Question and Evidence Overview:

The line of questioning begins with evidence that shows the government’s clear reliance on the validity of the 16th Amendment as the sole basis in law to collect the income tax.

As an example of government propaganda, see question 63c in which John Ripy, writing for the Congressional Research Service unequivocally, (and incredibly) states that the “actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts”.

Question 67 delves into the Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan case which struck down the first attempt in 1895 to implement a direct income tax.  The decision goes into great detail about the concepts of an income tax and established that to tax the fruits of property was to tax the property itself.  This could not be done without apportionment.

Question 70 starts the discussion about the procedural aspects of ratifying the Constitution.

Question 75 starts to expose the evidence of the substantial violations of law committed by Knox in his fraud.  Question 75 shows that Knox explicitly knew that California and Wyoming had NOT provided a certified copy of their votes to the Secretary of State, Knox.  (Knox counted their votes anyway.)

Pay close attention to the exhibits from Kentucky (Questions 78 and 78a).  Kentucky voted 22-9 AGAINST the amendment – Knox counted it as 22-9 FOR the amendment.

The documentation is irrefutable.

Question 84 has irrefutable evidence that prior to the “ratification” certification, Knox was explicitly advised of many errors in the amendment paperwork and the constitutional prohibition against the state changing, in any way, the wording in their response to a proposed federal amendment.

Questions through 94 document the various “minor” spelling, punctuation and wording errors made by the states in approving the (one-sentence) 16th Amendment.

Question 94c begins a series of questions showing the gross violations of state constitutions.  Among them, state constitutional provisions which require that a state legislature that receives a proposed federal constitutional amendment must wait until after the next election cycle to insure that the People of the state have a voice in how their elected state representatives will vote on it.  This was repeatedly violated.  Other state violations include failing to actually read the Amendment before it was voted on, and even violating state constitutional clauses prohibiting enabling federal income taxes.

Question 98 deals with the Brushaber case which held that the tax was an indirect tax.  It is important to note that Brushaber was acting as an agent for a foreign corporation doing business in the U.S. and his case is not about his personal income taxes.

Question 104 investigates the Eisner case which is the last time the Supreme Court has ruled on the nature of the income tax.  It concluded the tax is a direct tax.

This begins a series of questions about the ambiguity of the law.  The evidence clearly shows that various U.S. Courts of Appeals have recently ruled against the Supreme Court on the nature of the income tax.  The Constitutional issue raised is thus:  If the courts can’t even decide this issue it must be void under the well-established “void for vagueness” doctrine.  Laws so vague that even our courts cannot decide if the tax is  a direct tax or an indirect tax cannot be held to be enforceable.  

The final questions document a speech from President Taft in 1909 introducing the proposed amendment and some excerpts from the Congressional Record detailing the debates on the amendment.  It was very clear the income tax was never intended for the average person.  

Note:  the requirement to apportion direct taxes is the only constitutional clause repeated twice in the Constitution.