I. FOREWORD

          THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, FOUND ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED, STATES’, WAS OFFICIALLY PROPOSED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP FOUND IN THAT DAY AND TIME WITHIN BOTH THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40, WHICH JOINT RESOLUTION WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE ON JULY 31, 1909; AND THUS PASSED ON TO THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S FORTY-EIGHT INDEPENDENT REPUBLICS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF EITHER RATIFICATION OR REJECTION OF SAME.

            THE FORTY-EIGHT INDEPENDENT MEMBER REPUBLICS PROCEEDED THEREAFTER WITH THE TASK OF CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40.

             ON FEBRUARY 25, 1913, THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, WHO WAS A PART OF THE LEGAL TEAM THAT WAS CONNECTED AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE, SENT A LEGAL OPINION, IN THE FORM OF A MEMORANDUM, TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE PHILANDER KNOX, WHEREIN THE CONSIDERATIONS AND POSITIONS TAKEN BY THE FORTY-EIGHT MEMBER REPUBLIC’S GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURES ON THE MATTERS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40 THAT WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE ON JULY 31, 1909, WERE REVEALED.

            BASED UPON THE SOLICITOR’S MEMORANDUM, DATED, FEBRUARY 25, 1913, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AFTER NOTING THE FACT WITHIN THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S MEMORANDUM THAT THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE’S PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40, HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE FORTY-EIGHT INDEPENDENT MEMBER REPUBLICS FOUND WITHIN THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC IN THAT DAY AND TIME, AND AFTER DETERMINING THE FACT THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THEIR NUMBER HAVING PROCEEDED TO DULY AND PROPERLY RATIFY JOINT- RESOLUTION NUMBER 40 , THAT THE PROPOSED JOINT-RESOLUTION NUMBER 40 BE ADDED AND ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED, STATES’, AND IT WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.

            IT WAS THE HOPE AND DESIRE OF THE COLLECTIVISTIC PROGRESSIVES THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED, STATES’, WOULD GRANT NEW TAXING AUTHORITY TO THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE; WHICH NEW TAXING AUTHORITY WOULD ALLOW AND PERMIT THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE SUBJECTS THAT COULD BE TAXED WITHOUT OBSERVING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF APPORTIONMENT (AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION #9, CLAUSE #4) BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS THE HOPE AND DESIRE OF THE COLLECTIVISTIC PROGRESSIVES, THAT THE NEW TAXING AUTHORITY ENLARGED AND EXPANDED THE GEOGRAPHICAL, LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTIONS POSSESSED BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, TO NOW INCLUDE, WITHIN ITS TAX BASE, THE “SOVEREIGN CITIZENS” THAT WERE DOMICILED AND RESIDING WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE GEOGRAPHIC, LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTIONS POSSESSED BY THE FORTY-EIGHT INDEPENDENT MEMBER REPUBLICS, WHICH WERE A PART OF, AND FORMED, THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC.

            THE COLLECTIVISTIC PROGRESSIVES REALLY BELIEVED THAT BY THE NEW TAXING AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT WOULD NOW BE POSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE, FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, TO TAX THE “SOVEREIGN CITIZENS” WHO WERE DOMICILED AND RESIDING WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE GEOGRAPHIC, LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTIONS POSSESSED BY THE INDEPENDENT MEMBER REPUBLICS, THAT WERE A PART OF, AND FORMED THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC “DIRECTLY”, WITHOUT OBSERVING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF APPORTIONMENT. WITH THIS NEW TAXING AUTHORITY, THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOW IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE I, SECTION #9, CLAUSE #4, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED, STATES’, , AND PROCEED, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, TO PROVIDE A HIGH GRADUATED PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX WHICH WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE TASK OF REDISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH OF THE NATION BY ORDER OF THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS TO BE RECALLED THAT REDISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH OF THE NATION WAS HIGH ON THE LIST OF THINGS TO DO BY THE COLLECTIVISTIC PROGRESSIVES IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC IN FAVOR OF A COLLECTIVISTIC DEMOCRACY.

            THE COLLECTIVISTIC PROGRESSIVES WERE IN FOR A SURPRISE, SINCE THEY HAD NOT RECKONED WITH THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S JUDICIAL BRANCH’S SUPREME COURT.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

            The bucket of worms opened up by the attack on Individualism, which entailed modifying, altering, abolishing the original contract, The Constitution of the United, States’ by the Collectivistic, Liberals, the so-called Radical Republicans, is clearly recorded in History. The Natural Rights Doctrine, The Federal and Republican Systems of Government, The Judaic-Christian Code, The Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market Centered, Free Enterprise System, were one by one made the target of change by the Liberal, Collectivistic Radical Republicans both during and after the Second Civil War which occurred within the Federal-Republic, from 1861 to 1877, is well documented.

            It must be recalled that it was the so-called Radical Republicans, who were Liberals, that first proposed and provided a law which imposed a tax on incomes. The law that imposed a tax on incomes was incorporated within the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861, so named because Justin S. Morrill, a Vermont Representative, proposed same. Among other things the first law which imposed a tax on incomes , as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, only placed a tax burden upon those individual-persons who were found within the geographical, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, who were made liable for the payment of such tax by realizing income derived from certain activities carried on within the geographical, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.

          The first law that imposed a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, was titled a “Duty Tax”; as such, it was considered to be “an indirect tax on some human act, action, activity”. Because it was determined that the first law that imposed a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, was an “Indirect Duty Tax”, such imposition was imposed by the Legislature observing the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity.

          The first law that imposed a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature explained that only the “annual gains, profits, income” realized by an individual-citizen that carried on certain, specified activities within the geographical legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government would be subject to the law. According to the “Congressional Globe”, the “Congressional Globe” being the official record of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature in 1861, it is recorded therein, the fact, as found on page 1531, that: “the words ‘gain, profit, and ‘income’ all mean the same thing. They are equivalent terms. Consequently, it was then understood that only those individual-persons or those business enterprises that engaged in certain activities within which those individual-persons or business enterprises earned “profits, gains, income” from certain sources found within the exclusive, defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, would be made “subject to” and the “object of” this imposition.

           It was further noted, that an individual-person or a business entity could not realize gains, profits, income derived by engaging within activities which involved certain defined sources, which sources were found within the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, until the individual-person or business entity involved, subtracted the expenses incurred in order to calculate the profits, gains, income realized. So, two terms were used within the law which denoted this fact: Gross Income and Net Income. Within the Law, Gross Income was defined to mean “all of the income one derived from engaging within certain activities which involved the use of certain defined sources found within the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government. Net Income was defined to mean “Gross Income minus the costs incurred by an individual-person in deriving the “profits, gains, income” derived by engaging within certain activities which involved the use of certain defined sources as found within the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government. Net Income derived from engaging in certain activities which involved the use of the defined sources found within the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, was considered to be the income that was to be taxed by the law.

          Subsequently, the first law that imposed a tax on incomes was Amended by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature; it was amended in 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1870 and finally, in 1872, the entire law that imposed a tax on incomes was abolished. Each time that the law that imposed a tax on incomes was amended, the amendment made reference to the fact that the only thing that was being taxed by the law was the activity that produced “Annual Gains, Profits, Income which were derived from certain, defined sources found within the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.”

          It took forty-three years of Judicial Interpretation by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch’s Supreme Court to undue and contain and confine the Collectivistic Objectives advanced by the Liberal, so-called, Radical Republicans-

          [Note: that the Collectivistic Objectives were aimed at modifying, altering, dismantling, and/or abolishing, if possible, what they considered to be an unworkable Federal System by means of amending the Constitution of the United, States’ and then proceeding to substitute, for the dismantled and unworkable Federal System, a Political Democracy, which Political Democracy was in fact a Collectivistic Scheme, and, which, when adopted, would manufacture and establish the Dictatorship of the Majority, which “ Dictatorship” in turn, would be manipulated, maneuvered, controlled supervised, directed, and managed by a Collectivistic Elitist Minority.]

          -within the bounds generally consistent with the original Legislative Intent and Understandings possessed by the Founding Fathers who were present at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, which Intent and Understandings were incorporated within the Originally Proposed Constitution of the United, States’, and which Intent and Understandings served as the basis for the requisite number of the original Thirteen Member States to proceed to ratify the Constitution of the United, States’, as evidenced by the Federalist Papers and Madison’s Papers.

          The Liberal, Collectivistic Progressives, found within the population of the Federal-Republic, 1900-1933, continued and broadened the work initiated by the Collectivistic Liberals, the so-called Radical Republicans, who were found within the population of the Federal-Republic during the years 1865-1877. The Liberal, Collectivistic Progressives began their work in earnest in the year of 1900 and by 1920 produced four Constitutional Amendments: The Sixteenth Amendment, The Seventeenth Amendment, The Eighteenth Amendment, and The Nineteenth Amendment.

          As a very famous teacher of Constitutional Law, Professor John W. Burgess stated, in his publication entitled, Recent Changes in American Constitutional Theory, Columbia University Press, New York, 1923, page 54;

          {Collectively, the Progressive Amendments represented} “...a very long step towards governmental despotism [centralization of governmental power] and the extinction of the original constitutional immunity of the individual against[ the central] governmental power in the realm not only of his property, but also of his culture.:”) Emphasis added.

          Because of the changes brought about by the so-called Captains of Industry who in turn were spawned by the Second Phase of the Industrial Revolution, the Collectivistic Progressives were quick to exploit, for their own benefit, those individual-persons found in the population that were seemingly not benefitting from these changes. Those individual-persons who entertained the idea that they were left out, or that the changes brought about by the Second Phase of the Industrial Revolution acted upon them in a detrimental way, or were simply disgruntled and disillusioned by such changes, became the targets of the Progressives in 1900.

          One of the slogans adopted in 1900 by the Progressives which was especially effective in gaining support for the program of the Progressives was as follows:

          “As The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Get Poorer.”

          While not true, this slogan became the battle cry for the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to undertake the task of gaining the authority to provide, among other things, a Progressive Income Tax which would enable the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to achieve the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number by means of a Tax Program which redistributes the wealth of the nation. The Progressives seized upon the idea that by combining a High Rate Inheritance Tax with a High Rated Graduated Progressive Income Tax, the Rich would be forced to share their wealth with the poor via the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Executive Branch’s Treasury Department. It is no accident, that chief among the issues that the Progressives were clamoring for in 1900 was a Tax Program which was grounded upon the idea that a High Rate Inheritance Tax coupled with a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax would result in a redistribution of the wealth of the Nation and would be instrumental in attaining “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

          And further, it was not lost upon the Progressives, that if a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax could be imposed directly upon every individual-person that existed within the population of the Nation, such a Tax Levy could be used to “socially engineer” the entire population that was found within the geographical jurisdiction possessed by the Federal-Republic,to do the bidding of the elitist who were in control of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government. By the means afforded by a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Executive Branch’s Treasury Department, would be in a position to take away, at will, the means that individual-persons possessed to attain and achieve their individual destinies. By means of a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax the individual-citizens found within the Federal-Republic would be converted from being “Sovereign Citizens” to become “Subject Citizens” [ a “Subject Citizen is in fact a servant-slave] which “Subject Citizens” would exist for the sole purpose of carrying out the whims and wills of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Elitist Group. By this conversion, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government would assume the role of being the Master and the individual-persons who were found domiciled and residing within the Government’s geographical, legislative jurisdiction would become the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s servant-slave.

          Then two, the Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax could also be used to make the Federal-Republic’s Independent Member States mere appendages, mere administrative units, of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government by simply making the rates charged by the Graduated Progressive Income Tax so high that the Member States would be denied the ability to impose a tax on their tax base in order to support their activities in behalf of their constituencies.

          By means of a Highly, Graduated Progressive Income Tax the Federal System Of Government would be abolished and in its place a Political Democracy would be manufactured and established with the “Majority’s Will” being manipulated and maneuvered and conditioned to carry out the will of the Liberal, Progressive Elitists who were concentrated in Washington, D. C. . The Liberal, Progressive Elitists would then be in position to take over the affairs of the Federal-Republic, and would operate under the assumption that the Central Government was “Sovereign” and only the Central Government was authorized to exercise sovereignty. The Liberal Progressive Elitists knew that if the Federal-Republic’s Central Government gained the authority to impose a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax directly upon each individual-person that were a part of the entire population of the Nation, Collectivism would be re-established once again in this Nation, as was true when King George III ruled the Thirteen Colonies that were a part of the British Empire located along the eastern seaboard on the Continent of North America.

          And by means of a Highly, Graduated Progressive Income Tax, the revenue that was necessary to manufacture and establish and maintain an Empire for the benefit of the Liberal, Imperial Minded, Monopolistic Entrenched Elitists could be realized..

          It was understood, quite correctly, that the greatest obstacle that stood as a barrier to the Progressives’ plans for re-establishing Collectivism in this Nation was the contract, The Constitution of the United, States’ which had manufactured a Federal-Republic. The Collectivistic Progressives realized that their plans could only be realized by changing, modifying, altering the contract, The Original Constitution of the United, States’, since the contract, forbade, prohibited the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to proceed to impose a Graduated Progressive Income Tax Directly Upon Each Individual-Person Found Within the Population of the Nation Unless The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature First Observe the Mandates and Requirements Associated and Connected With The Constitutional Rule of Apportionment. Knowing this, the Collectivistic Progressives began a concerted effort which was designed to yield an enabling Constitutional Authority which would permit the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to provide a Graduated Progressive Income Tax Directly Upon Each Individual-Person Found Within The Population of the Nation Without Observing the Constitutional Rule of Apportionment.

          The Sixteenth Amendment would result from the Collectivistic Progressives efforts and propaganda.

          The Collectivistic Progressives Program designed to change the Taxing Authority possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, was pursued with vigor, as a direct result of what happened to the second time the Federal-Republic’s Central Government proceeded to provide a law which imposes a tax on incomes. This occurred in time in 1894.

          Once again, as was true of the first law that imposed a tax on incomes, the second law that imposed a tax on incomes was found stipulated within the provisions of a Tariff Act; the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894. This is especially significant in that a Tariff was in fact a Duty Tax on Imports of goods and services into the Federal-Republic from foreign sources. A Duty Tax was an Indirect Tax which could be imposed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature only by observing the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity. So, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislative Branch, believing that it had been established by the First “Law That Imposed A Tax On Incomes”, as being an Indirect Duty Tax, they proceeded to provide a second law that imposed a tax on incomes, which was provided by observing the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity and was identified to be an Indirect Duty Tax.

          Once again the second law that imposed a tax on incomes made the same references in the law as was true of the first law that imposed a tax on incomes, that is, the “net gains, profits, income” derived from certain activities initiated and/or engaged in by individual-citizens within the geographical, legislative jurisdiction possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government would be made subject to and liable for the payment of such tax.

          Almost immediately, this second law that imposed a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature in 1894, was challenged by the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company. This challenge by the Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company made its way through the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch’s System, finally reaching the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch’s Supreme Court.  

          The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch’s Supreme Court twice heard this case, and the Court’s final decision and ruling was made within the Rehearing of the case: the citation of this case being: Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, 158 U. S. 601, (1895).

          The Supreme Court ruled that the law that imposes a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, which was a part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, was not imposed in a constitutional way making such law “unconstitutional”.

          (Note: Unconstitutional Statutes are Null and Void. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, so ruled the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court in the case Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U. S. 137, 174, 176, (1803). The word “unconstitutional” as used here means: “Conflicting with some provision of the Constitution of the United, States’. A statute found to be unconstitutional is considered void or as if it had never been, and consequently all rights, contracts, or duties that depend on it are void. Similarly, no one can be punished for having refused obedience to an unconstitutional law. Source of Authority for definition as given: Black’s Legal Dictionary, Sixth Edition.)

           The Court’s majority’s decision and ruling in the Rehearing of the case, Pollock, Supra, was written by Associate Justice Stephen J. Field, and the decision and ruling of the Court centered upon the fact that Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company had complained about the ill effect of the recently enacted law that imposes a tax on incomes, had on its’ real estate holdings and investments. Associate Justice Field stated as follows: [which can be found within volume number 158, Supreme Court Decisions, wherein, in pertinent part, is found, at pages 601- 637, the Court’s rational for its’ decision as given in this case]

          In pertinent part, from the record, here are the recorded statements made by the Court’s opinions and decision and ruling:

          “We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such... . [in other words, Chief Justice Fuller explained here that the Court did not consider the gains or profits-synonyms for income- derived from business dealings, or derived from governmentally granted privileges such as franchises, co-operatives, corporations, or licensed occupations, because taxation of those things was being treated and upheld as an excise tax and been sustained as such in a prior case in 1872.

          (Note: Here Associate Justice Field, was making reference to an earlier decision and ruling made by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court as found cited in the case Springer vs. United States, 102 U. S. 586, (1872); wherein Mr. Associate Justice Swayne, who wrote the majority decision in this case, stated as follows:

          “Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.”

          In this case, Mr. Springer was an attorney; all attorney’s are licensed by the State; therefore, attorneys are allowed to practice their profession only by a governmentally granted privilege; Mr. Springer sued the Federal-Republic’s Central Government on the grounds that the recently provided law that imposed a tax on incomes was in fact a direct tax, which required apportionment. Since the recently provided law on incomes was a direct tax which was not apportioned, it was not levied in accordance to the requirements of the Constitution, therefore rendering such law null and void; as a consequence, Mr. Springer demanded that his property be refunded back to him. However, the Court ruled that Mr. Springer was not correct in his assumption that the profits, gains, income realized from a licensed profession is a direct tax; on the contrary, it is an indirect tax which does not require apportionment.)

          Now to continue with the Pollock Case, Mr. Associate Justice Field continued: “The Constitution divided federal taxation into two great classes, the class of direct taxes, and the class of duties, imposts, and excises; and prescribed two rules which qualified the grant of power as to each class.... .

          The power to lay direct taxes apportioned among the several States [The Federal-Republic’s Independent Member States] in proportion to their representation in the popular branch in Congress, a representation based on population as ascertained by the census, was plenary and absolute; but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was forbidden. The power to lay duties, imposts and excises was subject to the qualification that the imposition must be uniform throughout the United, States’... ..

          The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the [Independent, Member] States, their counties, cities, and towns would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the Federal [Central] government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general [Central] government should not be exercised, except on necessity’ and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the [Independent, Member] States at liberty to discharge their respective obligations... .

          (Note: By way of explanation what Mr. Associate Justice Field stated.; From the beginning of the Federal-Republic, the Framers and Founders of the Federal-Republic, expected that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government would be routinely financed by indirect taxes; would rarely impose direct taxes; would impose direct taxes only when the necessity arose. Indeed, in a letter dated, January 29, 1789, James Madison-referenced by Historians as “The father of the Constitution”wrote “...that the federal [Central Government’s] power of imposing direct taxes would be exercised only in “extraordinary emergencies”. Mr. Madison was of course talking about war. From the beginning, direct taxes have always been war taxes. [If you oppose war, you will oppose routine, direct taxes imposed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.] )

           Mr. Associate Justice Field continued in his analysis of this case as follows: “The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded; that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied; and yet we are thus invited to hesitate in the enforcement of the mandate of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from laying a direct tax on the revenue from property of the citizen without regard to state lines, and in such manner that the states cannot intervene by payment in regulation of their own resources... .

          We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such. 

          Our conclusions may, therefore, be summed up as follows:

          First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

          Second.       We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

          Third.         The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894 [The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act], so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, consisting of one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases, clauses inserted for meaning and understanding.)

          Post Script: The attorney who successfully challenged the Law that Imposed a Tax on Incomes given by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature was Joseph H. Choate. Mr Choate, among other things, told the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court, “...The act of Congress which we are impugning [challenging as false] before you is Communistic in its purpose and tendencies.” Accordingly, the decision and ruling of the Court concluded with the following extremely prophetic words, again written by Associate Justice Fields:

          “Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that they go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will be come a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness.”

          [Post Script to Mr. Choates remarks: Mr. Choates, when he made the remark that the act of the Congress was an act favored by the Communist Groups, was based upon what was written within a publication entitled, “The Communist Manifesto”, which publication was published in 1848, and which publication was written by Karl Marx. Within “The Communist Manifesto” Marx stated, among other things, the following:

          “The History of all hitherto existing societies, is the history of class struggles. Freeman vs. Slave; Patrician vs. Plebians; Lords vs. Serfs; Guild-Master vs. Journeyman; in a word, oppressor vs the oppressed... .” Marx continued: a continuing and constant struggle occurred between the oppressors and the oppressed and each time society was reconstituted by revolution between the two groups.

          Today, [1848] Society is molded, shaped, and controlled by the Bourgeoisie . The Bourgeoisie are known as Capitalists. Within the Bourgeois Society exists the Proletariat. The Proletariat are known as workers, laborers, wage-earners. The Bourgeoisie, the Capitalists, are in the minority, the Proletariat are in the majority. The Bourgeoisie are parasites, who steal the labor of the Proletariat for their benefit. The Bourgeoisie are the oppressors, the Proletariat are the oppressed. The Bourgeois Society is therefore split into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other in daily contact; the hostility between these two classes, as was true in prior History, is bound to produce revolution and revolutionary change.

          The Bourgeoisie dominates and controls the Bourgeois Society basically by their devotion to the proposition that all men are endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty in order to pursue happiness. In their pursuit of happiness the Bourgeoisie insist upon the right to choose to employ their life to labor for the purpose of accumulating property. The Bourgeois Society allows for this accumulation of property by sanctioning and approving the “right” for an individual-person to own and control the property he has earned; such a “right” is known as “private property rights”.

          Marx declares that the Bourgeoisie accumulate property by means of exploiting, [ by stealing] the fruits of the labor of the Proletariat; therefore, Marx states that the Communist are for the abolition of bourgeois private property rights. In fact, to do away with the control of the Bourgeoisie, and private property rights in particular, and to produce a classless society, which society is controlled by the Proletariat, Marx, maps out a program of aims and objectives to be attained and achieved by the Proletariat; Marx’s program consists of ten aims and objectives, they are as follows:

          (1)     Abolition of all private property rights to land ownership and control and application of all rents of land to public purposes;

          (2)     A heavy progressive or graduated income tax;

          (3)     Abolition of all right of inheritance;

          (4)     Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels;

          (5)     Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly;

          (6)     Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state;

          (7)     Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a predetermined, common plan;

          (8)     Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture;

          (9)     Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country; and

          (10)   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industiral production, etc..]

          The Pollock Case has never been overruled subsequently by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court, therefore this ruling by the Supreme Court is considered to be a landmark ruling. The Pollock Case’s opinions, decisions, and rulings became the basis for the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to propose in the year 1909, to change The Constitution of the United, States’ by adding the Sixteenth Amendment.

          Those Liberals that had clamored for a so-call Income Tax that were found within the population of the Federal-Republic’ in 1894, were obviously disappointed. They now recognized that the only way to gain a law which would impose a tax on incomes was to change, alter, and/or modify the Constitution of the United, States’.

           The proposal to change, alter, and/or modify the basic contract, The Original Constitution of the United, States’ was vigorously pursued by the Collectivistic Progressives; the charge for change was led by John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. Both Rockefeller and Morgan earnestly desired and made plans to alter, change, and modify the Original Constitution of the United, States’ in order to manufacture a governmental monopoly for the benefit of a small group of Monopolistic Elitists.. By this time, 1900, Rockefeller and Morgan had established monopolies over industry and finance within the Federal-Republic. They meant to keep that control, so they conjured up the idea that if they would continue to occupy their lofty positions of being the wealthiest individuals within the population of the Federal-Republic, competition in the market place to their respective monopolies, would need to be controlled and maybe destroyed.

           Both Rockefeller and Morgan understood that it was one thing to gain a position of wealth by manufacturing monopolies, it was another thing to continue to hold on to a position of wealth and monopoly. Both Rockefeller and Morgan seized upon the idea of maintaining their position of wealth by means provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government. Operating under the assumption that monopolies were secure only when competition was keep in check or eliminated altogether both men worked to insure that their wealth would not be subject to what they considered to be their greatest enemy; which of course was competition. From their perspective, competition was the greatest enemy because through the employment of competition, other individual-persons found in the population of the Federal-Republic could potentially arise to challenge them and the position they now occupied.

          Now, competition was fostered by and championed by those in the population who believed in the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System; chief among those that championed the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System were those that were members of the Middle Class. The Middle Class of individual-persons were those that were found within the population of the Federal-Republic who were not as wealthy as the so-called Rich or Upper Class of individual-persons or were not as poor as the poor or lower class of individual-persons. The Middle Class was made up of individual-persons who were extremely ambitious, who knew no limits to what they were capable of accomplishing, who were anxious to improve their financial position in the scheme of things, and who were convinced that by subscribing to the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System they could, through hard work, innovation, and resolution one day rise up and attain and achieve their respective ambitions.

          The Middle Class of individual-persons were viewed collectively by the likes of the Collectivistic Progressives, such as Rockefeller, Morgan, Andrew Mellon and Henry Ford, as the greatest threat to their respective economic empires; so, in order to keep and maintain their respective economic monopolistic empires over industry and finances, which were found within the Federal-Republic, they sought assistance from the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.

          The reason that the Middle Class was viewed as the greatest threat to Rockefeller and Morgan and Company, was very simple; the Middle Class subscribed to the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System which System could not operate unless the following four foundations were acknowledged and in fact existed: (1) private property rights; (2) Profit Motivation; (3) Competition; and (4) Freedom to exercise personal liberty which equates to Freedom to choose. Rockefeller and Morgan and their followers clearly perceived that the Middle Class, as a result of being competitive, could arise and take the place of both in the scheme of things. To insure that their respective economic, monopolistic empires, would continue unabated and perpetually, Rockefeller and Morgan seized upon the idea to employ the authority and coercive power of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to eliminate the threat of competition.

          So the Monopolistic Collectivistic Progressives, led by Rockefeller and Morgan concentrated on ways and means which could be employed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to control and check the steady rise of the Middle Class.

          Professor Gabriel Kolko in a book entitled, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, (New York, the Free Press, a division of the Macmillan Company) 1963; stated as follows: “Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of this century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible competitive trends under control... . As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national [central] government could rationalize [control and direct] the economy... . Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly that caused the Federal [Central] Government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it.” (Note: Emphasis added)

          Professor Kolko within his book, on page thirteen, added the following: “Although there was a formal commitment to varieties of laissez faire economic theory in most of the academic world, big businessmen developed their own functional doctrine very much opposed to competition as either a desirable mechanism or as a goal... .”

          Professor Kolko added, within his book, on page sixteen, the following: “But the resignation of the socialists to inevitable monopoly was not merely a passive commitment to an article of faith. It stimulated many of them to a personal admiration of big businessmen unequalled by most paid eulogists. Indeed, big businessmen were the vehicles of progress and the guarantors of socialism, and worth defending from personal attacks for the parts they played in an impersonal industrial process... .”

          Professor Kolko continued within his book, on page fifty seven, and stated the following: “All of the efforts of Morgan and the corporate promoters to introduce economic stability and control over various industries, and to end the bane of destructive and unprofitable competition, were heading toward failure... . Laissez faire provided the businessman with an ideological rationale on an intellectual plane, but it also created instability and insecurity in the economy of the Nation. The dominant fact of American political life at the beginning of the century was that big business led the struggle for the federal regulation of the economy.” (Note: Emphasis added)

          Remember it was John D. Rockefeller who stated that “Competition was a sin.”

          By means of a graduated progressive income tax, which was first proposed by Karl Marx in 1867, in a book he wrote, which was entitled, “Das Capital”, the Billionaire, Socialist, Monopolistic Imperialists planned to cripple and crush competition thereby removing the threat of instability and insecurity represented by the rising Middle Class from the economy of the Nation, and thereby maintain their positions of wealth forever. By the adoption of the graduated progressive income tax the billionaire Socialist Imperialists arranged to impose the income tax on their competition while making themselves immune by manufacturing tax-exempt foundations.

          The lesson that was taught by the Billionaire Socialist Monopolistic Imperialists is that ownership of property by individuals was old-fashion; that what counts these days isn’t who owns something but who gets to enjoy it. The Socialist Monopolists can dump substantial wealth in such tax exempt foundations, pay no tax on it; but still control it. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation are examples of this. Not only did John D. Rockefeller avoid taxes when the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court, in August, 1907, ordered him to divest himself of Standard Oil Assets, but he continued to control these assets by giving them to the Rockefeller Foundation; in effect transferring them from one pocket to the other pocket, thereby also protecting these assets from the estate and gift taxes everyone else had to pay.

          Gary Allen, in a book entitled, The Rockefeller File, Seal Beach, California, ‘76 Press, 1976; wrote as follows: “The careful orchestration of both parts of the campaign represents one of the most successful financial coups in history. The money the Rockefellers have made by it is incalculable. By exempting themselves from the burden of paying taxes, which they forced upon their competitors, the Rockefellers were able to operate in a world of near laissez-faire capitalism while foisting the weight of more and more Socialism on their competitors. It is the equivalent of a sprinter forcing every other runner in a race to carry a sixteen-pound shot.”

          The income tax, became the means of controlling the Middle Class to do the bidding of the Collectivistic Monopolists. The income tax was planned to make it increasingly difficult for a newcomer to challenge the entrenched elitists that were already established In order to challenge the Entrenched Elitists, the newcomer had to accumulate capital; but, when the newcomer proceeded to raise and accumulate capital he or she found that by the means contained within a Highly Graduated Progressive Income Tax, the newcomer could be controlled and manipulated so that he could not raise sufficient amounts of capital to be a threat or a competitor to the Entrenched Monopolistic, Imperialists Elitists. This explains why the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialistic Elitists structured the Income Tax Legislation so that they would be exempted, and the Middle Class would bear the burden of paying the this tax. Thus, the Progressive Income tax would be the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialistic Elitists insurance against competition.

           And because the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialists Elitists possessed monopolies, the cost of the imposition of an income tax on their enterprises were always passed along to you and me to pay, because, in the absence of competition, the Monopolies could charge all that the traffic would bear for the goods and services they produced and offered for sale to the consumers. Furthermore, the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialistic Elitists could evade paying any income taxes by simply establishing “Tax Exempt Foundations”. In, 1970, while working people were filing 1040's and paying income tax, Nelson Rockefeller’s financial managers were arranging for him legally to pay nothing. That fact came out during the hearing on his appointment as Vice-President of the United, States’.

          To begin the process of employing the authority and coercive power of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to control competition in behalf of the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialistic Elitists, John D. Rockefeller laid out his plans to Senator Nelson Aldrich in 1901; in 1901, Senator Nelson Aldrich’s daughter, Abby Greene Aldrich, married John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,. Senator Nelson Aldrich was the maternal grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller who would inherit ownership and control over both Standard Oil and Chase Manhattan Bank. It was widely known and understood that Senator Nelson Aldrich was the mouthpiece in Washington D. C. of John D. Rockefeller. The process of converting and enlisting the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to support the positions of the Entrenched Monopolistic Imperialistic Elistists, begins in 1909.

          In 1909, Senator Nelson Aldrich, representing the Sovereign State of Rhode Island, was perhaps the most powerful and influential Senator found in the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature in 1909, because of being the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He advocated and desired to have the Central Government’s Legislature to make a proposal to the Member States, found within the Federal-Republic, which would become the Sixteenth Amendment, which Amendment is currently attached to the Constitution of the United, States’.

          The basic reason given to the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature for proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was to raise needed revenue to meet the high cost of the new Foreign Policy of the United, States, which was identified as the Collectivistic Interventionalism. Collectivistic Interventionalism contained elements of Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism, Irredentism, and Neo-Mercantilism. Collectivistic Interventional ism was embraced as our new foreign policy put forward by the Federal-Republic because it was demanded by the Collectivistic Progressives.

          (Note: See Isolationism-Internationalism Document, written by Professor Sochia which compares the Foreign Policy of the Individualist under the Individualistic Ideology; identified as Isolation Internationalism with the Foreign Policy of Progressives under the Collectivistic Ideology; identified as Imperialistic, Neo-Mercantilistic Interventionalistic Policy. Pay particular attention to the fact that under the Isolation Internationalistic Foreign Policy we were considered to be a Nation among equal Nations; under the Imperialistic, Neo-Mercantilistic Interventionalistic Foreign Policy we considered ourselves to be a super power and all other Nations were subordinate to us making us become the “Policemen of the World”. Also note, that the Collectivistic Progressive Foreign Policy caused us to turn our backs on the principles, ideals, standards, values, judgments, contained in our traditions, which traditions were based upon those that were enumerated and enunciated within the Declaration of Independence.

And finally, notice that this Foreign Policy caused us to change the contract, the contract being that which existed between the Contracting Parties, the Contracting Parties being the Governments that existed within the Federal-Republic and those individual-persons that were found domiciled and residing within the Federal-Republic that were to be Governed, in order to accommodate the new Foreign Policy. The New Foreign Policy adopted by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government demanded new ways to tax the taxpayers of the Federal-Republic in order for the Federal-Republic’s Central Government to meet the demands heaped upon the Federal-Republic by this New Foreign Policy- so to support the New Foreign Policy the result was the Sixteenth Amendment.)

III. THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED TO MAKE THE PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE TAX AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MADE BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE IN 1909.

            After the Income Tax Sections of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 were declared to be null and void by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court in the case Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, (previously cited herein), it appears that the issue was dead, however, the income tax issue would be resurrected by action of the Progressives lead by the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan.

          Found on Page 3138, within the Congressional Record, dated, June 11, 1909, is found the beginning of the resurrection of the income tax issue, for it is written on page 3138 that Nebraska Senator Norris Brown offered Senate Joint Resolution No. 39, which, according to the Congressional Record found on page #3377, was introduced to the Senate on June 17, 1909. Senator Brown’s proposed Senate Joint Resolution No. 39 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee to do the spade work necessary to substantiate or reject the Senator Brown’s proposal. At this time the Senate Finance Committee’s Chairman was the Senator from the Independent State of Rhode Island, Nelson Aldrich.

          Senator Nelson Aldrich was on record as being apposed to the substance of Senator Brown’s proposed Joint Resolution Number 39. Earlier Senator Aldrich had applauded and approved of the Supreme Court’s decision and ruling in the Pollock, Supra, Case. When the income tax was proposed in 1892, it was a scheme advanced to “soak the rich”. It was none other than Nelson Aldrich who is on record as saying that an income tax levied by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government was “Communistically Inspired” and a “Socialists Scheme” aimed at destroying the Federal-Republic.

           In fact, when Senator Aldrich made these claims he was absolutely correct, since the “progressive income tax” was a proposal that was first made by Karl Marx in his “Communist Manifesto”, published in 1848", and in his book “Das Kapital”, published in 1867, and Senator Aldrich was aware of what this proposal would do to the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System.

          In Summary, the position of Karl Marx is as follows:

          (1)     Marx believed that everything in the Universe, whether a blade of grass, or a flower, or a human being, or a Society of human beings, are constantly changing and at the same time in conflict;

          (2)     God does not exist, the world is composed of matter. Hence, man is nothing more than walking dust;

          (3)     History denotes the fact that human societies were always and are currently involved in a class struggle between those that desire to change (liberals) and those that do not desire to change (conservatives), and as a consequence of this conflict, a struggle occurs, and synthesis results from the struggle, and a new class struggle occurs;

          (4)     that the class struggle which is now in existence, results from the immediate effects of the Industrial Revolution, which consists of a circumstance which increases economic efficiency but worsens the lot of the working people to accomplish same. He concluded from this that capitalism was based upon the exploitation of the worker, who was robbed of part of his product to pay rent, interest, and profit to the capitalist-employer;

          (5)     that there were certain contradictions within capitalism which, he argued, would inevitably lead to its doom. He believed that capitalists would grow richer while workers would fall into deeper and deeper misery. As the latter’s purchasing power declined relative to total production, overproduction would result. Then depression would follow, leading to economic chaos;

          (6)     that capitalism would bring about the division of modern society into two great opposing classes-the bourgeoisie (the capitalistic owner-managers of enterprises) and the proletariat (the members of the working class). The state was an agency of oppression-a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. But the state only served a purpose only when there was a class struggle. When ultimately communism took the place of capitalism, the state would “wither away” thus producing a “class less, state less, society”;

          (7)     that a revolution was needed in order to establish the superiority of the Proletariat. Assuming that the revolution was successful, the Proletariat needed to establish a Democracy. The Democracy would permit the “Will of the Majority” to exist. In turn, the “Will of the Majority” would permit, because of their numbers placing them in the majority, the establishment of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Under the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” the workers would seize power, establish their own state, and crush out all capitalist-employers. The means of production and distribution would then belong to the whole society. Every worker would received from society as much as he gave to it;

          (8)      in turn, the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” would bring about a transitional period of “socialism” which “socialistic period” was the “first stage which was necessary for Communism to ultimately exist”. “Socialism”, consequently, would be attained and established by the Proletariat; and finally

          (9)     eventually, after a “rather lengthy process” whereby a new “psychology” would be created in which each would want to perform his social function, Marx argued that the state and classes would disappear. The ideal society would then evolve-FULL COMMUNISM.

          According to Marx, one of the chief means to be employed to bring about this ideal society was the “progressive income tax”. In the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat a democracy would be established which would be used to redistribute the wealth of the Nation and by this process take property from the bourgeoisie which the bourgeoisie dishonestly attained and give that property which was seized by the State away from same and dole it out to the proletariat in the form of welfare to those who are in need.

          Since Senator Aldrich was aware of the ideas and plans of Marx, one would have to conclude that Senator Aldrich would have been a staunch advocate of the Capitalistic, Laissez-Faire, Market-Centered, Free Enterprise System and therefore opposed to any tax measure which would have as its purpose to redistribute the wealth of the Nation by the State, yet this is about to happen.

          Senate Joint Resolution #39 read as follows:

          “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several [Member] States according to population.”

          Senate Joint Resolution #39 was not acceptable, as read, because it clearly clashed with the decision rendered by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court rendered sixteen years earlier in Pollock, Supra., which decision by the Court clearly proclaimed that such action, as proposed by Senator Brown in his Senate Joint Resolution Number 39 by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, would be declared to be unconstitutional. Realizing that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court would declare Senator Brown’s proposal “unconstitutional” as it was written, the Senate Finance Committee, operating under the direction of Senator Nelson Aldrich, went to work for the purpose of refining the language of the proposed Senate Joint Resolution #39 so that it would not clash with the decisions made by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court in 1895.

          On June 28, 1909, according to the Congressional Record of June 28, 1909, Joint Resolution Number 40 was proposed to the Senate by Senator Aldrich. According to the Record, Joint Resolution Number 40 was adopted by the requisite two-thirds of the membership of the Senate on July 5, 1909, unchanged and according to the record, on July 31, 1909, the House of Representatives also adopted Joint Resolution Number 40. Copies of the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40 then were dispatched to the Governors of each of the forty-eight Independent, Member States for their consideration for adoption or rejection.

          Joint Resolution Number 40 read as follows:

          “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any Census or enumeration.”

          You will note that the wording of Joint Resolution #39 and Joint Resolution #40 are almost the same except that Senator Brown’s Joint Resolution #39 contained the word “direct” whereas Senator Aldrich’s Joint Resolution #40 contained in place of the word “direct” the phrase “from whatever source derived”. Question: What made Joint Resolution #40 acceptable by this change in wording to the Senate Finance Committee whereas Joint Resolution #39, with its wording was unacceptable?

          The purpose of the phrase “from whatever source derived” was to separate the source (the capital, the investment, the labor, the property, used to generate income) from the income (the profit, the gain) derived from the sources, so that only the income (the profit, the gain) derived from the sources could be legally taxed without apportionment. The purpose of this phrase therefore was to protect the law that imposes a tax on incomes from the reaffirmation made by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court, to wit, “that a direct tax cannot be levied by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature unless a true emergency is in place and unless the Legislature first observes the mandates required by the Constitutional Rule of Apportionment”, by making the law that imposes a tax on incomes into an indirect, excise tax which required the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to observe the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity.

          So, the change between Joint Resolution #39 and Joint Resolution #40 was intended to underline the fact that the so-called income tax is imposed only on the income generated through the use of sources and is not imposed on the sources that generate the income from which the income is derived. It is clear that the Legislative Intent of the authors of Joint Resolution Number 40 rejected the fact that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature possessed the authority to impose a direct tax on the sources (the capital, the investment, the labor, the property ) without first observing the Constitutional Rule of Apportionment, but accepted the fact that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature possessed the authority to impose an Indirect Excise Tax on the income generated from the sources that generated same.

          Seemingly on July 26^th , 1909, the proposed Joint Resolution #40, was correctly proposed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature and it was ready to be circulated among the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic by the Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, for their consideration, however, there was a legal problem concerning the status of the State of Ohio.

          The Ohio case is as follows:

          Fulfilling the stipulations contained within the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Territory of Ohio being a part of the Northwest Territory at that date and time, it was said that Ohio was admitted into the Federal-Republic as an Independent Member State on March 1, 1803, however, apparently Ohio did not comply fully with the requirements contained within the Constitution of the United, States’, thereby making their entrance into the Federal-Republic’s Union of States illegal. To remedy this situation, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature on August 7, 1953, by Joint Resolution, enacted Public Law 204 which reads as follows:

“FOR ADMITTING THE STATE OF OHIO INTO THE UNION OF STATES

          Section #1. Whereas, in pursuance of an act of Congress, passed on the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, entitled, “An Act to enable the people of the Eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes”, the people of the said territory did, on the twenty-ninth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and two, by a convention called for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state government, which constitution and state government, so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the territory north-west of the river Ohio, passed on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven: Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Ohio, shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever.

          Section #2. This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803.

          Approved: August 7, 1953.

          The meaning of this Joint Resolution, approved by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature on August 7, 1953, making such resolution retroactive to March 1, 1803, meaning that Ohio was not an Independent Member State which was a part of the Federal-Republic in 1909. It was not an Independent Member State within the Federal-Republic because the Constitution of the United, States’ provides that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government, acting as a broker would, in behalf of its clients, the other Member States found within the Federal-Republic, the guarantee that every Independent Member State found within the Federal-Republic is accorded a Republican Form of Government. (Source of Authority: Article IV, Section #4. It is to be recalled that a Republican Form of Government requires that the source of all authority and authorizations resides with the sovereign individual-citizens found domiciled and residing within a Governmental Entity’s geographcial jurisdiction. It is a fact that there existed no record which reflects the fact that the Ohio Constitution was ever submitted to and ratified by the sovereign individual-citizens that were domiciled and residing within its geographical jurisdiction. Since the Ohio Constitution was never approved or ratified by the sovereign individual-citizens that were domiciled and residing within its jurisdiction, Ohio could not be approved by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government was prohibited from allowing Ohio to become an Independent Member State within the Federal-Republic.

          It also means that William Howard Taft who became President of the United, States’ on March 4, 1909 and served as President until March 4, 1913, could not have been President of the United, States’ legitimately because he was not a natural born citizen of an Independent Member State found within the Federal-Republic, nor had he resided within an Independent Member State for Fourteen Years prior to his election as President, therefore, in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution, at Article II, Section #1, Clause #5, William Howard Taft election, to the office of President of the United States, was a fraud and he was illegally in office. All orders and acts by him as President were illegal, and therefore null and void. Since William Howard Taft could not be President since he could not have been legally elected since Ohio in 1908 was not an Independent Member State but in fact still a territory controlled and administered to by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government in Behalf of the Member States, it is a fact that James S. Sherman, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Vice-President, and Presiding Officer of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Senate, who was a lawful citizen of the Independent Member State of New York, which was legitimately a part of the Federal-Republic, should have been automatically elevated to the position of President of the United States by authority of Article II, Section #1, Clause #5 which reads in pertinent part as follows:

          “In case of ...inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, kthe same shall devolve on the Vice-President... .”

          Accordingly, on July 31, 1909, when Sherman, who was actually the President of the United States, but acting as Vice-President of the United States, gaveled the United States Senate into session for consideration of the Resolution to submit Resolution Number 40 to the Member States for their consideration to either ratify said proposal or reject it, such acts were illegal because, being actually President of the United States who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of Government, legally he was not authorized by the Constitution of the United, States’ to exercise legislative power of any kind. Since Sherman illegally convened the Senate of the United States, it was not in legal session and all acts performed by it were and are non-existent. Therefore, Joint Resolution #40 was never submitted to the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic for them to consider as to whether to ratify or reject same.

          Then two, is the fact that since William Howard Taft appointed Philander C. Knox to be the Secretary of State within his illegal administration,, and since Taft’s entire administration was illegal, Knox’s appointment to office was illegal. You will learn later on in this text, that it was Secretary of State Philander C. Knox who possessed the duty and obligation on February 25, 1913 to certify that Joint Resolution #40 in fact had been properly and validly ratified by three-fourths of the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic on that day and time, and therefore, Joint Resolution #40, was officially added to the Constitution of the United, States’ on that date and would be known as the Sixteenth Amendment. Since Philander C. Knox’s appointment was not a “valid appointment”, his “certification” was rendered “invalid” or null and void. Since the “certification process” was itself invalid, the Sixteenth Amendment has never been “properly certified” according to law, making such an invalid Amendment.

          So, because of the Ohio Problem, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislative proposal made to the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic in 1909, was flawed and found to be defective.

IV. ON JULY 26, 1909, THE ILLEGALLY PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40, PRODUCED BY THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATURE, WAS DISPATCHED TO EACH OF THE GOVERNORS FOUND WITHIN THE INDEPENDENT MEMBER STATES WHICH WERE THEN A PART OF THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC FOR CONSIDERATION BY EACH OF THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGISLATURES EITHER AN ACCEPTANCE OR A REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL CONTAINED WITHIN JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 40.

          What follows is the result of the efforts of the Forty-Eight Independent Member States’ Legislatures concerning their consideration of said proposal, “Joint Resolution Number 40", made by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, which proposal, if adopted, would become the Sixteenth Amendment found attached to the Constitution of the United, States’. (Source of Authority: The Law That Never Was, Volume #1, authored by Bill Benson and M. J. “Red” Beckman, Constitutional Research Association, South Holland, Illinois.)

          There is only one proper mode of ratification of an Amendment which is to be added to the Constitution of the United, States’. The Standard of Compliance to which the Independent, Member States are held is illustrated in Document No. 97-120, of the 97^th. Congress, First Session, entitled, “How Our Laws Are Made”, authored by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esquire, Law Revision Counsel of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s House of Representatives. The comparable exactitude of the language of the bills to be considered must be concurred under federal legislative rules; these rules are detailed as follows:

          “...Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted and proposed by the House of Representatives which was a part of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature’s Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it was passed upon and enacted by the House of Representatives. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the controlling clerk.

          When the Bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies [ found within the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature] either with or without amendments by either the Senate, or the House, amendments, a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

          The preparation of the enrolled Bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, as agreed to by both legislative bodies. The enrolling clerk...must prepare meticulously the final form of the Bill, as it was agreed to by both Legislative Houses, for presentation to the President...each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and, all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken.”

          (Note: bold face printed words, phrases, clauses, inserted for emphasis; bracketed words inserted for understanding and meaning.)

          Given the above standard, every Independent Member State that was said to have responded in the affirmative on the proposed “Joint Resolution Number 40" by the Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was flawed and defective for various reasons. For example, take the case of Ohio who reported that they had considered and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40 to be added to the Constitution of the United, States’ and be identified to be the Sixteenth Amendment, made on January 19, 1911, did so as follows:

          Ohio was one of the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic which the Secretary of State Philander C. Knox declared had indeed considered and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40. What made the official announcement, made within the Memorandum, dated, February 15, 1913, by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, which officially acknowledged that Joint Resolution Number 40 had been ratified by the requisite number of Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic in 1913, was the fact that Secretary of State Philander C. Knox was appointed by a President who did not possess the authority to do so. In addition, the State of Ohio was listed as one of the Member States that ratified Joint Resolution Number 40 when Ohio, as was reported earlier in this writing, wasn’t even an Independent Member State found within the Federal-Republic as of that date and time. Even further, were the following facts concerning exactly what went on in the State of Ohio’s Government when the Government gave consideration to Joint Resolution Number 40:

          The Ohio Government’s ratification was defective for the following reasons:

                    The Ohio Senate Joint Resolution Number 6 which considered the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature proposed Joint Resolution Number 40, contained the following changes from that which was proposed by Joint Resolution Number 40:

          (1)     the preamble of the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40 was changed;

                    (A)    the word “legislatures” was changed to “legislature”;

                    (B)    the word “States” was changed to a common noun;

                    (C)    the colon following the second instance of the word “Constitution” was changed to a comma;

                    (D)    the word “namely” was added after the second instance of the word “Constitution”.

                    (E)     the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40 was made a part of the Preamble by virtue of the lack of identifying punctuation separating the preamble from the proposed amendment;

                    (F)     the word “States” in the proposed amendment was changed to a common noun;

          (2)     failure to follow the guidelines for the return of a certified copy of the ratification action as contained in Congressional Concurrent Resolution No. 6 and as required by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 and the by the Secretary of State’s office;

          (3)     failure to read Senate Joint Resolution Number 6 fully and distinctly on three different days in both the Ohio’s Legislature’s House and Senate in violation of Article II, Section #16 of the Ohio Constitution; and

          (4)     failure to present Senate Joint Resolution Number 6 to the Governor as required under Article II, Section #16 of the Ohio Constitution.

          Cognizant and made aware of the events and facts in this case that the State of Ohio had in fact considered and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40 is like saying that the United States Territory, known as the Philippine Islands, had considered and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40 under procedures and processes that were filled with flawed and defective processes and procedures.

          Then, to be considered, is the case of Kentucky. The Secretary of State of the Independent Member State of Kentucky which was a part of the Federal-Republic, reported on February 8^th, 1910, that the Independent State of Kentucky had considered and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40. The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Executive Branch’s Secretary of State Philander C. Knox reported within his Memorandum, dated, February 15^th. 1913, that Kentucky was one of the Independent Member States found within the Federal-Republic which had indeed ratified Joint Resolution Number 40.

          Here are the facts:

          (1)     The Senate found within the Legislature of the Independent State of Kentucky considered the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40 and proceeded to vote on same with this outcome: twenty-two senators voted to reject the proposal, nine were in favor of the proposal, therefore, no matter what else had transpired in the Legislature of the Independent State of Kentucky, Joint Resolution Number 40, was declared to have rejected same;

          (2)     Governor Augustus E. Wilson refused to sign the Bill presented to him by the Kentucky Legislature concerning what was called a joint resolution but was not same;

          (3)     Many violations of the Independent Member State’s Constitution occurred which acted to negate the action of the Legislature; and

          (4)     The rules of both houses of the Legislature of the Independent Member State’s Government were violated by both the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

          Then to be considered is the case of California.

          The Secretary of State, Frank C. Jordan of the Independent Member State of California sent a letter to the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox, dated, July 27^th, 1911, within which Jordan reported that Senate Joint Resolution Number 2, Chapter 8, which he reported reflected the fact that the California Legislature had approved and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40. Upon receipt of the letter from Jordan, Knox prepared and sent a letter to Jordan, dated, August 3^rd, 1911, within which he acknowledged receipt of Jordan’s letter but noted that Jordan’s letter did not contain a “a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section #205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is apparent that Secretary of State Jordan had not transmitted a certified copy of Senate Joint Resolution Number 2 to Knox.

          On February 3^rd, 1912 Jordan finally responded to Knox’s letter, dated, August 3^rd, 1911, and sent a copy of Senate Joint Resolution Number 2 to Knox, however, the copy sent to Knox was neither under the great seal of the State nor certified as requested, therefore, nullifying that State’s claim that they had approved and ratified the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40.

          Other violations found in the purported ratification of the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40 included the following:

          (1)     Failure to concur in United States Senate Joint Resolution Number 40 as passed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature in that Senate Joint Resolution Number #40 changed the official Congressional Joint Resolution as follows:

                    (A)    the first word, “The,” was deleted,

                    (B)    the word “or” was deleted,

                    (C)    both commas bordering the phrase “from whatever source derived” were deleted,

                    (D)    the word “States” was changed to a common noun,

                    (E)     the ending period was changed to a semicolon, thereby appending the entire enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution Number 2 onto the wording of the proposed amendment, and

                    (F)     the original preamble was completely modified.

          (2)     failure to follow the guidelines for the return of a certified copy of the ratification action as contained in Congressional Concurrent Resolution Number 6 and as required by Section #205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 as shown by Knox’s letter;

          (3)     lack of jurisdiction of the certified copy of the Congressional version transmitted from the Governor;

          (4)     failure to read the resolution three times on different days in the Senate in violation of the provisions of Article 4, Section #15 of the California State Constitution; and

          (5)     Failure to record the Yeas and Nays in the Assembly vote in violation of Article 4, Section #15 of the California State Constitution.

          And the case of Minnesota is instructive. Minnesota, like Ohio, California, and Kentucky was listed by the Secretary of State Philander C. Knox as having properly approved and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40, however, the Secretary of State of Minnesota had not officially notified Knox that the Legislature of Minnesota had in fact properly proceeded and ratified Joint Resolution Number 40.

          And so it went. Not one of the Thirty-Six Independent Member State Legislatures which Secretary of State Philander C. Knox “certified” as having properly approved and ratified the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40, as stated within his “Memorandum, dated, February 15, 1913, did so; there were flaws and exceptions to the rule of ratification in each and every one, yet Knox declared that by their approval and ratification of the proposed Joint Resolution Number 40, gave him the authority to declare that Joint Resolution Number 40 would be added to the Constitution of the United, States’ and would be the Sixteenth Amendment.

V. THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC’S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDS TO EMPLOY THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AND PROVIDES THE LAW THAT IMPOSES A TAX ON INCOMES, OCTOBER 3, 1913; RESULTS FROM THAT IMPOSITION.

          On October 3, 1913, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature proceeded to provide the very first so-called income tax law, which employed the authority contained in the within the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment. The very first so-called income tax law was incorporated within Section #II, found within the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of 1913.

          The preamble of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of 1913, read as follows:

          “An Act to Reduce Tariff Duties and Provide Revenue for the Government, and for Other Purposes.”

          Almost immediately a number of challenges to this revenue law, which were supposedly written under the authority contained within the Sixteenth Amendment were introduced within the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch. It should be noted that every challenge to the revenue law of 1913 was made by individual-persons who were connected or associated with Corporations or Corporate Entities.

          As a result of these challenges to the law that imposed a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature which Legislature used the authority contained within the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment to do so, resulted in two landmark cases being decided and ruled upon by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court. The first landmark case was identified as Brushabor vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U. S. 1 (1916); and the second landmark case was Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U. S. 103 (1916). Both of these cases were argued before the Supreme Court on October 14 and 15, 1915. The Brushabor Case was decided by the Court on January 14, 1916 and the Stanton Case was decided by the Court on February 21, 1916.

          Chief Justice Edward Douglas White delivered the majority opinions of the Court in both cases. This is especially important since Edward Douglas White in 1909 was one of the chief advocates for the adoption of Joint Resolution Number 40 by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature. Being an advocate for the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, Edward Douglas White had to know exactly what was intended to be included within the law by the authors of such legislation in 1909, and the intention of the lawmaker is what constitutes the law. (Source of Authority: National Railroad passenger Corporation et al vs. National Assoication of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458, (1974).) Mr. Chief Justice Edward Douglas White was therefore in a position to clearly address any issue which might arise concerning the meaning and intent of the proposal contained in Joint Resolution Number 40.

          In the Brushabor Case, Frank Brushabor sought to restrain the corporate entity, The Union Pacific Railroad Company, from voluntarily paying the tax which Mr. Brushaber thought was unconstitional. Mr. Brushaber presented many erroneous contentions which the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court needed to address in order to arrive at a decision and ruling in this case. On pages 10 & 11, found in Volume #240, in the Records of the Supreme Court’s Rulings and Decisions, is found the following:

          “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion [by Mr. Brushabor], that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:

          (a)     The [Sixteenth] Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the [Sixteenth] Amendment, it is outside the Amendment and is void as a direct tax in the general Constitutional sense because not apportioned... .”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases inserted for meaning and understanding.)

          Analysis of what the Court stated above: Mr. Brushabor is confused about exactly what authority was given to the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature by the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court assumes that others in the population are like Mr. Brushabor, confused about exactly what authority was given to the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature by the Sixteenth Amendment. So the Court is addressing this problem. Notice, the Court states that the central problem is whether or not the Sixteenth Amendment provided for a new authority to be exercised by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to tax, and notice further that the Court states that this is an erroneous assumption.

          Then the Court proceeds to address these erroneous assumptions, propositons, and contentions by saying the following found on pages 11 & 12, Volume #240:

          “But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it [under the Sixteenth Amendment], if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the [Sixteenth] Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement [contained in the Original Constitution adopted on June 21, 1788] that all direct taxes be apportioned.

          Moreover, the tax authorized by the [Sixteenth] Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the [Sixteenth] Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to [the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature] impose a different tax in one [Independent Member] State or [Independent Member] States than was levied in another [Independent, Member] State or [Independent Member] States.

          This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitation [the Federal-Republic’s Central Government possesses by the Original Constitution] on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would [instead] create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases, clauses inserted for meaning and understanding).

          Analysis of what was stated by the Court so far: The Court stated that if the tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment were considered to be a direct tax, as Mr. Brushabor had erroneously contended, it would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another provision of the Constitution; bringing the stipulations and provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirements of the tax authority contained within the Original Constitution which provided that all Direct Tax Levies by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature be apportioned. The Court stated that this interpretation of the meaning contained within the Sixteenth Amendment could not be allowed.

          Then Court continued to lay out the Constitutional Principles and the Rules that would apply to direct and indirect taxes both before the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment and after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. According to the Court, nothing contained within the Original Constitution concerning the authority to exercise the tax power by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government changed. See Volume 240, Page #13.

          The Court next attacked the allegation made by Mr. Brushabor that an “income tax” is of necessity a direct tax. To this allegation, the Court stated the following found within Volume #240, Pages 10 & 11 &16 & 17 & 18.

          “...We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. ...this is an erroneous assumption.

          Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case [1895] did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirements to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty [meaning the duty of the Court] would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

          The contention that the [Sixteenth] Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning [of the Federal-Republic], is wholly without foundation... .”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases inserted for meaning and understanding.)

          Analysis of what the Court stated above: It is erroneous, it is a false to state or to believe, that the new income tax [found within Section #II, Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of 1913] is a direct tax which the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature is now allowed to impose without observing the requirements of apportionment. It is erroneous, to state or believe that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred a new power to tax upon the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.

          And then the Court continued, as found on page #19, Volume #240: According to Mr. Chief Justice White in 1916, the Sixteenth Amendment did not confer a new power to tax upon the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, but rather the purpose of the Amendment was to make clear the limitations placed upon the taxing authority of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature. Far from granting new taxing authority upon the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, Chief Justice White makes clear how the taxing authority possessed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature is limited.

          “The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word ‘Direct’ had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the PREVENTION of the resort to the SOURCES from which a taxed income was DERIVED in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the SOURCES itself; and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses, sentences inserted for emphasis; underlined words, phrases, clauses, sentences inserted for special emphasis; capitalized words inserted for very special purposes.}

          Analysis of what the Court stated above: The reason the above 191 word sentence has caused big problems for individual-citizens is that officers, agents, and/or employees employed by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Executive Branch, as well as others like H & R Block employees, have totally misinterpreted the later part of the sentence by ignoring the word PREVENTION. Where the sentence shows that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to change the interpretation of the Original Constitution or to change the distinction between direct taxes which are levied by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature on property and Indirect Taxes which are levied on the happening of an event, or an incident, or an activity or an occasion by same, but instead the real purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to PREVENT the Courts found within the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch from considering the source of the income, the source once again being the property used by an individual-citizen to derive income, in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source as well. In other words, the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was for the Courts to exclusively consider the activity from which income was derived rather than consider the property source of the income.

          For example, if a corporation owned rental property, it would derive rental income from this property. In earlier cases, the corporations would argue that a tax”on” this income would be the same as a direct tax on the property and would be unconstitutional if the tax was not apportioned; [which is what the Court did in the Pollock Case in 1895.]

          Another example is shown in the case Flint vs. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U. S. 107, (1911). In this case, the Stone Tracy Company, a Corporation, argued that the recently provided Corporation Excise Tax of 1909, by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature was in fact an income tax. One of the grounds used by the Stone Tracy Company to dispute the correctness of the imposition of such a tax was the fact that it was a direct tax on the Corporate Franchise. The Stone Tracy Company argued that for the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to tax the income from this form of property [the Franchise being considered to be property], would be the same as a direct tax on the property, thus making such a law unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment’s mandate that “income taxes” shall not be subject to apportionment by considering the source from which the income may be derived, forbids the Courts from treating an “income tax” as a Direct Tax on Property.

          The law that imposes a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, can only lawfully be considered by the Courts from the standpoint that such a law imposes a tax on the income realized from an activity, event, incident, or occasion since such an imposition must be kept within the bounds of an excise, duty, or impost. In using the phrase, “simplifying the situation and making clear the limitation, the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court, in its opinions, decision and ruling in Brushabor, was in effect saying that subsequent to its decision and ruling in this case, all of the Courts found within the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch must adhere to the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the problem of determining each and every time whether a particular so-called “income tax” is a tax on property, or a tax on an activity. The Supreme Court mandated that the Sixteenth Amendment PROHIBITS the Courts found within the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch from ever considering the property, or the property source, as being the subject of a the law that imposes a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, which leaves such Courts in the position that they can only lawfully consider the activity as being the subject of such a tax law.

          The Sixteenth Amendment, by Judicial Interpretation and Definition, made clear that the income tax of 1913, although it was a Direct Tax, was to be considered to be and treated as an Indirect Excise Tax, thus avoiding apportionment. Also, is the fact that Mr. Chief Justice White now tells us how the Sixteenth Amendment limited the taxing authority of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature. The first limitation made by the Sixteenth Amendment was to prevent the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature from providing a direct tax on the sources, which sources are employed to generate income, without apportionment. The second limitation made by the Sixteenth Amendment upon the taxing authority of the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature is that the new income tax will be levied exclusively on the income generated from the employment of sources, and not on the sources, that strict separation will maintain the status of the new income tax as being an Indirect Excise Tax On The Government’s Granted “Privilege” of earning income.

          What does a tax on the Source mean, as opposed to a tax on income derived from the source. To illustrate the difference we may consider the following example:

          A man performs a service for another man or entity, and is compensated for doing so. The compensation that the man receives who performs the service becomes his property. A law which imposes a tax on property is classified, according to the Constitution of the United, States’, as a Direct Tax. The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court in the Brushabor Case has ruled that a law that imposes a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature, must always be considered to be an Indirect Excise Tax. In the case American Airways vs. Wallace, 57 F. 2d. 877, 880, (1932), the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Appellate Court for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that “the terms “Excise Tax” and “Privilege Tax” are synonymous terms, and are often used interchangeably... .” Under the circumstances, the man that receives compensation from another man or entity for his labor is not, and cannot be, subject to the law that imposes a tax on incomes, as provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature. This is so because by laboring in a common and lawful occupation a man is simply exercising his “unalienable rights” to Life and to Liberty, granted to him by the Creator of all Things, and since an Indirect Excise Tax can never be imposed upon an unalienable right, and the law that imposes a tax on incomes is an Indirect Excise Tax, such compensation is not reached by the so-called income tax. The compensation received by the man in this illustration is therefore considered a source.

          To continue, if the man who received the compensation for his labor would then proceeded to deposit the compensation he received in a a bank whereby the bank paid him interest on the money so deposited, the interest paid by the bank on the source, would be considered to be profits, gains, income generated from a source, such income would then be considered “taxable income”.

          All laws which impose a tax on incomes promulgated by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature are thus classified as Indirect Excise [Privilege] Tax Laws which are provided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature by it observing the requirements of the Constitutional Rule of Uniformity.

          Following very closely after rendering its verdict in the Brushabor Case, the case identified as Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U. S. 103 (1916); was decided by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court.

          Like the Brushabor Case, the Stanton Case challenged the validity of the new law that imposed a tax on incomes, as found in Section #II, Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of 1913.

In short order the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court made the following ruling in this case which is found on page 112 of Volume # 240, 1916:

          “By the previous ruling [Brushabor, Supra] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation [to be exercised by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature] but simply PROHIBITED the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [ which occurred when the Constitution of the United, States’ was ratified and adopted by the requisite number of Member States found within the Federal-Republic on June 21, 1788] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged... .”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases, clauses inserted for meaning and understanding.)

          Following both cases, Brushabor and Stanton, in the case Peck & Company vs. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165 (1918), another challenge was made to the authority contained within the Sixteenth Amendment which authority was used by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislature to provide Section #II found within Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of 1913.

          The Supreme Court once again made reference to the following found on page 172, Volume # 247, (1918):

          “The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects... . Neither can the tax be sustained on the person, measured by income. Such a tax would be, by nature, a capitation tax rather tan an excise tax.”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses inserted for emphasis.)

          And still further following these cases was another landmark case identified as Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189 which ruled upon by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Supreme Court on March 8, 1920.

          In this case the Supreme Court was principally concerned with the question: “What is Income?” In ruling on this question, here and there the Court made reference to the Sixteenth Amendment as was appropriate. Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney wrote and gave the majority’s decision in this case.

          Associate Justice Pitney made these remarks within the majority’s opinions, decision, and ruling in this case concerning the Sixteenth Amendment which are found on pages 198-205, Volume # 252, in the year of 1920:

          “...as repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise migh exist for an apportionment among the [Independent Member]States of taxes laid on income... .

          A proper regard for its [the Sixteenth Amendment] genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not be be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the Courts.

          The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them BEFORE the Amendment was adopted.”

          (Note: bold face words, phrases, clauses inserted for emphasis; bracketed words, phrases, clauses inserted for meaning and understanding.)

VI. EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN GAINED BY THIS STUDY? YOU BE THE JUDGE.