Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Founder of FairTax.org was a former director of the Dallas Federal Reserve

Brian D. Hill 
U.S.W.G.O.
August 16, 2010


Investigative Journalism of possible Super Rich pushed Fraudulent schemes by Brian D. Hill. I won’t allow the Fair Tax if it’s another scheme to take more money from the middle class and the working poor. I am tired of the super rich stealing from the people.

I had my suspicions over the Fair tax proposal because the Bilderberg’s have used false messiahs, Environmentalism, incrementalism, and anything to push American citizens into socialism not to mention anything I do to attack the fair Tax Trap gains me lots of negative comment attacks.

So I got even more suspicions because I haven’t received this many attacks since the Bilderberg Group hand picked the false messiah and puppet Barack Obama to become the next president and many attacking me on YouTube over my anti Obama videos. So then I have decided to do a little investigative journalism on FairTax.org and did background checks on all of the High Ups of FairTax.org.

According to my investigation Leo E. Linbeck Jr. the Founder of FairTax.org used to be apart of Duke Energy’s Board of Directors and he is a past chairman and director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Texas. FULL STORY


Source Links:

20 comments:

travllrs said...

This is yet another demonstration of how you're avoiding substantive discussion about the FairTax on the plan's proposed merits / defects.

In my reply to Devvy Kidd's article, I focused on why deriving another's intent by implication, followed by "guilt by association (with such tainted character)" does NOT constitute a valid logical (nor ethical) basis to present in order to persuade others to oppose the FairTax.

Rose said...

I am not avoiding anything, sorry that you came late to the party, but I have discussed it already.

I don't support it, and I never will support it. There isn't anything more to discuss.

MM said...

Rose, I greatly appreciate the information you share with others. Keep up the great, good work.

MM said...

Rose -- I too question the motives of the Board of Directors for FairTax.org upon seeing their titles, backgrounds, and relationship to others such as the Bush family.
I have posted your information to my Facebook page. Thank you.

Rose said...

Thank You Mary. I think it's important for people to know who is behind this Fair Tax and wasn't surprised by Brian Hill's investigation.

After all, who benefits the most from the keeping this country in debt? The present system of the Income Tax isn't bringing in enough money so they need to change it. Only a moron wouldn't be able to figure out that by going to a consumption tax such as the Fair Tax will increase the amount collected which still will not even cover the interest on the debt.

Anyone who takes the time to read the Fair Tax bill, both the federal S-510 as well as the Michigan Fair Tax, will see that it doesn't address the real problems that we are fighting, government spending, it only creates a method of collection that will increase what's collected. It doesn't offer a solution, it only gives government more control over our lives and takes away more of our freedoms.

So as I said, it doesn't surprise me one bit to find that it's the Fed behind this proposal at all.

Daar said...

I posted the following in June, 2009 (as referenced in Oct):

Rose, I like what Ian posted last June:

Hmmm... now, let's see... Income Tax (IT) vs FairTax (FT):

IT: Confiscates wages, MI takes theirs first every working hour.
FT: Ends wage withholding.

IT: "We work for the pol's every working hour." They create a deficit in family pay, which the family may make up for by using CREDIT CARDS (and paying another "hidden tax" CC interest - OH, THE BANKERS LOVE IT).
FT: Because MI gov't would be put on the SPENDING SIDE of the family ledger, the gov't benefits ONLY AS OUR FAMILY BENEFITS thru purchases.

IT: Want to lessen your tax burden? Don't work.
FT: Want to lessen your tax burden? Make your own clothes. Grow your own food. BUY USED. (You can still plan for wealth, because you are FREE TO WORK ALL YOU WANT WITHOUT PENALTY.)

IT: Taxes business income & payrolls.
FT: Ends this. Makes true tax cost to consumers, visible.

IT: Biz taxes not removable from (higher) prices (paid by consumers) and accompanies goods shipped to export markets (lessening competitiveness).
FT: Ends this self-wound-inflicting trade policy.

IT: Biz taxes = hidden taxes.
FT: Visible.

IT: Penalizes productivity: Hire an employee? Hit with more taxes.
FT: ENDS this.

IT: Deprives families of the "fruits of labor."
FT: ENDS this. Rightfully restores the "bread" to those who make the "dough."

IT: Has a TAX CODE with which politicians and lobbyists love to play footsie.
FT: ENDS tax favors to the few at cost to the many - because the TAX CODE (favoring the power elite) is replaced with a simple PREBATE that UN-taxes all poverty level spending for the family. BRILLIANT! NO TAX CODE NEEDED.

IT: Taxes us multiple times.
FT: Taxes NEW goods and services AT RETAIL only ONCE! (And NO TAX on business-to-business sales, which replicates hiding taxes in prices consumers pay.)

IT: Every working person is a candidate for COLLECTION (read: interest, penalties, audits).
FT: Only those who own retail businesses will be required to COLLECT the tax ("at the cash register"). Reduces "points of collection" by 90%!

IT: Requires income tax return, only after complicated calculation - IN ARREARS - of "taxable income."
FT: ENDS INCOME TAX RETURNS. Sales & Use tax returns (already operational in MI), much easier to fill out - not 60,000 pages of Income Tax Code to follow. Precise amount of tax easily known, based on sales - remitted monthly.

IT: Every working person is a candidate for a "tax deficiency."
FT: PAID IN FULL (at the cash register).

IT: Taxes income, regardless if from sales of new, or used, goods.
FT: USED GOODS NOT TAXED.

IT: Look it up, Rose - it was a heavily progressive INCOME TAX - that was a tenet of Marxism.
FT: Anti-thetical to Marxism, because control of the family purse is in the hands of the family.

IT: Annualized basis, NOT UNIFORMLY APPLIED. The wealthier one is, the greater access to tax professionals. And, the tax code is ONLY TO HAPPY to provide shelters to the super-rich.
FT: Non-annualized basis. UNIFORMLY APPLIED without special treatment for the wealthy. The more you spend, the higher the FT rate you pay. Using a family of four, MI FT rate of 9.75% (BEFORE APPLYING THE REBATE) and spending shown (over 12 monthly periods) result in the EFFECTIVE (post-REBATE APPLIED) rate for that family:

Spending of $21,200 = NO TAX(Prebates rec'd covered all taxes.)
Of $ 42,400 = 4.88% (effective MI FairTax %, after prebate applied)
Of $ 50,000 = 5.62%
Of $100,000 = 7.68%
Of $200,000 = 8.72%
Of $800,000 = 9.49%

Please, SOMEBODY, TELL ME THAT THE MICHIGAN FAIRTAX IS NOT FAIR???! (and I'll tell you to get your head examined).

Generally, you have interesting and informative stuff posted. But, on the subject of FairTax, YOU'RE ALL SCREWED UP.

Rose said...

Daar, you and your buddies can come here all you want and lay out your arguments BUT until the first issue at hand is resolved, why on earth would we trade one Fraud for another?

Income Tax (IT) vs FairTax (FT):

IT: Confiscates wages, MI takes theirs first every working hour.

(Me) The MI income tax is predicated on IF you owe Federal Income Tax. The Federal Income Tax is an Excise Tax. Individuals revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Individuals revenues do not constitute "income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment" and the Constitution

Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5: ". . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid. "The Government's claim and the judge's ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants' kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:

'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'

"The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings." (emphasis is the Court's)

See also: Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 153 (1917); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. United States, 108 F.3d 290 (11th Cir. 1997); B & M Company v. United States, 452 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1971); Kocurek v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 740 (1978); Norton Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 829 (1968); Grays Harbor Chair and Manufacturing Company v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 254 (1967); Russell v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 493 (1966).

The Internal Revenue Code does not "Plainly and Clearly Lay" any liability for an income tax on individuals

Rose said...

Daar, you and your buddies can come here all you want and lay out your arguments BUT until the first issue at hand is resolved, why on earth would we trade one Fraud for another?

Income Tax (IT) vs FairTax (FT):

IT: Confiscates wages, MI takes theirs first every working hour.

(Me) The MI income tax is predicated on IF you owe Federal Income Tax. The Federal Income Tax is an Excise Tax. Individuals revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Individuals revenues do not constitute "income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment" and the Constitution

Rose said...

Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5: ". . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid. "The Government's claim and the judge's ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants' kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:

'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'

"The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings." (emphasis is the Court's)

See also: Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 153 (1917); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. United States, 108 F.3d 290 (11th Cir. 1997); B & M Company v. United States, 452 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1971); Kocurek v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 740 (1978); Norton Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 829 (1968); Grays Harbor Chair and Manufacturing Company v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 254 (1967); Russell v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 493 (1966).

The Internal Revenue Code does not "Plainly and Clearly Lay" any liability for an income tax on individuals

Rose said...

Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5: ". . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid. "The Government's claim and the judge's ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants' kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211.

Rose said...

In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:

'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'

"The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings." (emphasis is the Court's)

See also: Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 153 (1917); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. United States, 108 F.3d 290 (11th Cir. 1997); B & M Company v. United States, 452 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1971); Kocurek v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 740 (1978); Norton Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 829 (1968); Grays Harbor Chair and Manufacturing Company v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 254 (1967); Russell v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 493 (1966).

The Internal Revenue Code does not "Plainly and Clearly Lay" any liability for an income tax on individuals

Rose said...

FT: Ends wage withholding.

(Me) Ends withholding IF you owe a Federal Income tax.

It should be noted at this point that titles and headings, such as "Married individuals and surviving spouses filing joint returns" and "Heads of households" are not part of the law and have absolutely no legal effect. 26 U.S.C. § 7806. Therefore, the actual statute commences with "There is hereby imposed . . ." The imposition of the tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. In contrast, see 26 U.S.C. § 884, discussed more fully infra, which does impose a tax on an entity.

Subtitle A does, however, designate partners as liable for the taxes on income of a partnership, but only in their "individual" capacities (26 U.S.C. § 701)
while certain partnerships are declared liable for excess recapture of credits (26 U.S.C. 704).

Foreign corporations are specifically designated as the party liable for payment of the "Branch profits tax" imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 884 (which, incidentally, does impose the tax on "any foreign corporation").

The only other party that is identified in the income tax law as liable for the
payment of any income tax is revealed in 26 U.S.C. § 1461: "Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax "Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." (emphasis added)

"This chapter" is
"Chapter 3 - Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations". Thus the liable party in this instance is anyone withholding tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. There are no other references in Subtitle A (the income tax law) to anyone being liable for the tax imposed by § 1 other than those: partners (but only in their "individual" capacity); certain large partnerships in certain excess credit situations;

Daar said...

Tell it to the jury who convicted Irwin Schiff! Tell it to the jury who convicted Larken Rose. Tell it to the juries who have convicted other patriots who knew what you know.

The national FairTax gets RID of this government-sponsored terrorism - and the IRS. It gets RID of a compromised - and purposely obfuscated - income tax code under which these prosecutions are conducted.

Average, wage-earning Americans ought NOT have their wages confiscated, or otherwise be placed under threat of audit, interest, penalties, and worse.

Why do you insist on "playing on their battlefield," where the gov't is on high-ground with plenty of bogus convictions powering its continuing coercive income tax enforcement?

Didn't your loved one's prison stint - courtesy of the IRS - knock any sense into your head?

Or, are you suffering from "loving your abuser" syndrome??

FairTax gets rid of all of this injustice, returns the family purse to the family to decide, when, how, and how much they'll pay in taxes based upon THEIR decision to purchase "new, at retail" - and NO ONE will effectively pay the tax until they exceed monthly poverty-level spending.

This is NOT rocket science - and it is NOT complicated. It simply means that folks have to "unhook" themselves from their government "tethers."

Rose said...

Tell it to the jury who acquitted Vernie Kuglin of willful failure to file. http://hotbd.mobi/video/g71dWQjmcQ0/Pilot-Beat-the-IRS-in-Court-Vernie-Kuglin.html

Tell it to the jury who acquitted Attorney Tommy Cryer who's Memorandum I took that information from. When you use the TRUTH as your defense in court, you can win. But if you listen to the hackers out there who peddle arguments the DOJ and IRS love to hear, then you go to jail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAjQeNWnXyE

Liberty Activists said...

According to transcripts provided at this link, Kuglin admitted responsibility for taxes billed (in a subsequent civil suit) and she agreed to the following amounts:

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $52,095.00, $46,308.00, $44,386.00, $47,349.00, $53,819.00, and $52,345.00, respectively;

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(f), in the amounts of $39,071.25, $34,731.00, $32,283.73, $35,511.75, $40,409.25, and $39,258.75, respectively; and

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6654, in the amounts of $2,648.42, $2,477.53, $1,962.83, $2,291.54, $2,877.97, and $2,091.92, respectively.


Was this a "win" for Liberty? Government prosecutors may have failed to show "willfulness" in her not filing, but she later repudiated her own stance by "paying up."

FairTax ends audits, interest, and penalties. It ends criminal prosecutions for "willful failure to file" concerning income tax returns. And NO average (non-business-owning) wage-earning American will ever interact with a federal revenue agent.

Rose said...

I just love it when you IRS agents come here and spread false rummers.

Would you like me to look up the follow up interviews with Ms. Kuglin? In those interviews she talks about how when YOU GUYS, THE IRS, froze her bank accounts, garnished her wages and gave her no choice but to agree to a payment arrangement.

Taking people to court for Willful Failure has always been and always be the bully IRS agency's way of keeping the masses living in fear of exercising their rights.

If there is no truth in what I posted then why did the IRS, DOJ and the United States Congress REFUSE to answer the questions in our Petitions of Redress and why did they back out of attending the Truth In Taxation Hearings?

The real truth is that the masses are learning the truth, the people are fed up and when that happens, you either need to distract them with something like the so called fair tax to keep them paying, because the only way you can win is through deceit.

Liberty Activists said...

You want to fight the government. We want to change the system, end the IRS, scrap the tax code, send home more than half the lobbyists who are in Washington DC to game the income tax code, and stop politicians from using income tax code incentives to direct our behavior according to their desires.

End of story. Once accomplished, we will be less divided, and more united to hold Congress accountable for how they are spending the FairTax they're getting from ALL of us (equitably).

Rose said...

You want to change the system to what?

More control over our lives with a sales tax at both the federal and state level? Tax our food, tax our medical, tax our very existence and be grateful for it because we will see it every time we are lucky enough to be able to purchase something? Such a deal.

But don't come here and lie about putting an end to the IRS. Your change only changes the name of the IRS, it doesn't do away with them or their bulling ways.

Scrap the tax code? No, your giving the Feds 7 years to scrap the tax codes. That's seven years for them to decide that they like both the income tax and sales tax. You accomplish NOTHING.

Stop the lobbyists? Not a chance. They will just find something within this tax system to lobby about.

Stop politicians from using the income tax code as incentives? Now they can use the Fair Tax as incentives. You accomplish NOTHING.

OH wait, you did accomplish something here after all didn't you. You let the very people who are liable for the taxes under the constitution off the hook. Foreign Corporations doing business in the United States. End of Story. We will be more divided then ever before.

Liberty Activists said...

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to raise revenue. That means you and I are going to pay it. Now, we're either going to SEE the tax cost (FairTax taxes us directly, visibly), or it's going to be hidden in prices (which comes from the expensive process of levying the tax on the producer of goods in - or coming into - the country). In either case, WE PAY THE TAX.

So, that leaves us with HOW to levy the tax in the FAIREST, MOST VISIBLE manner - and the LEAST TAMPER-ABLE, MANIPULATIVE manner. The income tax code is tampered with almost daily. We have seen that the income tax has multiple ways to tax income (FairTax taxes it once). The income tax is complex. The FairTax is simple. The income tax empowers an Aristocracy called the "political class." The FairTax returns the power of the purse to We, the People - the government gets ZERO UNLESS, AND UNTIL, I SPEND ABOVE POVERTY LEVEL - thereby insuring that ONLY subsistent families - and NOT RICH CATS - get away with paying no tax.

The added benefit, is that those in receipt of ill-gotten gain, who presently pay no income tax, will pay the tax when they spend it.

And, we haven't even gotten to the part where the FairTax corrects global trade imbalances when competing with countries who have a VAT tax (we bury tax costs in prices that we cannot remove prior to export!

Rose said...

Liberty Activists has left a new comment on your post "Founder of FairTax.org was a former director of th...":

See what I mean, these guys say "End Of Story" but they lie, and come back again and again and again and again and again and again.

They just can't say we agree to disagree can they?