Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.

.This is a graphic and text rich site. Be patient downloading. It's worth it.
No daily sensationalism here, just the stuff to keep you informed, alert, thinking, active.
This is a not for profit site created and funded by unpaid volunteers.

wpeC.jpg (6993 bytes)

May 2001Edition 21

[ Click here for April posting ]

You Are Getting Screwed " BIG TIME."

Since 1936, ALL Americans who have been registered for enrollment into Social Security, are receiving covered "wages" for the purposes of "determining your entitlement to retirement survivors and disability benefits" (See Title 20 CFR § 404.1041 (a))

A revealing admission was made in a letter found in the files of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stored the National Archives, dated February 2, 1923, from Ferdinand Tannenbaum, ex-Assistant Solicitor to the Internal Revenue Bureau, to David H. Blair, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Note: Mr. Tannenbaum was a man described as having an "intimate and expert understanding" on the "taxation of undistributed surplus and accumulated income."

In the letter noted above, Mr. Tannenbaum instructs the Commissioner in the fine points of the law, as he discloses that incomes have to be taxed in the nature of an excise, as a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court in the Pollock Case.

"A tax on accumulated income, not measured according to the amount received and not distributed during a taxable period, would in all probability be held to be a direct tax under the authority of Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 439, unless it were levied in the nature of an excise, which can be imposed on only those taxpayers who are exercising a privilege, such as the enjoyment and actual operation under a corporate franchise."
Clearly, it can be discerned without question that the basis of the income tax, which is "levied in the nature of an excise," can be imposed on only those taxpayers exercising a privilage! As it was established in the era when an income tax was prevented, specifically by the Pollock decision, from being levied in any other way but in the nature of an excise!!!

It is clear from a careful study of U.S. fiscal history, that the scandalous Supreme Court ruling in the Pollock decision of 1895, which held that income tax as normally imposed, violated the apportionment clause per the constitutional rule pertaining to "direct taxes," was an erroneous conclusion by the Supreme Court.

Note, by 1923, the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 had overturned, and did away with the the new rule established by the Pollock Court, which prevented Congress from imposing an income tax on personal property.

However, inasmuch the Pollock Court adjudged the income tax void for want of apportionment, and in the words of the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at page 112:

"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect tax to which it inherently belonged."

It should be clear from the statements by Mr. Tannebaum, in light of the comments by the Stanton Court regarding the Sixteenth Amendment, that prior to the decision in the Pollock Case, the long held fiscal policy had been to tax the incomes of only those individuals and corporations who were exercising government privileges. Further, after careful analysis of the record, it should also be clear that if it were not for the mistaken theory evinced by the attorneys representing Charles Pollock, and swallowed whole by the bare majority of the Court -- apparently without any independent investigation -- the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution would not have been required.

Even today, flag-waving fanatics of the patriot persuasion and other pseudo intellectuals and opportunists lurking in the tax-protest movement, portray the Pollock decision as some sort of Populist victory over big, oppressive government and the "tax-system." However, the misguided analysis of the Pollock Case, as presented by tax-protesting fanatics, is just about as far away from reality as one can be without the help of hallucinogens.

The ruling in the Pollock Case effectively exempted corporations, owned by the wealthy, from supporting the government. The Pollock decision effectively freed the rich from their fair share of the financial burdens of government which liberally bestowed many special conditional privileges and benefits upon them.

The Pollock decision hardly exemplifies any kind of victory for "the little people" over the encroaching powers of a usurping government. Clearly, it was, on the contrary, the victory of corporate wealth over the issue of where the funds for government operations was to be harvested.

The frivolously specious argument relied upon, and swallowed whole, by the Pollock Court, (who apparently had no time for independent investigation), was later admitted by the Supreme Court to be erroneous, (see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. at 103 at 112 (1915) and Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1915).

During the years after the Pollock decision (1895-1913), the Supreme Court, fearing loss of prestige in reversing the scandalous decision, refused to remedy the situation, or assuage the public outrage. As a result, this situation brought about public pressure from the middle class through the Populist Movement, for an amendment to the Constitution (see the 16th Amendment).

History is clear as to the purpose of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It is indisputably a fact, that it was the middle-class who desired the income tax amendment. The middle class desired it, because they saw it as a way to get relief from a back-breaking Federal commodities tax on the necessities of life; the commodities tax -- that hit the poor, and those on fixed incomes the hardest -- was imposed to make up for the lost revenue due to the munificent tax-exemption bestowed upon corporate wealth by the Pollock decision.

On close examination of the historical record of 1913, it is clear that the 16th Amendment was required to correct the blunder of a cowardly Court, and reaffirm an income tax as an indirect tax on accumulated wealth, (indirect taxes must be uniform), -- free from the rule of apportionment -- as such taxes had always been considered. (see the writings of the "Founding Fathers.")

Since the days when the U.S. Congress first contemplated an income tax, during the War of I812, it was understood, that an income tax, would NOT be a "direct tax." It was understood that within the ambit of the Constitution, income taxes were classified under the category of INDIRECT TAXES.

It is true, that the income tax has indeed had a long history of being described as a "direct income tax." However, dating back to England of 1798, the phrase "direct," as used in connection with income taxes, merely intends to highlight the fact that the tax was assessed directly on the income, and has no relation to the meaning of the term "DIRECT TAX," as established by the "Founding Fathers." It must be noted that certain of the "Founding Fathers," themselves, were Justices of the Supreme Court in 1796, at which time the question first arose and was settled.

Presently, the distortion of the well-settled meaning of this phrase "direct tax," by tax-protesting, "pay-triot" conmen, has proved an effective foundation to hoodwink a growing number of people into acceptance of a false historical accounting of events. Tax-protesting demagogues disseminate all manner of specious legal interpretation and double-talk, to bolster the false foundational "direct tax" red-herring, urging the public to adopt the false notion that the "income tax is a "direct tax," and needs to be apportioned." This was precisely the argument used by corporate wealth in the Pollock case of 1895, and, since 1916, the "direct tax" income tax argument has been repeatedly determined to be erroneous by the Supreme Court.

It is clear, that the phrase "direct tax," was defined, and clearly established by the Supreme Court in Hylton v. United States, 3 Dallas 171 (1796).

The Hylton Court consisted of certain "FOUNDING FATHERS," who determined that "direct taxes" were those applying only to land, and its appurtenances, most specifically SLAVES. It was well understood in 1796, as it was in 1812, that the words "direct tax," were part of a concession by the Constitutional Convention to the Southern States, to protect and maintain SLAVERY.

In 1812, the "Founding Fathers," still living, working in, and influencing politics, were poised to enact an income tax, and there was no constitutional objections heard, or presented by anyone on the American scene that resembles the modern-day tax-protest rhetoric.

With the reintroduction of Income taxes in 1913, however, certain specious elements of reasoning incorporated into the opinion of the Pollock Court, still precluded the government from levying an income tax on personal property in ANY OTHER WAY BUT AN EXCISE. i.e., on a government granted right or special government granted privilege. The bare-majority of the Pollock Court had agreed with corporate wealth, that a tax on personal property was a direct tax, subject to be apportioned among the inhabitants. Therefore, the government has been forced to proceed very carefully. The government was forced to take careful steps to ensure all taxes must be on the basis of special government granted rights or government granted privileges. Otherwise, the tax would be considered a tax on property by reason of its ownership, which is the established basis of a "direct tax," per the Constitution.

Therefore, it is imperative, that income taxes be considered an excise on a federal benefit, otherwise, the government risked the wrath of the rule established by the Supreme Court in the Pollock Case, even though the Pollock case has been officially overruled on other grounds by the Court in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) (overruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)); [State bond holders income on such bonds is excise and taxable] as reported in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

Today, as a direct result of "voluntary" registration into the Social Security scheme, creating a Federal benefit-privilege relationship, practically all Americans are enjoying a benefit which may be rightfully taxed indirectly. Consequently, an indirect tax -- in the nature of an excise tax -- is being imposed on the enjoyment of the privilege-benefit of the promise of a Federal old-age pension -- Social Security. The indirect tax is levied upon the "Social Security income" of all Social Security registrants in the form of an income tax on "wages" as defined by the Social Security Act:

"Dr. Witte:  The earnings tax is obviously an income tax. It rests on the power of the government to levy income taxes, especially provided for in the Constitution."

(See Hearings on the Economic Security Act (Social Security), testimony of Dr. Edwin E. Witte, Executive Director of the Economic Security Committee, before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, January 21, 1935, page 105, Gov. Doc. Y4 W36: EC7 C.1) This important record is also available on the Social Security Website at <http://www.ssa.gov/history/35house.html> on that website page click on "Supplement Continued & Resumption of Professor Witte's Testimony - PART 2" <http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/hr35report4.pdf> which is a 2352K PDF file -- containing pages 104 through 128, of the book referenced above which is a portion of the complete report contained in the government document (book) referenced above.

Contrary to the speculatively whimsical statements of many phony, self-styled "tax experts" proliferating the tax-protestor movement, the government did indeed intend that the term "wages" would effectively form the measurement basis for all Social Security, unemployment, and the "normal" income tax withholding provisions in the Internal Revenue Code .

ROWAN COS. v. UNITED STATES, 452 U.S. 247, 255 (1981)

The plain language and legislative histories of the relevant statutes indicates that Congress intended its definition of "wages" to be interpreted in the same manner for FICA and FUTA, as the income tax withholding...When Congress revised the withholding system by replacing §172 with the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, it retained the definition of "wages." Ibid. In view of this sequence of consistency, the plain language of the statutes is strong evidence that Congress intended "wages" to mean the same thing under FICA, FUTA, and income-tax withholding."

Clearly, income taxation filing requirements have been based upon the reciprocal enjoyment of the benefits of a specific government franchise since 1943. Further, it shall be later revealed that certified interoffice communication memorandum between the Treasury Department and the Social Security Board in 1943, found in the National Archives, confirm these facts. It should also be clear by the above, that the courts resort to the legislative history of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code (IRC), whenever there is statutory ambiguity, contradiction, or misapplication by overzealous bureaucrats.

The notion evinced by some so-called experts who claim that the court is barred from examining the legislative history, unless one can demonstrate "statutory ambiguity," is clearly misleading and erroneous as demonstrated below. The general rule is simply a guideline, and a court is free to exercise its own discretion and examine the legislative records and committee reports, over the objection of either party in a legal contest regarding vague or ambiguous language used in legislation dealing with prima facie titles contained in the U.S. Code, (U.S.C.) such as Title 26, IRC.

This is clearly demonstrated and indicated by the very fact that Title 26 has never been enacted into "positive law." As such, Title 26 (IRC), along with other specified titles, is classified as "prima facie law," and cannot be held as "legal evidence of the laws therein contained," or confined to any rule of strict statutory construction as other titles of the U.S.C. enacted into "positive law." This is due to the fact that all such "prima facie" titles, of the U.S.C., carry many superceded, and outdated provisions called "deadwood provisions" not yet removed after revisions and amendments have been passed.

Thus, the current publication of the IRC is not 100% reliable, as it is always changing due to amendments and unauthorized rearrangement of sections within the title. Any good legal research textbook explains that the statutes at large and legislative history override "prima facie law" titles, and must be considered and resorted to when researching questions pertaining to perceived statutory ambiguity or other problems arising from application or interpretation of statutes in prima facie titles.

To be sure, those titles in the U.S.C. enacted into "positive law," override the Statutes at Large as legal evidence, because such "positive law" titles of the U.S.C. are not subjected to constant revision and rearrangement as are the "prima facie" law titles of the U.S.C.:

UNITED STATES v. WELDEN, 377 U.S. 95 (1964)   U.S. Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 235.   Argued February 27, 1964. Decided April 20, 1964.

"[ Footnote 4 ] This Act, as codified, appears at 15 U.S.C. 32. The codification, which has not been enacted into positive law, eliminates the appropriation provision of the Act which by its terms was of no effect after June 30, 1904. The codification makes no other change. 61 Stat. 638, 1 U.S.C. 204 (a), declares that the United States Code establishes "prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature . . . Provided, however, that whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts . . . ." This Court, in construing that statute has said that "the very meaning of 'prima facie' is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent." Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 . Even where Congress [377 U.S. 95, 99] has enacted a codification into positive law, this Court has said that the "change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed." Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227, quoting Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 198 -199.

"Certainly where, as here, the "change of arrangement" was made by a codifier without the approval of Congress, it should be given no weight. "If construction is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves." Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F.2d 787, 788. Accordingly, in order to construe the immunity provision of the Appropriations Act of February 25, 1903, we must read it in the context of the entire Act, rather than in the context of the "arrangement" selected by the codifier." (emphasis added)

Contrary to the claims of self-styled tax gurus, the Supreme Court reveals that tax laws must be researched if there is ambiguity or doubt as to the meaning. It is clear that the legislative history of the income tax overrides the statutes contained in the code in cases of statutory ambiguity , BECAUSE Title 26 is NOT a POSITIVE LAW TITLE, it is PRIMA FACIE (a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary).

Even in the case of POSITIVE LAW titles, as shown above, when statutory ambiguity can be shown to be traced to the codifier, without the approval of Congress, the legislative history and statutes at large are consulted, and ultimately supercede the codified statutes.

Contrary to specious notions put forth by "leaders" in the "patriot," anti-income tax movement, when resorting to the original statutes contained in the Statutes at Large, and legislative history of the "prima facie evidence" contained in Title 26, it is clear that the income tax laws are applicable to the domestic earnings, as well as the foreign income, of all citizens and residents who are enjoying a government granted franchise, and receive income over a certain threshold amount.

Researching the 1913 legislative history, Statutes at Large, Vol. XXXVIII, Part 1, Section II, A. Subdivision 1, it is revealed:

"That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from ALL SOURCES in the preceding calendar year to EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER RESIDING AT HOME OR ABROAD, AND TO EVERY PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH NOT A CITIZEN THEREOF, a tax of one per centum per annum upon such income ... and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere." (emphasis added)

Despite the clear wording in the Statutes at Large noted above, unscrupulous individuals, who fancy themselves "tax experts" in the tax protest movement, still, obstinately, argue that citizens are exempt from indirect taxes -- in the nature of an excise tax -- income taxation in America, because the word "individual" is used in the modern IRC, instead of citizens and residents.

Apparently, when it coincides with their self-interests, these so-called "tax experts," seem to be conveniently ignorant of the intent of the legislative drafting services, since 1920, to economize space in the compilation of revenue laws, by employing the all-inclusive, space-saving word, "individual," to designate "citizens and residents, and nonresident aliens.

However, a careful review of the "Treasury Department Regulations No. 33, (Revised), 1918, Governing the Collection of Income Tax, Imposed by the Act of September 8, 1917, As Amended by the Act of October 3, 1917," at page 6:

"1 Article 1. Income tax is levied upon income received by:
(a) Individuals – Citizens and resident aliens, and nonresident aliens."

The regulations clearly reveal that the term "individuals" has always designated, and included, "citizens and residents" within the meaning of such term. Indeed, the frivolous posits presented by tax protesting "gurus" would be laughable, if not for the fact that American citizens are being fraudulently induced by the words of such phony tax gurus. Amazingly, thousands of people are convinced to risk life and fortune on nonsensical, self-serving arguments evinced by these tax-quacks who promise to magically absolve the liability for Federal indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- income taxes through word jugglery.

When cornered on this issue, tax swamis and their addled tax protesting devotees claim that the magic word "liable" doesn't appear in connection with "citizens and residents," foolishly claiming some kind of conspiracy that enables the government to do what it normally cannot. Some "tax gurus" and their followers inanely claim, when it suits their self-interest, that the term "citizens," as used in the Internal Revenue Code, does not designate or apply to natural born citizens, but only naturalized citizens in the Federal enclaves, possessions and territories.

However, this is also a distortion of the factual history, and totally exposed as a flagrant misrepresentation below. Indeed, Treasury Department Regulations 45, 1921, relating to "Income Tax On Individuals" specifically address these issues at § 210, Articles 3 & 4, page 20:

"Art. 3. Persons liable to tax. -- Every citizen of the United States, wherever resident, is liable TO the tax. It makes no difference that he may own no assets within the United States and may receive no income from sources within the United States. Every resident alien individual is liable to the tax, even though his income is wholly from sources outside the United States. Every nonresident alien individual is liable to the tax on his income from sources within the United States." (emphasis added)

"Art. 4. Who is a citizen. -- Every person born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction, or naturalized in the United States, is a citizen. When a naturalized citizen has left the United States and has resided for two years in a foreign country from which he came, or for five years in any foreign country, it is presumed that he has ceased to be an American citizen; but this presumption does not apply to residence abroad while the United States is at war. For example, a Swede who, after having come to the United States, and become naturalized here, returned to Sweden and resided there for two years prior to April 6, 1917, is presumed to be once more an alien. On the other hand, an individual born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction, of either citizen or alien parents, who has long since moved to a foreign country, and established a domicile there, but has never been naturalized in or taken an oath of allegiance to that or any other foreign country and established a domicile there, is still a citizen of the United States. A foreigner who has come to the United States and filed a declaration of intention of becoming a citizen, but who has not yet received his final citizenship papers, is an alien." (emphasis added)

Thus, it is clear from the record that natural born citizens and residents of the United States, are indisputably specified as being made liable "TO" the income tax on taxable domestic income.

However, this does not stop unscrupulous individuals in the tax protest movement from urging their unsuspecting faithful followers to fight a doomed, one on one, open field battle with the U.S. Government, parroting the "tax guru's" defective claim while being massacred. In defiance of the clear facts in evidence, tax protester "gurus" recklessly teach and impress by frequent repetitions and admonitions, that their followers should chant this mantra for protection, "an American citizen is not liable FOR the income tax SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN."

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Indeed, liability to taxation has never been governed by citizenship, but by residence and domicile:

"The liability TO personal taxation is GOVERNED not by one's citizenship, but by residence and domicile." (84 Corpus Juris Secundum [CJS], "TAXATION, Persons Liable, § 59(c)). Residence and Citizenship." (emphasis added)

One should note that the 1921 Treasury Regulations cited above DO NOT state that all citizens are liable "FOR" the tax, but only liable "TO" the tax: "Every citizen of the United States, wherever resident, is liable TO the tax. " This is a very careful choice of words because not all citizens were taxpayers. The preposition "TO," in this connection, is defined in Webster's New American Dictionary, 1995 Ed., pg. 541, as "[I]n the direction of and reaching." While, on the other hand, the preposition "FOR" delivers an entirely different message. The preposition "FOR," in regards to the indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- income tax, would be defined in Webster's New American Dictionary, 1995 Ed., pg 204, as "[I]n exchange as equal to: so as to return the value of."

The choice of the preposition "TO" clearly connotes the idea that is concurrent with the taxing principles as related to indirect taxes. It is clear from the chosen wording, that income taxes are ONLY imposed in the "direction" of citizens wherever resident because taxation is governed by residence, and based on an individual's reciprocal enjoyment of government benefits. Citizens just happen to be, the most predominant individuals in the United States of America .

The tax-protestor gurus like Irwin Schiff, Otto Skinner, John Kotmair, Larry Becrafty--with no accountability or reason--muddy the vernacular usage of certain terms, have thoroughly trussed up the "patriot community" on the fact that the government does not make the specific taxable activity that makes the majority of Americans "liable," known or apparent in Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Although, as Social Security card carrying registrants, the majority of American citizens SHOULD have no doubt as to why they are liable. An examination of fiscal history makes the connection of Social Security benefits and income tax liability clear and distinct.

Yet, tax-quack gurus in the tax protestor movement, resort to tax code sections where a specific taxable activity is the SUBJECT of the section--at the same time--totally disregarding Section 3101, and 3402, Subtitle C "Employment Taxes," and its relevant fiscal history.

In certain code sections, the legislature has made known the specific taxable activity, and it is no different with "Old-Age Survivors Benefits."

Clearly, within the Internal Revenue Code and its history, the point was officially made: Social Security "EXTENDED THE INCOME TAX INTO THE LOWER INCOME BRACKETS." (For an example see N.Y. Times Article, November 29, 1936, pg. 37). [use Browser "Back" button to return]

It is also easy to demonstrate that later on, in 1943, "normal" income taxes were legislatively integrated with the Social Security income tax, but it was decided, after careful consideration, to keep them "separate and distinct" in "the mind of the public."

Without doubt, once a person is engaged in any taxable activity, his income is ALSO taxed, in addition to any OTHER indirect taxes to which such a person may be liable.

However, when code sections that address the public in general are being considered, any comparison between statutes, wherein the subject focus addresses specific persons engaged in specific activity, would be patently frivolous. The subject is entirely different, and consequently, any such arguments contradict the rules of grammar, and are not tolerated in a courtroom.

It is an undeniable fiscal principle that indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- income taxes are only imposed on those beneficiaries of government granted privilege(s); who are exercising and enjoying government granted rights. It is clear that income taxes have never been based, nor governed, by citizenship. This can be most easily demonstrated by consulting 84 Corpus Juris Secundum (title), "A Complete Restatement of the Entire American Law as Developed by All Reported Cases," (sub-title) § 59 a. and c.

Additionally, powerful corroboration is found in the statistics from 1921, when there were only 3.5 million taxable returns out of a population of 106 million people. Income tax return statistics through 1935, confirm the limited scope of Federal government taxing power.   At that time, most American wage-earners were not enjoying government granted rights or privileges, and were, therefore, not within the reach of the income tax statutes as beneficiaries of governmental privileges and government granted rights. To be sure, the government has plenary taxing power, but with respect to income taxes, only within the scope of "an indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- tax" on the enjoyment of the benefits of government granted rights and government granted privileges. The wording still extant in the code clearly imposes income tax on "taxable income," and not ALL INCOME.

However, con-men, deluded tax protesters, and self-styled fiscal "gurus," not content with the clear wording of the analyses provided by the architects of legislation recorded in the historical record pertaining to the development of the statutes, further speculate and argue that the word "person" as used in the revenue laws and the IRC, is restricted to a corporation, which is often referred to as an "artificial person."

However, in Part IV, Definitions And General Provisions. "General Definitions" of Treasury Regulations 45, 1921:

"Section 1. That when used in this Act--

The term 'person' includes partnerships and corporations, as well as individuals;

The term "corporation" includes associations, joint-stock companies and insurance companies."

Obviously, a clear line of demarcation is set forth from the earliest days as to the distinction between individual persons (natural born citizens and resident aliens), and "artificial persons" (corporations, associations, etc.).

"Person. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person . . . They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have PRESERVED THEIR NATURAL LIBERTY, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Library of Congress, 1839 Ed., p. 258)(emphasis added)

Clearly, one who registers for enrollment for the special privileges available within the ambit of the Social Security scheme, has unwittingly waived important Constitutional prohibitions imposed on government in the effort to protect individual rights. In short, through Social Security registration, individuals have, as a result, compromised, and failed to preserve, their "natural liberty."

Once an individual accepts a government franchise, there is obligatory performance expected under penalty of law, pursuant to the terms associated with the acceptance of the franchise. Upon acceptance of the contractual franchise or privilege from the government, one no longer has access to genuine Constitutional protection of unalienable rights, one now possess only administrative due process rights. Once there is an exchange of acceptances, and one engages in enjoyment of the privileged franchise, one possesses only "colorable" Constitutional protections of unalienable rights under the terms of the scheme. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 265, defines "colorable" as "counterfeit."

"Both the basic insurance program established by the Social Security Act and the means of funding it now contained in the Internal Revenue Code has been declared constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. The Act is nonetheless subject to constitutional scrutiny with respect to its specific provisions. Thus an individual with a 'COLORABLE' CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT can challenge the validity of specific provisions of the Act on grounds such as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . ." (70A Am Jur 2d Social Security and Medicare § 2, page 49) (emphasis added)

Clearly, after the forced introduction of the New Deal scheme called Social Security, registration for enrollment into such scheme effectively waived the specific prohibitions, placed upon the government, incorporated within the Constitution with respect to certain genuine unalienable rights, including the Fifth Amendment prohibition embodied within the meaning of the concept that no one may be compelled by the government to provide testimony which may be used in a criminal case against themselves.

In documents from the files of the Chairman of the Social Security Board, Arthur J. Altmeyer, dated April 21, 1939, preserved in the National Archives, is a series of statements made by Arthur J. Altmeyer; (1) on March 27, 1939, before the American Federation of Musicians, and (2) before the Ways and Means Committee, on April 1, 1939. In those statements, the subject of the meaning of the terms "employer" and "employee" as used in the Social Security Act was addressed. Altmeyer stated that the meaning of the terms, as used in the Social Security Act, was "developed out of the old common-law relating to master-servant." Also, he added, that three years after enactment of the Social Security scheme, the attorneys of the Treasury Department and the Legislative Counsel were still unable to come up with any other feasible definition.

Still, in the face of the historical truth, phony tax protesting "gurus" further blatantly attempt to distort the clear reality of the consequences of the socialist legislation of the "New Deal" era.

The administrative state that emerged out of the "New Deal" era, integrated itself into our constitutional structure with the blessings of the Supreme Court, and consequently effected an alteration of our relationship to the Federal government and the application of the Constitutional protections of our basic unalienable rights. As a result of registration into the Social Security pension benefits scheme, we no longer can reach the Constitutional protections of our genuine unalienable rights, but now only possess granted "colorable" (counterfeit) constitutional rights:

"The Court’s role in the administrative state has been that of both facilitator and skeptic. The Court assumed leadership in the CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION THAT INTEGRATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE. The Courts acceptance of lawmaking powers to the administrative agencies is now settled, yet it remains an important factor in the growth of the administrative state. Having allowed the establishment of the administrative state, the Court assumed a role in supervising the agencies." (Oxford’s Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1992 ed., pg. 16) (See also "Constitutionalism After the New Deal," Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law Review 101 (1987))

Yet, in the face of historical truth, the self-appointed "tax gurus" of the Tax Protest Movement obstinately and continuously distort definitions established long ago. Grasping for straws, they claim that the term "United States" as used in the Internal Revenue Code, only refers to Federal enclaves, and insular island possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico (spelled Porto Rico in 1921), American Samoa, etc. However, this nonsense is dispelled by the plain wording of the definitions found in the same Part IV, Definitions And General Provisions. "General Definitions" of Treasury Regulations 45, 1921 quoted earlier:

"The term "United States" when used in the geographical sense includes only the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia."

Thus, with all the other facts and definitions considered, it cannot be reasonably argued, that the word "States" in the definition of the term "United States" connotes anything else but the "Several States of the Union," as the income tax in operation under the Revenue Act of 1918, to which the above regulation refers, was not even in effect in Puerto Rico or the Philippine Islands the year that the above definition appeared in the Treasury Regulations. As will become clear below, the term "States" as used above, specifically excluded the only two insular island possessions of the United States at the time. Therefore, there would have been no need to differentiate AND CLARIFY between foreign and domestic liability, if the word "UNITED STATES, as it applied to income taxes" ONLY applied or subjected foreign earned income, or foreign individuals.

Further, the very fact that the Treasury Regulations even mentioned the distinction in the term "United States," and the only taxable possessions were Alaska and Hawaii, proves that the Federal indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- income tax applied to classes of individuals or objects other than foreign classes of individuals' income or objects:

"Art. 1131. Income tax in Porto Rico and Philippine Islands. -- The Revenue Act of 1918, is not in force in Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands." Treasury Regulations, 45, § 261, p. 256.

If it is not "in force" in the "territorial" possessions of Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands...where then? Obviously, the SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Clearly the states can ONLY mean THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION.

This is also further confirmed, on page 59-60, of Professor Robert H. Montgomery's authoritative book entitled "Income Tax Procedure," dated 1920, under the heading "Territorial Exemptions":

"The law states that 'the term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia' (section 1). This definition it will be noted, does not include Porto Rico, or the Philippine Islands, where the 1916 Revenue Law is still in force (1918 Law, section 261). Income that falls outside the geographical limitations thus established, is of course, exempt from the tax."

What is also clear from the forgoing, is that the "territorial possessions" of Puerto Rico and the Philippines were classified in 1920 under the terms "territories" and "possessions," and definitely not "States."

Also, if the scope of the income tax only applied to Federal enclaves and insular island possessed "territories," it would have been unnecessary to specify the distinction regarding the word "States," and the non applicability of the Revenue Act of 1918 to the island possessions, as it appeared in the revenue statutes enacted in 1918. The word "States" could have easily been omitted from the discussion of the Revenue Act of 1918, rather than retaining it, and then including article 1131 to explain the distinction.

If the scope of the income tax only applied to Federal enclaves and insular island possessed "territories," the word "States" would have been superfluous and meaningless in the 1918 Act. Retaining the word "States" would certainly be more confusing, if the word "States" did not specifically mean the several 48 States located within the continental boundaries of the United States.

Professor Montgomery would have surely commented on the confusing statutory language if this were the case, as he often commented on confusing statutory language when it appeared. For the purpose of his publications were dedicated to clarifying the law for professional accountants.

Obviously, the reason for retaining the word "States," in the definition of the term "United States," was because it did not apply to the insular island possessions at all, as clearly, the island possessions were specifically dealt with under the heading of "possessions" at Sec 260. "Citizens of Possessions of the United States":

"Sec. 260. That any individual who is a citizen of any possession of the United States (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) and who is not a resident of the United States, shall be subject to taxation under this title only as to the income derived from sources within the United States, and in such case the tax shall be computed and paid in the same manner and subject ." (Internal Revenue Laws in Force May 1, 1920, pg. 511)

The above is legal evidence, under the law based on the "prima facie" rule of statutory construction, which yields to the superiority of the Statutes at Large regarding questions of statutory ambiguity.

It is also clear from the historical record of the Statutes at Large, that in the absence of express statutory remedy, nothing other than (1) an acknowledgement or ORDER from the GOVERNMENT or a Federal District Court, (2) giving up citizenship or (3) death, can officially remove one from the legal clutches of the Social Security-income tax scheme.
Once you have registered to be enrolled there is no provision, under the terms of the Social Security "pension contract," which authorizes severance and termination of your Social Security nexus relationship.  YOU MUST FIGHT YOUR WAY OUT.
This is why Social Security registrants are treated and prosecuted as if tort feasors (wrong-doers), when they fail to pay income taxes or file income tax returns:

"Tort. A private or civil wrong or injury, including action for bad faith breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages . . . A violation of duty imposed by general law, or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relationship to each other which is involved in a given transaction." (Black's Law Sixth Ed., p. 1489)

All individuals registered for enrollment into the Social Security scheme have a legal relationship with other registrants within a specific, "given" transaction, and are obligated to perform in accordance with general law under the scheme. Violation of a legal obligation, without a legally valid cause, is a dangerous proposition. One should be fully acquainted with the facts below before opposing or protesting the duties imposed as a result of the acceptance of the enjoyment of the government granted franchise or privilege known as Social Security.

In the case of the Social Security scheme, once an individual simply makes a request for a special franchise or benefit from the government, certain liabilities "devolve" upon the person by such simple request of such governmental privileges. This is called making an "application to the transaction," and consequently one becomes entangled in devolved liabilities due to the "operation of law":

"Operation of Law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or cooperation of the party himself." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1092)

It is without doubt that one must register or execute an "application" before one can secure a government granted right or privilege. In other words, liabilities accrue to a party or parties requesting to enter into an agreement through "application to the transaction":

"Transaction. An act , agreement, or several acts or agreements between or among parties whereby a cause of action or alteration of legal rights occur." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., pg. 1496)

"Application. The act of making a request for something. A petition." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., pg. 98-99)

Clearly, persons, whether natural or artificial, who secure privileges by law on condition of registration, are obligated to perform under the established rules of law relevant to the particular transaction in question.

"Registrant. One who registers; one who registers anything (e.g., a trademark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1284)

However, for the purposes of our study, it is also without question, as will be shown, that if the government were to force an individual to except a government granted right or privilege through registration, by means of extortion, to justify bringing him into the ambit of an indirect -- in the nature of an excise -- tax, for the expressed purpose of imposing an "income tax," such coercion would nullify any obligation that may have resulted from such registration. The only requirement needed if one were to challenge such an obligation with valid evidence, would be to demonstrate why it took so long to assert your rights.

For contracts, agreements, treaties, and the like, to be enforceable, there must be "mutual agreement," and, "mutuality of obligation" for an "executory contract" to bind either party to the agreement:

"Mutuality of obligation: Mutuality of obligation requires that unless both parties to a contract are bound, neither is bound. Such obligation as pertaining to an executory contract requires that such parties be bound to perform, and if it appears, that one party was never bound to do the acts, which formed the consideration for promise of the other, there is lack of mutuality of obligation and other party is not bound." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1021)

If it is true, as the Federal government, and some deluded "patriots" would have us all believe, that the government is not obligated or bound to provide Social Security annuities as promised, and can renege on their end of the agreement, then Americans were never bound under the contract either, and thus countless Americans were falsely prosecuted for failing to fulfill a nonexistent duty to pay income taxes. However, this is clearly not the case, and the records reveal quite the opposite.

Contracts are simply "an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing." Its essentials are:

". . .competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, mutuality of obligation." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., pg., 322)

It is beyond question that Social Security was designed and intended by the architects to be "contractual," and that the related unemployment benefits would be available on a "strictly contractual basis." (See Testimony of the Economic Security Committee representatives before the Ways and Means Committee, and the Senate Finance Committee, held between January 21, to February 12, 1935, Seventy-Fourth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 4120 (later H.R. 7260), (Gov. Doc. Y4. W36: EC7 C.1). The specific testimony just referred to appears elsewhere on this website.

Further, it is beyond question, that the Treasury Department and Social Security Board, admitted privately, in 1935 and 1936, that registration into Social Security "pension contracts" was not "compulsory."

However a year later, beginning on November 16, 1936, the government, through the Treasury Department, engaged in a fully documented campaign to fraudulently induce American labor into a condition/agreement that would subject their meager wages to an indirect tax -- in the nature of an excise tax -- the scheme is popularly known as Social Security -- using threats of imprisonment and financial ruination. (See front page of New York Times, November, 18, 1936, and November 29, 1936).

Consequently, the situation has resulted in a fraudulently engendered, universal mind-set in the United States, that one needs to be first registered into Social Security and basically accept a benefit, before one can earn a living, and thus take part in the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, one IS an outlaw.

The records from the National Archives indisputably establishes the fallacy in the above notion that failure to register into Social Security makes one an outlaw. Further, the facts assembled by Treasury Tax Secrets (TTS) research, unequivocally establishes the proof of a conspiracy to extort something valuable from American citizens and residents -- their just wages and compensation for services -- and consequently cause them to surrender their rights to be a free and prosperous people without hindrance.

In January of 1943, the Treasury Department, in furtherance of their diabolical scheme to deprive Americans of even more property and liberty, discussed the scheme behind closed doors, as it concerned the Revenue Act of 1942. The intent of the government is unequivocally demonstrated through documents uncovered by TTS research at the National Archives dated 1943. The documents prove that the government intended to tie-in the filing requirements and liability for the "normal" income tax, originally approved by an act of Congress on October 3, 1913, with that of the Social Security Act. This was done in order to further impose an additional or "GRADUATED" income tax specifically upon those who had registered for enrollment into the Social Security scheme, and were consequently receiving taxable income due to receipt of Federal benefits associated with the Social Security "pension contract." Without doubt, this move, and later amendments, eventually brought all Social Security registrants into the ambit of the "normal" income tax.

CJS leaves no doubt as to the question of the BASIS of liability of taxation:

"Liability, to taxation, however, is BASED on the individuals reciprocal enjoyment of benefits of government, as discussed in § 4, and persons clearly beyond the reach of governmental benefits are likewise outside the scope of taxing power." (84 CJS § 59(a)) (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court has CLEARLY declared the income tax to be an indirect tax by calling it an excise tax or a tax in the nature of an excise, (See Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 7 Wallace, 433; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S., 587 (1880); Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1915) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1915)), therefore, when discussing the question of income taxation, those individuals subjected to the INDIRECT TAX called "income tax," which is IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE TAX, are those individuals who are ENJOYING the pursuit of privileged callings, the exercise of particular franchises, or are ENJOYING aid or are regulated by the government in some way, and are thus receiving taxable income:

"The various objects or subjects have been held properly subjected to EXCISE TAX such as an impost for the privilege to pursue certain callings, to deal with special commodities, to exercise particular franchises . . . but is not broad enough to include every occupation which one may follow in the exercise of a natural right, without aid from the government, and without affecting the rights or interests of others in such a way as properly to call for governmental regulations." (84 CJS § 122, Subject of Excise Tax in General, p. 247) (emphasis added)

Without question, it is "aid from the government" that justifies the imposition of the Federal INDIRECT income tax upon the wages of American labor paid to citizens and residents. That "aid from the government" is undoubtedly traceable to registration for enrollment into the Social Security scheme.   Registration for enrollment into the Social Security scheme causes the conversion of any and all income from whatever source derived into "SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME." Such "SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME" is fully subject to the burden of the payment of the Federal INDIRECT income tax on the ENJOYMENT of the privilege of the promise of a government old-age pension and other associated Social Security benefits.

However, the saving grace for American labor rests in the fact that the "requirement" for registration into the Social Security "pension contracts" scheme, was misrepresented to the American people, and the contractual nature of the scheme was fraudulently concealed.

Consequently, official government internal documents reveal that the Treasury Department and the Social Security Board had a clear understanding, in 1935, regarding the presentation of the Social Security scheme to American labor. In certified government memorandum the Treasury Department and the Social Security Board acknowledged that Social Security registration was voluntary.

After a year of plotting to coerce the workers of America into accepting the enjoyment of a taxable benefit of government, the government publicly threatened the American work force, in November 1936, with imprisonment and financial ruination for failure to register for enrollment into the Social Security old-age retirement pension contracts scheme. This fraud has engendered a continuing criminal enterprise that is based upon the deception that there are criminal repercussions for failing to register for enrollment into the Social Security "pension contract" scheme.

In furtherance of the unlawful coercion to register into the Social security scheme, in January of 1943, a plan was hatched to statutorily integrate the provisions of the Social Security Act and the provisions of the 1913 Income Tax Act. The "plan" was put into operation approximately five years after the Social Security Act became operational, and shortly AFTER the Revenue Act of 1942 had been passed.

It is clear after examining the Statutes at Large, that it was after the Revenue Act of 1942, Congress originated the present integrated income tax withholding system, replacing § 172, to conform with the same language used in the Social Security Act of 1935.

In the Revenue Act of 1942, a special income tax for the war effort was passed at §172 "Temporary Income Tax on Individuals" amended the Internal Revenue Code to insert at the end of Chapter 1, Subchapter D, "The Victory Tax on Individuals" § 450 "Imposition of Tax." It is clear from the legislative record, that Social Security, and the "Victory" income tax were not yet integrated at this time.

It was not until 1943, after the repeal of the "Victory Tax," that "Wages" for Social Security purposes became integrated with the "normal" income tax of Chapter 1 of the Internal revenue Code. This completely voids the contention made by some, that Americans are still paying the "Victory Tax" of 1942.

By 1943, both income taxes were obviously focused on the acceptance of the same government franchise or privilege which today still burdens the wages of the common man. . . Social Security! It is also clear, that the 1942 bill justified lowering the "normal" income tax exemption allowance level ($500) as a result of all the new Social Security registrants receiving benefits.

It wasn't long after the laboring population had endured the little experiment of the Victory Tax without complaint, less than a year later, § 450 (The Victory Tax) was repealed by the Current Tax Payment Act (CTPA) of 1943. In that CTPA, § 2, replaced, and inserted, at the end of Chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to Employment taxes), "Subchapter D--Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages," and §1622. Of course, § I622 was the "normal income tax," and now Social Security Registrants began paying both the "normal" and Social Security income tax. After § 1622 was further amended by the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, so much so, that by 1950, in a procedural change, the duties of the Income Tax Collection Unit were transferred to the Employment Tax Collection Unit. The trail finally ends at § 3402 "Income Tax Collected at Source on Wages." With the 1954 revision of the Internal Revenue Code, we can observe §1622 re-codified at § 3402 "Income Tax Collected at Source on Wages,", as it survives as originally intended, in its present day application.

Thus, it is without a doubt, that Social Security registration devolves income tax liabilities upon all registrants who earn what is considered "Social Security income."

The end result of these fiscal maneuvers is that, today, undeniably, an American citizen's Federal indirect - (in the nature of an excise) - income tax filing requirements are based on the reciprocal enjoyment of government benefits directly attributable to registration for enrollment into the Social Security scheme.   {to return here click your Browser "BACK" button}

From the beginnings of the development of the Social Security Act, and the fraudulent presentation of the registration "requirement" in 1936, the three branches of government have united in an attempt to cover-up the clear intent of the architects of the Social Security Act as presented to select members of Congress in January and February of 1935:

Dr. E. E. Witte, and, Professor Brown of Princeton University, both important members of the Economic Security Committee that designed the Social Security Act, testified before members of Congress and the Senate that Social Security Act was indeed designed and intended to be contractual.

Excerpts from the transcripts of testimony of these men are provided on this website, and a hyperlink to the Social Security Administrations official website wherein the entire transcript of the hearings before the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee of 1935, containing the testimony of these two important architects of the Social Security Act, are available. To visit the Social Security website click here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/35house.html

All contracts and agreements must be voluntary.   A contract or agreement must be of mutual consent to be legally valid.

Due to fact that the government lied about the 'requirement' to register for enrollment, and the misrepresentation of the Social Security Act as mandatory, in 1936, all Americans have since been fraudulently induced into a contractual nexus with the federal government.

With the facts in evidence, the contractual nexus that creates an obligation that requires specific performance under penalty of law can now be effectively challenged.

Treasury Tax Secrets now offers American citizens the tools to legally extract oneself from the income tax trap, and eliminate the indirect income tax which is in the nature of an excise upon the wages derived from labor.

To accomplish this one need only attack, or counter attack, with various legal devices, the fraudulent inducement into registration for Social Security enrollment.

The TTS attack is designed to utilize the evidence, available from the National Archives and Records Administration, as a weapon to vitiate the nexus to the indirect-income-tax liability ( in the nature of an excise ) imposed on the reciprocal enjoyment of the promise of Social Security pension benefits.

It has become apparent that self-professed tax protesting "gurus" in the freedom movement are recklessly ignorant concerning the clear historical facts of the rules for interpreting the significance of the meaning of laws codified in "prima facie title," such as that contained in Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code).

When confronted with the facts, instead of resorting to the Statutes at Large and legislative history for their justification, self-professed tax protesting "gurus" prefer to fabricate futile remedies that have evolved into many lucrative and dangerous schemes that just so happen to coincide with their self interests.

The situation has now reached new heights of folly where the self-appointed "leaders" of the tax-protest movement, along with certain income tax-protesting forums on the internet, such as "We the People" (Legality of Income Tax), "Tea-Party," "ice-bucket," "Lawgiver," and "No SSN," have taken to active obstruction and censorship of the flow of historical truth concerning the history of taxation in America. Such organizations prevent the truth from reaching their captive consumer market. The "leaders" of the "tax protest" movement have effectively joined the government in the cover-up regarding the fraudulent presentation of Social Security in America, and how the Federal government managed by hook and crook to create a situation within which it could lawfully impose an indirect income tax ( in the nature of an excise tax ) on the wages of American labor!

The record reveals that before Social Security, there were no Federal indirect-income taxes ( in the nature of an excise ) imposed on the wages of American labor. Further, long ago the government had been apprised of the fact that history had confirmed that taxing the wages of labor has always proven to be NATIONAL SUICIDE:

"There is a tradition in this country that the earnings of labor shall be treated as lightly as the government can possibly treat it.   As may be seen from the Scripture, Nations have fallen as many as 2000 years ago because of their taxes upon wages . . . nowhere before in the history of this country is there an instance where taxation was levied upon the wages of the nation.   The tax act ignores the principle of sensible taxation in civilized governments. The act says that the man who gets the most shall pay the least in taxes."

(Notes on Railroad Retirement Board Case, by M. D. Ring, from the government's own "Informational Service," recording the words of Emmett McInnis, attorney representing Alton Railroad Co., (1936). Memorandum issued by Mr. Louis Resnick, Director of Informational Services, Record Group 47, Executive Directors Files, National Archives and Records Administration).

TTS Note:

The Railroad Retirement Act, a microcosm of the Social Security "pension contract" scheme, was declared totally unconstitutional in 1935. Then, in 1936, after slight modifications, which amounted to congressional subterfuge, fully documented in the Congressional Record, the Act was only partially declared unconstitutional. The Railroad Retirement scheme was later fully revived and validated along with the Social Security scheme after Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court with retirement in the infamous "Court Packing" plan of 1937. The Railroad Retirement pension scheme was the precursor, and blueprint for the Social Security pension scheme.

[ Click here for April posting ]

[ Home ]

Click here to enter this with hundreds of postings

[ admin@pushhamburger.com ]