desperate people who have followed these various legal theories and are now in deep trouble with the federal boys and girls. Usually their cases are terminal and they have no defense. Like Bill Conklin, Bill Benson and Joe Banister, we get literally a ton of letters in our mail from desperate people left hanging in the wind by those who sold them their programs. Below is such a letter. Those who sell all these "silver bullet," "sure things," the "redemption proecess" and other legal theories, are never around to bail out these desperate Americans. This is why Larry and I formed The Wallace Institute and are carefully proceeding because we have only one shot at this in a court of law. As I said, if you have 4-6 hours a day, or like me, give up your career and spend nine years learning, by all means, have at it.

Do any of these legal arguments really work? Yes, in some cases, individuals, especially those who are self-employed, fall through the cracks of a 170 million person pool--for awhile. Eventually, most of them end up getting that first notice from the non-government agency called the IRS, then the fear kicks in and then they call me, Larry, Bill Benson, Jeff Dickstein, Bill Conklin and a few others and want us to perform some miracle to save their bacon.

Below is Larry's response to a letter below. This is an everyday delivery by the mail man. We feel helpless because there are just too many victims to go around.

From Larry to these legal guru's in this movement:

    "A trait of human nature is to view the world through "rose-colored glasses" while ignoring reality. But the world in which I live prevents me from participating in this form of escapism, and reality ifs deposited on my doorstep everyday. There is a real problem with people involved in the freedom movement because they are no different from typical Americans and seem to enjoy ignoring reality.

    "Most in the movement simply read a few books and other documents and reach the conclusion that, having discovered the hidden secret, nothing adverse will happen to them. This complacent attitude reveals its unsure foundation when law enforcement, either civil or criminal, arrives. Then, those with the "cross-hairs" painted on their backs rush about looking for that nebulous "silver bullet" which always eludes them. Such is the price for lack of preparation.

    "Literally thousands of similar problems like that discussed in the enclosed letter have been presented to me either over the phone or by letters....Do you have any advice for this man whose life has been destroyed?" End.

I'm sure this dentist is already humiliated enough, so I won't give his name. Those who sold him their "silver bullet" materials will tell you that this educated man "didn't do it right" and that's why he got indicted and convicted. Okay. The only smart ones are those who make their living selling the sure fix for the IRS, everyone else, including doctors, lawyers, dentists and CEO's --well, they're all dummies.

October 1, 2000

Dear Mr. Becraft:

    Please excuse the hand written letter, but I am writing from a County Jail, and I do not have access to a word processor. I am a dentist who resides in Florida, but was indicted and convicted of tax evasion and wilful failure to file (total 4 counts) for years '93-'96 when living in the State of Michigan. I am innocent of the charges, yet I was not able to win at a very prejudiced trial....

    I was represented by Robert Clay, who shares by good faith belief that the Federal Income Tax is an excise tax for which I have no lawful liability. I had assistance from Eduardo Rivera, attorney, in California (also a "patriot attorney"), but he did not play an active role at trial. I received council from Otto Skinner, Irwin Schiff and others. Judge Bell would not allow "frivolous" arguments and he gave incomplete Cheeks instructions to the jury....

    I understand that you cannot comment specifically about my case without examining all my information. I will give you just a few facts:

    1) I was shown a letter from the Chief Officer, Collections Branch, IRS< which was sent to my friend agreeing with him that he was not required to file income tax returns. This letter resulted from assistance by Albert Carter, American Institute for Research, in "untaxing service."

(Note from Devvy: Several years ago I called Al Carter and ask him about this lawsuit he was planning on filing against the IRS. He was seeking a few hundred bucks from people to become co- plaintiffs. I told him it was going to get dismissed. He said he knew that but he was doing this to bring attention to the IRS problem. I then told him I considered him to be a thief for taking people's money under fraudulent circumstances. He didn't care.)

    2) I used A.I.R. also, but received no similar response....

    I have read "We the People's" stuff, Vulture in Eagles Clothing" and some correspondence of yours to a fellow inmate who is up on drug charges. My wife and I now "owe" more taxes and penalties than we ever could afford to pay. I expect soon to be notified that I have lost my license to practice dentistry..My wife is in fear that we will lose our home, and she fears having charges brought against herself...."

Dr. H, was sentenced to 27 months in prison, plus court costs, 2 years of supervised release, 2 years of community service, he has to file all returns from 1993 to the present andmust spend $500 to place a full page add in the Grand Rapids Press with his picture and a statement that he was wrong, etc. Dr. H. was also fined $10,000.

The first person Dr. H. can blame is the Republicans and Democrats for being the cowards they are in not stopping this insanity by forcing the shut down of this rogue operation called the IRS and booting every federal judge in this country off the bench for violating their oath of office. He might also blame the people who sold him this sure thing. I know of one case right now where the injured party is going after the seller of a "silver bullet" method. Good, it's about time.

Do people just really think the banking cartel is going to allow their money pipeline to the Fed to just go away without a fight? In a pig's ear. I know this sounds mean, but Dr. H is an adult who bought the sizzle without tasting the steak. It goes on every day in this country and as I've said many times, DoJ loves it because they can continue to hire more and more attorneys and step up the indictments.

We don't want to see Americans become political prisoners filling up the prisons. We want to solve the problem once and for all.

If you do decide to buy a bunch of books by these tax guru's, I only ask that you look before you leap, be prepared for these dragoons in the IRS with an unlimited budget to come after you and please, consider your family before you undertake any of these sure fire methods to "get rid of the IRS forever!!!"

We all want this criminal operation shut down, peacefully. Congress won't do it although they've been making overtures in that direction which I call new lies to cover the old lies. Congress is desperately trying to calm down the rage blowing across this country over this fraud called the IRS and it's mate, the "Fed." Throw the dogs a bone, that's all this current noise is about. We at The Wallace Institute intend to expose the old lie once and for all.

Vivien Kellems was a remarkable woman who did a remarkable thing. It's unfortunate America got dragged into the Korean War and her message faded into the wind. Back in 1986 time frame, Larry Becraft raised the 861 argument and contrary to popular folklore, this argument isn't the invention of Thurston Bell. Back in '86 when Larry raised this issue, no one was interested.  Now, many employers are stopping withholding from their employees paychecks. Larry has been counseling those employers on what to expect down the road because you can take money to the bank that the federal suits will come down on these employers in the not too distant future.

When we're finished with the 16th Amendment filings, we have other cases we must bring to court. Larry is on the social security cases right now in Texas as I write this. The treaty issue, along with the fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment must be challenged. We cannot do this without your generous monthly donation.

Won't you please join the fight that can win for all Americans by becoming a sponsor today of The Wallace Institute? United we can stand and win against tyranny. Divided we will fall.

For a recap of our current cases and their disposition, please see:

http://www.devvy.com/wnl.html - Available on Devvy's Archives CD

Individual or Corporate Sponsorship

The Wallace Institute is a legal entity whose mission goal is to represent plaintiffs in a court of law with the specific goal of stopping the destruction of personal property rights, personal freedom and more and more draconian junk law violating the U.S. Constitution and nullifying the Bill of Rights.

Your participation is critical since the institute accepts no government funding whatsoever. If everyone pledges a small amount each month, this will give us the funds to bring these cases to court and win. These critical issues affect everyone and so we ask everyone to do their part.

Our fight to stop America from being absorbed into this global one world social and financial order must be a unified one. The Wallace Institute will represent clients in the fight to nullify the treaties passed by an ignorant and bought and paid for Congress. It is essential that we attack the problem legally where the unconstitutional act/law began and quit treating the symptoms.

We thank you in advance for your donation and pledge of support.

Name: ___________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________

Phone Number (optional): __________________

Personal Sponsorship donation per month: __________________

Corporate Sponsorship donation per month: __________________

Please make your check/money order payable to:

The Wallace Institute
209 Lincoln Street
Huntsville, Alabama 35801.

If you have any questions about the institute, please don't hesitate to contact Devvy Kidd at 916-928-0199; e-mail is power@devvy.com or snail mail:

P.O. Box 60543
Sacramento, California 95860.

The Wallace Institute is not a 501(c)(3) for the following reasons:

1. We will not have the government dictate who we represent or how we represent them.

2. Beginning in 1996, virtually every conservative organization in this country that is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity has been a target of an IRS audit. The reason is obvious but the result has been devastating. These organizations, for no other reason than being "conservative" or against the policies of Bill Clinton, have had to spend tens of thousands, and in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves against the insidious IRS to protect their tax-exempt status.

The Wallace Institute will not fall into this trap. Your monthly sponsorship is hard earned and it will not be wasted having to defend our policies and your rights. Your monthly sponsorship is going to cure the cancer, not so we can get a"tax break."

http://www.devvy.com/501_20000406.html - Available on Devvy's Archives CD