Skip navigation

          The Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, initiated the first “internal duty” in America.  This Act placed a tax on stills and the stills’ product, alcohol.  This is a tax on intrastate commerce and, therefore, an unconstitutional tax.   This Act is the basis of what has evolved into what is now known as “internal revenue”.  In a country where “all men are created equal” no American or group of Americans, including some group of Americans called government, may initiate force or fraud against any other American or group of Americans.  Therefore, there can not be any such thing as an “internal duty”.

          The Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, was responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion that is still commemorated in southwestern Pennsylvania.  To avoid anyone challenging the Constitutionality of this Act of Congress, the government resorted to using force against innocent Americans in the Whiskey Rebellion.  It was very important to the bankers that they initiate “internal duties” early in the history of our country.  Also, it was becoming a common practice in the frontier of those days to use distilled spirits as a means of exchange, something that the international counterfeiters could not allow.  Alcohol can be gauged and a “proof” can be determined.  This makes for a uniform measuring system – a pint of 90 proof liquor could be worth a certain amount, a quart of 90 proof liquor could be worth a certain amount more, etc.  (If you have read my Post titled “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code”, at http://wp.me/pCW6e-6N you will know that title 26 section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, is the basis of liability within the Internal Revenue Code.  Within section 7652 at subsection (c), “Articles containing distilled spirits”, there is a reference to how much percentage of alcoholic content must be attributable to rum.)  The bankers intended to eventually bankrupt the government with their paper money backed by debt – nothing that had real value could ever be allowed to be used as money.  It was Alexander Hamilton who authored the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, that initiated “internal duties” in America.  He then cajoled George Washington into believing that the people in the western areas of the States who were resisting the tax on stills were, in fact, instigating a rebellion – hence, the Whiskey Rebellion.  Actually, the people of the western frontier were simply demanding the freedom that they had just fought for against the British.  When Washington led the militias into western Pennsylvania, he stopped at Bedford.  At that point Hamilton, the Secretary of Treasury, led the militia into western Pennsylvania and wreaked havoc on anyone who resisted the tax on stills.  This was the first incident under the Constitution where the bankers evidenced their true nature – these creatures have absolutely no sympathy, they are overcome by insatiable greed and megalomania.  

          In 1933 the federal government went off the gold standard, thus proclaiming bankruptcy.  A slew of government regulatory agencies were created from 1933 through 1939 when the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was written and approved.  The first reorganization of the federal government occurred in 1939 – reorganization is a bankruptcy procedure.

          In my original answer to the government’s complaint against me I included a counterclaim in which I challenged the Constitutionality of that Act of Congress because it taxed Americans living in western Pennsylvania who were simply taking their product, the distillate of their crops, to Philadelphia.  This is a tax on commerce that is intrastate and, therefore, unconstitutional since the federal government only has the right to regulate foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The district court failed to rule on the Constitutionality of that Act of Congress even though that was all I included in the first count of my counterclaim.  Instead, the federal court pretended that the first count of my counterclaim wasn’t there and ruled that I could not sue the government since the government had not consented to waive its sovereign immunity.  (I did file for monetary damages against the government in other counts of my counterclaim, but these were all first predicated upon the court’s ruling on the Constitutionality of the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, which was in the first count).  The government only has sovereign immunity within its foreign commerce jurisdiction. 

          I then filed an interlocutory appeal (an appeal that is not based on the final disposition of the court) to have the appellate court rule on this Act.  On October 9, 2009, the appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal, thus, proving that the courts are under the total control of the Department of Justice, which is, in turn, upholding the bankruptcy of the federal government to the international counterfeiters.  Now both the district court and the appellate court have failed to do their most basic duty, that of ruling on the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

          Here is a link to my Appellant’s Reply that I filed in the appellate court:  Appellate Case # 09-2061 (CA3) Appellant’s Reply.  This reply in my interlocutory appeal evidences that the appellate court may view an interlocutory appeal as a mandamus to the lower court when the lower court has failed to do its duty.  In this instance, the challenge to the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress was not ruled upon by the district court – a truly astonishing situation, certainly what is known in the appellate courts as a “first impression” case.  But the appellate court would not rule on the Constitutionality of the Act of Congress, either.  Now the district court has failed to do its duty and the appellate court has dismissed the appeal by claiming that it doesn’t have jurisdiction since the appeal wasn’t based upon the final order of the district court case.  This is in direct conflict with the appellate court’s own previous decisions concerning mandamus.  This evidences that the government has no desire to uphold the tenet of “all men are created equal”, but instead, “evinces a design to reduce all Americans under absolute despotism” (as so phrased in the Declaration of Independence). 

          I am now appealing the final order of the district court.  The Department of Justice and the Appellate Court are now conspiring against me by trying to refuse my right of appeal.  As yet no briefing schedule has been issued. 

==============================================

About these ads

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. By Whiskey on a Sunday | Now is Today on 08 Feb 2012 at 1:46 am

    [...] federals had passed a whiskey tax 1791.  The whiskey tax was unconstitutional as it was an internal duty.  Notice that the Constitution was adopted in 1787 and broken by the [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: